How Do You Solve A Problem Like McCrystal?

[Magox]

AGAIN HOW WOULD YOU HAVE PERSONALLY ENDED THE WAR WITH JAPAN WITH OUT KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE?

Easy to criticize the actions of others but give me your solution. You seem reluctant to give a answer on that one.

Again??

 

You really need to learn how to comprehend what people are trying to say. Until you acknowledge your misunderstanding, I won't respond any further in regards to what it is that you are trying to get me to say. Here's a hint FOR THE FOURTH !@#$ING TIME, No where did I say or imply that there shouldn't be wars, or that they are not necessary, I've repeatedly said not just in this thread, but in others that innocent casualties of war happen. That's how most wars work, but try to follow me here Jim, I know you are having a hard time with this, any strategy that includes the INTENTIONAL killing of civilians should almost always never be considered. I will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER agree with this strategy.

 

EVER

[Booster4324]

AGAIN HOW WOULD YOU HAVE PERSONALLY ENDED THE WAR WITH JAPAN WITH OUT KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE?

Easy to criticize the actions of others but give me your solution. You seem reluctant to give a answer on that one.

 

Blockade Japan (already effectively accomplished) and then instruct them to watch some remote location and drop one of the bombs there. Let them think on that for a few days and see how they react. Yes, I realize we only had two at the time, but we started cranking them out shortly thereafter IIRC.

 

Edit - Hell, drop one on Hiroshima with the second one if you have to do so to get their attention. At least we would have tried to end it humanely. I have less of an issue with the fire bombings when the war was going full force. We had won for all intents and purposes by the time we dropped the two. Oh and I looked it up, they were estimating one bomb every 10 days starting in September. So the "only two bombs argument" holds little water.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Again??

 

You really need to learn how to comprehend what people are trying to say. Until you acknowledge your misunderstanding, I won't respond any further in regards to what it is that you are trying to get me to say. Here's a hint FOR THE FOURTH !@#$ING TIME, No where did I say or imply that there shouldn't be wars, or that they are not necessary, I've repeatedly said not just in this thread, but in others that innocent casualties of war happen. That's how most wars work, but try to follow me here Jim, I know you are having a hard time with this, any strategy that includes the INTENTIONAL killing of civilians should almost always never be considered. I will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER agree with this strategy.

 

EVER

Truce. I give up. You will never answer my question on the invasion of Japan because you have no answer.

[Magox]

Truce. I give up. You will never answer my question on the invasion of Japan because you have no answer.

Ok, truce....

[Jim in Anchorage]

Ok, truce....

Beat ya by a mile

[Alaska Darin]

Fags.

[DC Tom]

Blockade Japan (already effectively accomplished) and then instruct them to watch some remote location and drop one of the bombs there. Let them think on that for a few days and see how they react. Yes, I realize we only had two at the time, but we started cranking them out shortly thereafter IIRC.

 

Edit - Hell, drop one on Hiroshima with the second one if you have to do so to get their attention. At least we would have tried to end it humanely. I have less of an issue with the fire bombings when the war was going full force. We had won for all intents and purposes by the time we dropped the two. Oh and I looked it up, they were estimating one bomb every 10 days starting in September. So the "only two bombs argument" holds little water.

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...t&p=1748096

 

 

You're all !@#$ing idiots.

[OCinBuffalo]

Magox: Read Tom's post above 2 times a day, for the next 2 weeks, and your idiocy will be cured. Then, go find whoever took the Nagasaki/Hiroshima out of historical and factual context when they taught it to you and ask them for a refund.

 

I am not trying to get you to agree that killing civilians on purpose is OK. I am going to tell you that your position = nuking civilians is bad, while fireboming them, or killing them with a bayonet, is no big deal, simply doesn't make sense.

 

You are confusing tactics with strategy. Strategically? Those civilians were gonna die, period. Why? Because the Japanese order of battle included those civilians! So again, they were gonna die, period. The tactic chosen was atomic weapons. We could have chosen another tactic, and they would still be: dead.

 

You are stating that we should not have killed civilians in those 2 cities. You are treating this like it was a choice, and it simply was not. The military objective was, as it always is: take away the enemy's will to fight, and, take away his ability make war. That means we would have attacked these 2 cities, one way or the other, using one weapon or another, no matter what.

 

The facts say that had we conducted a land war in Japan, we would have been fighting suicidal attacks from man, woman and child, and these civilians would have ended up just as dead, except that there would have been a hell of a lot more suffering first.

 

I don't think you are immoral, but supporting suffering over a quick death, can hardly be called a moral position.

 

Again, you have taken Truman's decision completely out of the context in which it was made, treating it like it can be made in a vacuum, and not attributing anything to the state of mind of the enemy. There's nothing "moral" about that either. This is simply a crap argument, usually made by people who are either ignorant of the facts, or are purposely ignoring them.

[Booster4324]

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...t&p=1748096

 

 

You're all !@#$ing idiots.

 

Knew this was coming when I posted it. I will try to put up a decent fight starting tomorrow, but for a start tonight let's consider your post you referenced vs mine...

 

4) Atomic bombs were expensive as hell. The Manhattan Project was the second-most expensive single wartime program of WWII, and far and away the most expensive on a cost-per-weapon basis. (The most expensive was the B-29 program, at $3B dollars, or about $1M a plane. The Manhattan Project cost $2B...for three weapons, or about $700M a bomb). And there were only two bombs available (with the possibility of having a third by the end of 1945). A "Hey, look what we can do...for $700M a shot, and only once more this year" demonstration is not exactly a practical wartime use of military resources.

 

From what I remembered and read online, they were cranking them out with another 2 by September and 2-3 a month after that. Is that incorrect?

[....lybob]

The U.S. expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October .[80] On August 10, Major General Leslie Groves, military director of the Manhattan Project, sent a memorandum to General of the Army George Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, in which he wrote that "the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or August 18." On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, "It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President."

[LeviF]

The U.S. expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October .[80] On August 10, Major General Leslie Groves, military director of the Manhattan Project, sent a memorandum to General of the Army George Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, in which he wrote that "the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or August 18." On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, "It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President."

I think you should link to whatever reference [80] was instead of copying and pasting out of wikipedia.

[....lybob]

Sorry, late and I was tired- http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/45.pdf

[OCinBuffalo]

The U.S. expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October .[80] On August 10, Major General Leslie Groves, military director of the Manhattan Project, sent a memorandum to General of the Army George Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, in which he wrote that "the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or August 18." On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, "It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President."

I notice you left out the rest of the paragraph....I will correct that oversight. Link

There was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs in production until Operation Downfall, the projected invasion of Japan, had begun. "The problem now [August 13] is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer the tactical use rather than other use."[80]

So, once again, now we see this in it's true context. It is as I have been saying it is. The plan was to end the war, period. If that meant killing every last Japanese, so be it. If they wouldn't surrender, then they are still enemies, and if they are still enemies, then the war goes on, and it's still the military's job to kill as many enemy as possible, while taking as little loss as possible.

 

And once again, to hopefully put a final end to the "USA can't talk about nukes cause they are immoral cause they used them" crap, these are Hirohito's own words, conveniently listed right below in the same wiki.

Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage(1). Should we continue to fight(2), not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

 

Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects(3), or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.

1. Take away the enemy's ability to make war? Check. He acknowledges that we can take it away

2. Take away the enemy's will to fight? Check. If the Emperor says it ain't worth continuing, it's done.

3. And here is Hirohito himself talking about SAVING LIVES, and saying that if he continues the war, HE will have to atone to his ancestors for doing so. There's nothing in here about how immoral Americans are for dropping the bomb, there is only: we better quit, because they aren't going to allow us to use our suicide tactics any more, and we have nothing else.

 

Get it, dolts? I think we can trust the words of the Japanese Emperor himself. He realized that no matter what: his people were going to die en masse, and, they weren't going to be able to take a million Americans with them when they died, because of the atomic bomb. Given the fact that his people were going to die no matter what he did, he realized that we had given him only one out: quit the damn war.

 

The last time I checked, ending wars, not prolonging them, is the clearly superior moral position. Now can we dispense with the babbling idiocy? The simple fact is that, according the enemy themselves, dropping the bombs created the desired effect: ending the war immediately. This is a matter of fact. Debating this fact is an attempt to rewrite history. Enough already.

[....lybob]

Was just Bolstering Booster4324 recollection, which was my recollection too, as for the dropping of A-bombs on Japan I think history supports it was the right thing to do- the only debate is did we need unconditional surrender or could we have accepted a conditional surrender, looking at the Japanese conditions it would have been more of a truce than a surrender which was unacceptable- in the end it was better for Japan too, it led to a democracy, and it prevented Soviet intervention that might have led to a Japan divided as Germany was.

[OCinBuffalo]

Was just Bolstering Booster4324 recollection, which was my recollection too, as for the dropping of A-bombs on Japan I think history supports it was the right thing to do- the only debate is did we need unconditional surrender or could we have accepted a conditional surrender, looking at the Japanese conditions it would have been more of a truce than a surrender which was unacceptable- in the end it was better for Japan too, it led to a democracy, and it prevented Soviet intervention that might have led to a Japan divided as Germany was.

2000 years of Bushido tradition? Uh, yeah, we needed total surrender. It was the only way to they could have permanently removed the imperialist types from power. Imperialists based their entire ethos on Bushido, which begets unquestioning loyalty to the Emperor, which really means loyalty the Imperialists.

 

No, the only way was for every warrior, including the Emperor, to surrender. Then, the code is broken. And, if it can be broken, it is no longer sacred or divine, and therefore the only way to be. Once it was broken, room was made for other ideas for the average Japanese to consider.

[Nanker]

We had over 50,000 casualties in the "Typhoon of Steel", Japan had over 100,000 military dead and 100,000 civilian casualties - many of which were suicides. That was the first battle where we occupied part of their homeland.

 

The civilian population were poised to hear their Emperor rally them to fight to the death to repel the expected American invasion of their main islands. Instead he told them Japan was surrendering. The 28 million strong in the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps were stunned by the news.

 

We would have lost 800m to 1mm men with another 3mm casualties had we invaded and pursued a conventional war.

I'll repeat what I said two posts above DC Tom's post in that other thread. To me the absolute tragedy of WWII was that the bombs weren't dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at 8:20 AM Hawaiian time on December 7th, 1941.

[DC Tom]

Knew this was coming when I posted it. I will try to put up a decent fight starting tomorrow, but for a start tonight let's consider your post you referenced vs mine...

 

 

 

From what I remembered and read online, they were cranking them out with another 2 by September and 2-3 a month after that. Is that incorrect?

 

That is incorrect.

 

And I read ....lybob's post, and the source (Groves' 7/30 memo). It is still incorrect. Hanford never ran at full production; it delivered enough plutonium for three bombs by July 30 (Trinity, Nagasaki, and the undetonated third one shipped to Tinian), and was already slowing production before then due to technical issues. Groves' numbers are an optimistic maximum; they presume a doubling of efficiency within bomb design and Hanford's production running at 100% - when Hanford had produced enough plutonium for three bombs in six months and was producing less despite wartime production priority.

 

Which brings up another point: Groves' memo specifically addresses combat use and production of nuclear weapons out to October or November. If "the war was already won, because of the blockade, and dropping nuclear weapons was unnecessary", then why even address issues out to November?

[Booster4324]

That is incorrect.

 

And I read ....lybob's post, and the source (Groves' 7/30 memo). It is still incorrect. Hanford never ran at full production; it delivered enough plutonium for three bombs by July 30 (Trinity, Nagasaki, and the undetonated third one shipped to Tinian), and was already slowing production before then due to technical issues. Groves' numbers are an optimistic maximum; they presume a doubling of efficiency within bomb design and Hanford's production running at 100% - when Hanford had produced enough plutonium for three bombs in six months and was producing less despite wartime production priority.

 

So only 3 were produced in 1945?

 

Which brings up another point: Groves' memo specifically addresses combat use and production of nuclear weapons out to October or November. If "the war was already won, because of the blockade, and dropping nuclear weapons was unnecessary", then why even address issues out to November?

 

So the idea of dropping atomic weapons one after another on defenseless people serves what purpose? The fact you bring it up supports my side of the argument. I am saying that one demonstration would have at the very least given us moral ground to stand on. Instead, we nuked Hiroshima off the bat. We should have been better than that.

 

Remote location, ask Russia and Japan to observe, drop the bomb. Worst case scenario, it takes another two months or so to conquer Japan as your production catches up and you start dropping nukes. No more US causalities, (at least not in significant numbers) and we hold at least a bit of the moral high ground. Do you genuinely believe Japan was a threat at this point?

[Wacka]

Think. If there was an invasion of Japan, you might not be here. Your dad, or grandfather likely was going to be sent there and might have been one of the MILLION casualties. Look how they fought to the last man for Iwo Jima. They would fight much harder for the main islands. They were training men, women, and children how to repel us with pitchforks if need be.

Hiroshima didn't make them surrender instantly, how would a demo in the ocean or a remote location do that?

Even after Nagasaki, there was a coup attempt by the people that wanted to keep fighting.

[DC Tom]

So the idea of dropping atomic weapons one after another on defenseless people serves what purpose?

 

You think it was morally defensible to starve ten times as many people with a blockade, or kill forty times as many with an invasion? Is that what you mean by "we're better than that?" Was the Thirty Years' War somehow morally more defensible than World War II because central Europe was only depopulated by famine, not gunfire?

 

 

And the idea that we could stage a demonstration that would somehow bring the Japanese to their senses without actual use is laughable. It's revisionist history that completely ignores major issues of Japanese society, culture, and politics, and attempts to project onto the contemporary decisions a set of moral values that didn't even exist at the time. It's completely ridiculous. That was the point I brought up w/r/t Groves' mentions of military and "combat" usage.

 

And your lack of outrage against Hamburg or Dresden or Tokyo or Manila is duly noted.