60th Anniversary of Hiroshima Bombing.

[Cuchulainn]

1. Fact is, and truth is, I can't be bothered providing links that will be instantly discredited. I've made that mistake in the past, I'm not going to waste my time again.

2. Most of what I know is from books. How on earth can I provide links to that? Lastly, I know my history. I do not feel an overwhelming urge to prove myself to anyone here.

3. My rebuttals were what they were, rebuttals. If I showed any form of persona attacks it was in response.

4. This is an online debate, 'put up or shut up' is a hilarious statement. I've stated my knowledge on a subject, if you want facts. READ YOURSELF.

5. 3 against 1 and I still owned you all

[Skyblade]

1. Fact is, and truth is, I can't be bothered providing links that will be instantly discredited. I've made that mistake in the past, I'm not going to waste my time again.

2. Most of what I know is from books. How on earth can I provide links to that? Lastly, I know my history. I do not feel an overwhelming urge to prove myself to anyone here.

3. My rebuttals were what they were, rebuttals. If I showed any form of persona attacks it was in response.

4. This is an online debate, 'put up or shut up' is a hilarious statement. I've stated my knowledge on a subject, if you want facts. READ YOURSELF.

5. 3 against 1 and I still owned you all

You are really full of yourself, did you know that?

1. You claimed you could provide links if we requested it. The fact that you didn't indicates that you in fact have no information to provide.

2. We know our history too. You still have outright ignored every single argument against you. As to book knowledge, I have no problem with you using that. Supply ISBN numbers and/or quote passages. If you actually have any to quote, that is.

3. Kind of pointless to argue about this one, since I doubt you'll listen to any point I make about the difference between my attacks and yours.

4. Exactly, it's an online debate. But, the fact is, it's still a debate. If you have no desire to prove your points, you shouldn't have made them in the first place. If you don't care what we think of you, then you are continuing this discussion for the sole purpose of being inflammatory. Which is against the rules.

5. 3 against 1, and you still get delusions of victory.

[Endless]

2) Don't you realise that 'by stopping the war at any cost' there are thousands of Japanese children who are growing up with genetic disorders and other malladies caused by radiation? Or is that all utilitarian mumble jumble?

You're going to have to show data about that one. As far as I know, there aren't "thousands" of Japanese children growing up with genetic disorders because of the two bombs. In fact, there isn't any meaningful difference in defects between kids born from survivors and kids born from "normal" parents.

1. Fact is, and truth is, I can't be bothered providing links that will be instantly discredited. I've made that mistake in the past, I'm not going to waste my time again.

2. Most of what I know is from books. How on earth can I provide links to that? Lastly, I know my history. I do not feel an overwhelming urge to prove myself to anyone here.

3. My rebuttals were what they were, rebuttals. If I showed any form of persona attacks it was in response.

4. This is an online debate, 'put up or shut up' is a hilarious statement. I've stated my knowledge on a subject, if you want facts. READ YOURSELF.

5. 3 against 1 and I still owned you all

1. Please. So far, all you've given is "wind", to be nice. I'd like to see the links and make my opinion myself.

2. Titles and Authors are a good way to start, at least I can try to find them.

"Excuses, excuses".

3. Bullcrap, and you know it. The first thing I said was that in the same post you told someone not to use the "holier than thou" attitude, which you quickly followed by adopting a "smarter/better than you" attitude, which, by the way, you employed in every signle post you made since.

4. You made claims. I'm still waiting for the material that backs you up.

5. You ignored every reply we made to your arguments, you try to belittle everyone who disagrees with you. Mental masturbation anyone?
Let's look at it this way, you made claims, we disagree with them, I even gave links to points I raised in reply to your first post directed at me, which you... ignored. I asked for material backing you up, and I have yet to this moment to even see the title of a book. How can you be taken seriously? Do you do that in "real" (as in not on a message board) debating too?

[Cuchulainn]

I'll humour you. What 'facts' do you want 'proof' of and I'll see what I can do when I get home from work. This is to Endless as Skyblade has yet to show me it's worth the effort.

[Madame Adequate]

Stopped reading at post #40

two questions

1) Does this mean you all support the Iraq war? Or what, they weren't hurting anybody?

2) Don't you realise that 'by stopping the war at any cost' there are thousands of Japanese children who are growing up with genetic disorders and other malladies caused by radiation? Or is that all utilitarian mumble jumble?

I can be called out of that last remark because of my thread on utilitarian human life worth but whatever. Two wrongs fallacy.

1) I support the Iraq war, primarily because I support pretty much any action which gets rid of dictators, and secondarily because we should have taken Saddam out in '91 anyway.

2) Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki have displayed a higher rate of birth defects than elsewhere, as of this time.

[Endless]

I'll humour you. What 'facts' do you want 'proof' of and I'll see what I can do when I get home from work. This is to Endless as Skyblade has yet to show me it's worth the effort.

Mostly:
1)

Japan was on the brink of collapse anyway, General Tojo was already ousted & a civil government was coming into play.

While I do not dispute the fact that it was on the brink of collapse (though maybe not "total collapse"), I'm waiting for the "proof" that a) a civil government would have come into play whithin (roughly) a month, and that b) it would have surrendered unconditionally in that timeframe (before the planned invasion that is).

2)
Your insight on the bombings of Dresden and Tokyo.

3)
Same with this article.

4)
Your insight on the battle of Okinawa, the casualities that resulted, and the reason why it was that bloody. Same with Operation August Storm.

5)
"Proof" that any other sustainable decision would have resulted in less casualities/damage for the Japanese, since it's pretty much the crux of my point, that, while not being the criterion of decision for Truman, the bombs ended the war, and therefore ended the conventional killings, resulting in a "lesser evil" situation for the Japanese.

[Cuchulainn]

Before I can even get home I can answer a few. First, I don't believe I mentioned the bombing of Tokyo at all.

1) Tojo was ousted in 1944, along with his whole cabinet. At the time of 1945 General Suzuki was in power. Suzuki was known as a moderate. This is NOT opinion, it is recognised fact. His government was succeeded by a Civilian one, again, recognised fact.

Hideki Tojo

Kantaro Suzuki

Two semi-informative links on these two men. It was Suzuki who persuaded the Emperor to surrender and it nearly cost him his life. He completely re-shuffled the Japanese Cabinet bringing in moderates.

I neveer once stated that the Japanese surrender could have been unconditional. It could have been, at the least very favourable. Again, we'll never know. Something I havwe admitted in previous posts & something others haven't. The simple fact that because it never happened we'll never know.

2. Dresden Bombings

I will continue when I get home.

[Teek]

Cuchulainn, dude, you're so getting your ass kicked in debate.

[Cuchulainn]

Cuchulainn, dude, you're so getting your ass kicked in debate.

:rolleyes2 silly rabbit.

Anway,

4. Okinawa & Iow Jima were bloody as the battles occured during the transformation of governments. No word had reached the front line command of government change & change in policy. It was all due to occur in September 1945, Suzuki wanted the Cabinet sorted first. Sacking all the hawks in government (including every single member of Tojo's cabinet) and bringing in moderates.

As regard to sources regarding Japan's impending collapse with or without the Nukes, the only easily attainable source in English is a book still in print:
"Downfall: the End of the Imperial Japanese Empire" by Frank B. Richard

Explains fully Suzuki's government & his changes to ministers. Including his swaying of the Emperor towards peace talks.

As I've stated many times, I believe the nuke strike was militarily the right move. My whole argument is based around the belief that it was a sancimonious military action. It is my belief however that Japan's collapse would have came with or without the strike.

[Cloud No.9]

he's right. we didn't even need to invade anymore islands. we had total control of the sea and air. we could have starved them out.

[Madame Adequate]

he's right. we didn't even need to invade anymore islands. we had total control of the sea and air. we could have starved them out.

Because famine is humane.

[Cloud No.9]

i wasn't in fact saying it was the right way. it was A way. the bomb wasn't the last resort was my point.

[Endless]

4. Okinawa & Iow Jima were bloody as the battles occured during the transformation of governments. No word had reached the front line command of government change & change in policy. It was all due to occur in September 1945, Suzuki wanted the Cabinet sorted first. Sacking all the hawks in government (including every single member of Tojo's cabinet) and bringing in moderates.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Iwo Jima in February, therefore before Suzuki's nomination?
Also, I was asking about Operation August Storm, which, despite starting between the two bombs, ended in a pretty bad way for the Japanese, and therefore seems to go against the idea that soldiers, or at least troops commands would follow any "peaceful surrender" order. What I mean here is, did soldiers really need an order to fight till they die or would they do it out of education/tradition/propaganda?

About Tokyo, like Dresden, I'm the one who mentioned them, to show that conventional bombing, which gets much less "press coverage" and debates than the atomic bombs, were nearly as destructive, and probably even less justified (Dresden in particular); yet, very little voice is raised against them compared to the A/H-bombs. The idea here is that regular bombings of the two cities would have been quite as deadly as nuclear bombing, albeit slower.

And thanks for the book reference, I'll keep it in mind and see if I can find a copy somewhere.

As for the decision of dropping them, I don't think Truman took it thinking it was "right no matter what", but more in a "what will put this whole war to an end, while allowing us to show the Russians we mean business?", which amouts to "what's the most effective decision I can take for us?". As I'm saying, I don't believe that Truman pondered if he'd save Japanese lives, no, I believe that retrospectively, we can say that it did more good than bad to the Japanese, and that, as far as I can see, any other solution would have turned worse.

[Cuchulainn]

You are right, Iow Jima occured during Kuniaki Koiso's term, who was also a moderate, although not as brave as Suzuki. He whispered change wheras Suzuki shouted it. Koiso's main fear was his Generals, whilst he wanted an end to the war he didn't know how to go about that and appease the hawks. Suzuki cared not about the hawks. He's a man largely forgotten in history, but did a lot more & a great deal for Japan than is recognised. He wanted peace, but not at any cost. Japan was on it's knees in 1945. I believe that a surrender could have been negotiated easily with the right diplomacy, that could have saved the lives of those in Hiroshima & Nagasaki AND any more Allied lives. That's a belief I will eternally never be able to prove as it was never given a chance. The short sharp shock treatment by the Superfortress' ended the war & granted peace, at any cost

You form strong arguments and am not above commending someone on the opposite side of my arrogance when he or she proves to know their subject well. Something I truely can't say about the others who posted.

[edczxcvbnm]

Something I truely can't say about the others who posted.

I don't deny this.