No, not trueI'm only insane about denying

That I am YOU.

( shhhh, you don't want people seeing "us" talking to ourselves, do we ? )

you have to be aware that you are insane. I see you have a new name. It's not very original and no cute little blue heart?

oh the sound of crickets, cricketscrickets, cricketscrickets, crickets

K E M,

NO __ YOU LISTEN and READ _ S L O W L Y,

There's an issue of causality here, where things that happen EARLIER in time are understood as setting the context for later events -- most people in the real world rely upon time to sort issues out.

Do you ?

You appear to be incapable of understanding that the LIE you told on August 11th, 2008 at 4:24 pm, does not get ERASED when you say something true ( later in time ), like at August 12th, 2008 5:04 pm

You flagrantly illogical attempt at explanation, directly above, errantly skips right over the INSTIGATING CAUSALITY of your original LIE, which I provided a direct cut/past of August 12th, 2008 8:02 pmGet this clear,1. you started a LIE, on the 11th, at 4:24 pm
2. I refuted that LIE, by proving that I had responded EXACTLY opposite of your assertion in 1.11th, at 5:55 pm
3. The next day, you acknowledge I had responded, but only to the "last names" EXCEPT _ …

You act ( and write wrongly ) as though the re-writing of history, actually changes events in the past12th, at 5:04 pm
4. I restate the evidence of you duplicity ( again providing reference to the initial provocation )12th, at 6:01 pm
5. You miss the boat, again ignoring my justification in item 1., jumping over the actual causation, and act as though everything started with item 3.12th, at 6:49 pm
6. I restate the evidence of you duplicity ( this time pasting the initial provocation ) 12th, at 8:02 pm
7. You again ignore reality ( with various added insults ) 13th, at 6:52 pm &
13th, at 8:50 pm
8. This message itself

__ I F __

You had made a mistake ( item 1. ), it was not erased by later re-stating something accurate ( in item 3. ) -- AFTER THE FACT.

__ I F __

You had apologized ( at item 3 ), and accepted the reality of your hurtful words, this would have ended at item 3.

__ I F __

You had bothered to READ, what I wrote ( item 1. ) -- the repetition of items 4. & 6. wouldn't be NEEDED.

Most people can acknowledge making a mistake, but your approach is just to IGNORE the FACTS, restate a prettier version of REALITY where you state equivocally what happened ( which is in fact another LIE ), AS IF the slate and record was wiped clean.

__ T H E N __

You mount your high horse, and accuse me of being "obtuse … almost unbelievable", and chastise me with patronizing tone of "Listen and slowly read carefully" -- where you again refer to you later prettified version of reality as if there is nothing before that.

__ T H E N __

You go further re-writting history, ignoring the 2nd reference -- that I criticized ( before item 1., at 4:12 pm )Your 2nd reference states that: "1,235 pounds of 77 percent pure uranium oxide", but fails to clarify if that were U238 or U235, stating fallaciously ( item 7. )"… (EXCEPT) to say in one, …".

For your version of REALITY, you VOID & ERASE the clarification that I really HAD responded ( to two refs ), but BECAUSE you felt that it was an unwarranted or trivial response, that that was EXACTLY the same as having NEVER RESPONDED AT ALL.

Well that TOTAL self-aggrandizing _ B U L L S H I T _,

And of course your re-writing of history ( to make it appear that you had never outright LIED, by adding more lies ), is a pathetic attempt to place the onus upon my inability to comprehend, and logically respond. You're BUSTED !

You really do live by that saying thatREALITY is only one of the many possible ILLUSIONS

It's a TRUE shame that the REAL text and time, is blatantly ALL above here, to SHOW exactly what DID OCCUR, and it hardly approaches your twisted self-satisfying version.

Listen and slowly read carefully ~Verocity~. I said, that the ONLY response you gave to the link I posted, was to say that there were no last names of the people mentioned in the article.

From me writng that, you claim that I did agree that you had responded to the links I posted. ___No!___ I did NOT agree that you responded to the links I posted, ___ EXCEPT ___for the fact that you ONLY stated there were no last names. That was the only response from you. "There were no last names".

That MR. Verocity, Presence, Namaste, is not a response to an article I posted, that tells about the Japanese nuclear weapons program, which you deride me for saying that they had one. You have done nothing here but post Strawman arguments, such as bringing up what Cindy has said about it.

You have never addressed the links I posted, (EXCEPT) to say in one, there were no last names listed. You understand that? Do you think that I care if you do or don't understand? __ I really don't care what you think, but I will continue to reply to your obtuse and inane arguments even though it is a total waste of time, but I'm not busy this month with anything of importance, I'm happily retired. How about you? Obviously you don't have anything of importance to do either, except to suck up to Misanthorpe, Sigurdur, lizard and MIMICCS.

You are so obuse it is almost unbelieveable Namaste.

~SHOTTIAN~ Thank you for replying. Your reply can be honestly and fairly debated.

The generals you named and others, such as Curtis E. LeMay, did not approve of the use of the atomic bombs. General Marshall did approve in August of 1945, he was one a "very few" Americans who were aware of Japan's atomic bomb program, the uranium Germany had shipped to Japan and the Japanese I-400 class subs.

Many generals did not approve, it wasn't a "noble" manner to conduct war and kill the enemy, or kill the civilian populations of the enemies nations. Fire bombing cities WAS approved by all of the generals you mentioned and more. An invasion which would have made "D" Day appear as a minor assault was approved, even though the estimated American troops killed went as high as a million, that type of war was considered to be "noble" by West Pointers.

I am certain that Einstein and some of the other top nuclear scientists wished they had never developed the "bomb". At the Trinity test, one was very shaken and stated, I am the destroyer, or some such simillar words. I believe it was Teller. They were sorry it worked. ___ They should have been.

As to a surrender? The Japanese were not going to surrender, unless it was with THEIR terms. They were attempting to stall for time. The military controlled the Japanese government, not their emperor, or their diplomats. Their top generals and admirals were fully aware of their atomic weapons program and they were not about to ever surrender.

Now, if Truman had not used the bombs, an invasion would have taken place and many "millions" of Japanese civilians would have been killed during the following months.
Just the continued fire bombings alone would have killed millions. Hundreds of thousands were burned to death by our B-29 raids after just one bombing mission.

So you would have opted to negotiate and gamble that Japan would not be successful with their atomic bomb program, perhaps just have a blockade and wait till negotiaons possiblly were sucessful.

When we had truces durin the Vietnames War, the North Vietnamese were delighted, they could not beleive we would have long bombing pauses. How long have we been negotiating peace talks with the North Koreans? ___ 55 years?

Truman was not willing to gamble with the possibility Japan would develp their atomic bombs. Remember, Truman knew some very important facts, but he did NOT know how successful, or how far along the Japanese were with their atomic program. He did gamble, that if we used the atomic bombs, that Japan would surrender. He won that bet, the war ended, the killing stopped, and many, many, millions did NOT die.

And people GUESSING AND ASSUMING, that Truman only used the bombs to show how powerful he was and we were, ___ have and are "assuming". They didn't know the things Truman was aware of. Those things were still classifed top secret thru the 1980s. Use of the atomic bombs was horrible. Not using them would have been far far worse, ___ for everyone.

Kem Patrick asks "what would you have done in 1945, if you had been the president, having the info Truman had?"
Truman did what he did because he wanted to experimet with the bomb at any cost. He adopted Roosevelt's policy of insisting on unconditional surrender,i.e. the fate of the Emperor should be at the mercy of the victors,knowing that it would not be acceptable to Japan. He was not really interested whether it was conditional or not and prosecution of the Emperor was not even brought to trial.
Many scientists and military personnel objected to the use of the bomb on the effectively defeated nation but Truman would not hear of it. Amongst them General Eisenhower,who about July 20,1945 had urged Truman not to use it. His assessment was "It wasn't necessary ...to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, wuthout even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime." KP may be surprised Einstein's words were headlined in New York Times "Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb." In his judgement, the dropping of the bomb was a political - diplomatic decision rather than a military or scientifc decision."
All these are from an article by John V. Denson (on LewRockwell. com.) Of course, there are a lot of other serious articles, including John Pilger's on the Guardian (August, 6), which you can easily access online.
Probably the most interesting part of the Denson's report, for the American readers at any rate, is how the current prevailing myth came about. Its author was James B. Conant, the President of Harvard University, who was one of the central figures overseeing the Manhattan Project. Why did he fabricate? He was concerned because various people began to speak out on why the bombs were dropped. There are a lot of names quoted in this connection including Admiral William Halsey and Admiral William Leahy. Anyway, this is only how it all started. There are a lot more surprises.

I said you did not respond, ___ EXCEPT, ___EXCEPT, for you to say, "there were NO last names".

As I have said to you previously, you obviously have a reading disability and there is a prime example. BTW, you did not respond with any decent reasons to explain why Japan didn't have a viable nuclear weapons program threat and you know it. Or you should know it. I told no lies about you, I like you, may make mistakes, but I don't lie about anyone.

There is ample and very credible and a consensus by most, buy a landslide margin, of atmospheric scientists, that the current Global warming is caused by humanity and you made fun of me, mocked men and be-littled me for my opinions and argued with the same type of bull you have here.

BTW, What would you have done in 1945 if you had been the president, having the info Truman had?

Ahhh, ignore that fair question once again, but knit-pick other things. And I do not know where I made fun of anyones imfirmities, but you say so. __ Seek help.

As is your usual tactic ~Verocity~, you post one sentence from one of my paragraps and take my meanings out of context in an attempt to prove that I'm wrong.

You did indeed state that you had "come out of the closet on the global warming issue" a few days ago, and you repeatedly denied that humanity is responsible for our current global warming, but now say you are not a denier of G/W. That's what G/W deniers deny, ___ that humanity is responsible!

Your only response to the link I posted was that you say "no last names", therefore the article was not credible and you asked would any others give their last names. What bullshit and I answered you on that. That article was taken from a History channel program and there were ample first and last name given on that program.

I gave you plenty of last names, the Japanese nuclear scientists, Thomas O. Paine, the pilot of the aircraft that test dropped bombs in Oregon, etc. Yu never stated why the article was wrong, except you say no last names. A classic Strawman technique.

You say Truman was wrong, but you and all the others here who say he was wrong, refuse to state what they would have done had they been the president and aware of what he was aware of. ____ Can't answer it can you?

You also say my last sentince was correct, one I immediatly had clarrified. You didn't post the clarrification. You are cunning and decieteful, a sophistic action. Not one of the better ones. Your last sentence was appropriat however.

~ELMSYTERIO~ You ask, what could three float plane bombers do with atomic weapons? How about nine and spares housed in the lower decks. And you say it was no big deal? Really? Uhhhh, I do believe, the atomic bombs dropped on Japan each came from a single aircraft. Those "no big deal" float planes were excellent, very fast bombers BTW. One is on display at the Smithsonian.

They had three, practically brand new I-400 subs prepared for use. With atomic weapons, dirty or explosive, they could have done an invasion fleet a great deal of very serious damage to an army of troops, or to our cities, according to Thomas O Paine. Are you prepared to say he was wrong? ___ Let's hear it.

The link you posted was in reference to an hour long History channel program, are you prepared to say that too was bogus? There are hundreds of other links and books available on the subject if you are actually interested.

George and Laura Bush have killed more Iraqi civilians without using atomic weapons than all the atomic bombs ever dropped in the entire world. Why are people making up atomic bomb stories about Iran?

```

As another one of today's articles says: "Just because we humans have always done badly doesn't excuse us from trying to do better, for ourselves, because we are all one family."

Then wolf 123 what on earth are you doing on these boards? Do you know what "Progressive means".?

I can just imagine you in 1864 saying "slavery you will never end it...men have been taking slaves since the dawn of time".

Or in 1966..."Blacks having the right ot Vote? Are you Joking..blacks will never get Civil rights....they have always been second class Citizens"

Or "a Treaty to ban landmines..are you nuts...no one will ever ban landmines..what is the point?"

Reality is what we wish to make it. If it your wish it remains the same as it ever was then perhaps you should go back into a cave..and pick up a club and spend the rest of your life as a caveman.

If nothing makes a difference then why are you so angry about?

Why are you so eager to demonstrate everyone else wrong if in the next breath you suggest no one can make a difference?

PK

The one thing I have NOT failed to notice, due to the fact that this is a blog on the dropping of an atom bomb on Nagasaki is that not once but twice the last paragraph of my post was totally ignored by everyone stating that the US was a war criminal for dropping them BUT the alternative is totally ignored by these same people or they they crawl into their myths and fantasies about what WOULD have happened if we did not drop the bombs. Call the US a war criminal all you want BUT all of asia trampled under the boot of imperial Japan just laughs at your stupidity. THere are enough urls posted here to prove your fantasies totally wrong, none of you will ever read them.

GwNorth likes to live in a fantasy world as his words prove,
"If i can improve myself and grow in awareness, I do not see why it not possible for the human race to do the same."

It's nice that he/she can improve myself and grow in awareness, BUT man has not changed much since the first man tossed a rock at another man in anger and it is not possible for the human race to do the same as GwNorth because the vastly overwhelming majority of mankind just does not want to, take off the rose colored glasses of your fantasy land and look around, it makes no difference if it is sunni terrorists in a car bomb killing shia civilians in a market because he thinks they are apostates or Putins air force dropping cluster bombs on Georgian civilians because he wants Russia to be a great power again, improve yourself and grow in awareness but your fantasy land is just that and nothing more.

More of the same from Wolf123 and now he has to start with the foul language as anger takes root.

That Putin or Al Bashir , or GW Bush does not give a hoot what I think, will not change what I think.

Just because a GW Bush thinks it ok to drop DU Muntions all over occupied iraq, it does not mean I can not be of the opinion it a war crime.

Linking to how "evil" the Japanese were is no different then Colin Poweill giving his speech at the UN in declaring Saddam a monster in order to gain support for a war on iraq.

If you truly believe that advocating for the day when Women are not raped and Children are not blown up by Nuclear weapons is "mealy mouthed" then you have only my sympathy.

It is a world I wish to see.

Nihilism and "It will always be that way" is not my mindset.

I can not change the mistakes I made when I was a younger. I can not un-make them. I can recognize wrongs were committed and resolve not to repeat them . This is called self improvement. This is called growing in awareness.

If i can improve myself and grow in awareness, I do not see why it not possible for the human race to do the same.

Quite frankly it my belief that this is why we are all here.

Obviously your opinion differs.

PK

Ask any other asian nation about the bombs and they will ask us to drop a few again. ever hear of the rape of nanking, korean sex slaves and medical experiments preforms on asians from the dutch indies to indochina?

wolf123 August 11th, 2008 8:28 pm
"SO you cannot make what happened in HISTORY un-happen and all your mealymouth words will not stop it from happening in the future!!!"

Wow, wolf. If that's your attitude about history. I wonder why you bother arguing about it...

The link quoted in Veracity & Presence (August 11 5.55pm) has an item titled Joe O'Donnell's Photos of Nagasaki. I strongly recommend every one read it and see his photos, including those shown in a further link. The video's Japanese comment at the beginning translated into English says "The A bombs put an end to the war and helped reduce the number of casualties. Jo O'Donnell was increasingly estranged (for his belief) among his countrymen in the face of the American justice."

GwNorth August 11th, 2008 6:54 pm

Great post! You are quite right that legality should not be confused with morality. I'd add the following as well.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Atrocities committed by one side in a war do not justify atrocities committed by the other side. The Holocaust and Nanking do not justify Dresden or Hiroshima. Even if such could be considered justice, as some seem to suggest, the perpetrators of Atrocity A are rarely, if ever, the ones subjected to Atrocity B.

I'm afraid that, on the suject of evolving as a species towards something better, the history of the 20th century should be convincing evidence that, as a group, the morality of our species has not really evolved since we started walking upright. We just have better toys, all of which were built upon the knowledge base of previous generations. All the better to kill each other with. (Glass half empty today.)

Ok.... So Japan had a couple 1-400 subs... big deal. That doesn't justify nuking them. The subs carried what? 3 planes? Big frickin deal.

Ok looking up the Japanese nuclear weapons program, I could only find 2 sources that looked even the slightest bit credible...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_program

Notice how the article has many "citation needed" marks.

Regardless, the Japanese did not have nuclear weapons...

So some subs with 3 float planes were grounds for nuclear attack? Hardly.

To the suggestion that the killing Of Civilians has always happened in History, then bringing in Ghengis Khan.

That does not make it any less a crime.

Rapes have always happened in history. That does not mean we should find it acceptable that 100,000 German women were raped when berlin fell.

Or that The Japanese committed rapes. Or (plug in country here) committed rapes.

It was crime at the siege of Magdeburg, and it a crime today.

What we are supposed to be doing as we evolve as Humans is recognizing those for the crimes that they are rather then trying to continously justify them based upon a circumstance or claiming the times different.

Rape was just as brutal and as violent an act towards women in 1200 AD as it was In Bosnia in 1994.

While society may have accepted it as the norm at the Siege of Magdeburg, that does not make it right and as humans that are SUPPOSED to be evolving as a species towards something better, one would hope we can recognize that.

In another topic someone mentioned hearing an old Aboriginal saying wherein it was stated that white men see life as a straight line with a beginning and an end whereas the natives see it as a Circle with everything connected.

THAT is the way I look at things. We can not just pretend the past is over and put it out of mind because it was 40 or 200 or three hundred years ago.

If we want to get anywhere as a species we HAVE to look back at all those lifetimes before as and recognize and acknowledge the wrongs that were done.

Such as the genocide against the Aboriginals. Such as slavery. Such as the dropping of atomic bombs on cities.

All that happened in the past is directly influencing how we live today and every decision we make today will become the past. It IS all connected.

I never committed a crime by the rule of law when I called my classmate Fish Lips in grade 6 some 30 years ago, but it was still wrong and I have learned how harmful it is to make fun of how a person looks.

I very likely hurt that person. It was wrong to do so even if I did not know any better.

KEM PATRICK August 11th, 2008 3:22 pm

I have sparred with you a bit on global warming and the possible use of methane for fuel, I have always found you to be informative and honest (didn't always agree with you) but like when we both look at an abstract painting, I see one thing you see another but we both saw the same picture.

The problem with most of those posting here aren't looking at the same picture. They abject to the killing of civilians in war. I hate to burst their bubble BUT civilians have been killed in war (either accidentally or on purpose) since people went to war. A fact that is undeniably historically true.

http://www.emersonkent.com/history_notes/genghis_khan.htm

While Genghis Khan and the Mongols were quickly advancing across the continent, they sent a group of diplomats to the Khwarezmid Empire, modern Turkmenistan / Uzbekistan. Intimidated by the Mongol's increasing strength, the Khwarezmid ruler put these foreign representatives to death.
Genghis Khan's response was one of systematic destruction. There was no pardon for either the people or their lands. People were ruthlessly massacred. One city after another, their land was completely destroyed.
The Mongolian chief developed a reputation for acting with unpredictable barbarism and horror. This reputation alone was the reason for many of his victories, since enemies often were paralyzed with fear.

The actions of Genghis Khan were nothing new, the Assyrians, Egyptians , Romans, Ottomans and the list goes on killed civilians for military reasons. Today civilians are part of the military industrial complex. Civilians make tanks and guns, they grow food for the troops and become soldiers in the army, that's why they are targets.

DOWNFALL by Richard Frank is the definitive work on this subject. Any of the realistic alternatives to the atomic bombing of Japan would have been worst for both Japan and the United States.

JAPAN'S LONGEST DAY dispels the myth that Japan was on the verge of surrendering. Some Japanese were but they were not in control.

From the US perspective it appeared that even at that late date, the Japanese still thought they could "win" the war, and if not actualy "win" it, then bluff the US into a negotiated settlement that would enable Japan to keep Manchuria and perhaps Korea too. The Japanese still had a huge army on the Asian mainland to try and hang onto as much of that as they could.
The fact they had not brought it back to Japan to try and defend the home islands shows the Japanese mindset: they had no intention of surrendering and thought that America did not have the kahunas (thats BALLS to you non Hawaiians) to invade or thought that they could actually defeat an invasion by making it so bloody that America would stop and negotiate a peace treaty.
The whole point of the defense of Okinawa was to impress upon the Americans that to take Japan it would require an unacceptable loss of America life. This does not have to make sense to us, but it is the way the militarists who ran Japan thought.

Another thing to consider is that from a moral standpoint, the Allies had already crossed the line of whether it was moral to "destroy a city by air bombing," since they had done it several times already. For those who think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were criminal/immoral acts, you are missing the point that it was no worse than what Allied bombers had done to Tokyo, other Japanese cities, and German cities (or what the Germans and Japanese had done to European and Chinese cities).

Also if you know the LAW you should know you can not apply a law to a supposed crime when the law against that supposed crime was not in place during the commission of that supposed crime.

"The bombing of these two Japanese cities meets the criteria of the Genocide Convention and therefore constitutes genocide."

http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm

SORRY, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide did not become a law until, Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the U.N. General Assembly on 9 December 1948. Entry into force: 12 January 1951.

BUT I do not expect the winers and believers in myths and fantasies to even bother to read the above url, it does not fit into their neat little world of fantasy.
That which they cannot fit into there myths and fantasies they ridicule as false, no matter how much truth they face their myths and fantasies must prevail.

AS I said before "The war crime is not on dropping the atom bomb and vaporizing a few hundred thousand Japanese BUT on you who say we should not have dropped it and instead killed 10's of millions, I am amazed that you people HATE the Japanese so much that you would wish so many millions of them killed."

And as usual ~VEROCITY~, you go off on a long winded tangent, say nothing of any value to THIS issue and continue to ignore the issue of this article and refuse to address the links I posted and instead attempt to detract from the issue and instead argue with me over mundane issues.

I would say that most likely Cindy Sheehan, ___like the vast maority of Americans,___ was and is unaware of the once top secret issues related to WW-2 and what Truman had to take into consideration when he made very difficult military related decisions.

I also would say that if Cindy was here on this thread, she would not be obtuse or rude to me. I also don't believe she is a Global warming denier as you and ~Misanthorpe~, who posted comments saying that I should be ignored and you fully agreed with him.

I mentioned the current global warming issue, which you deny is caused by humanity, for I know of nothing of more importance and it was you who brought up my opinions concerning 9-11 ect, so don't whine and bitch about me bringing up the fact that you and I disagree on many issues and you always eventually resort to the same type of Strawman tactics you used here. And you also attempt to show that I'm an immature, ignorant, rather childish person.

BTW, I was the second blogger on the Cindy Sheehan thread. I fully support her. I may not agree with her every opinion and word. I'm sure she would not agree with all of mine either, but I sure do hope she wouldn't support ~Misanthorpe~ and ~MIMICCS~ as you have and do.

~GWNorth~ You wrote to me.

Quote: "Kem if you and Thomas More and Snowwolf want to pick up your guns and go kill some named Schmidt, or Lee Wong, or Yasua Fukado and they are willing to kill you, then it really no skin off my nose."___ Unquote:

That was an uncalled for insult, as I had never advocated wanting to pick up my gun and kill anyone. It was also an insult, tinged with racism. I had posted links that explained some of the reasoning Truman had to use when considering the use of the atomic bombs in a world wide war we were fighting in defense.

The links Iposted, were fair and credible reasons that few were, or still are, aware of. I did not nor do I yet, deserve any of the rude and insulting comments directed at me by you and several others here, for posting credible links on the issues, links which all of you refuse to address. Instead you attack me personally. That sir is reality.

If you wished to make a point, it was not necessary for you to insult me, by insinuating that I was the type of a person you portrayed me as. You could have and should have made your point, without pointing fingers at others.

GwNorth August 11th, 2008 1:12 pm

Gotcha!

"Again WHO is not at issue. The act itself is wrong and I will stake my moral certitude against yours here at any time."

Fair enough.....wrong choice of words just as my example last time was unfairly put when I looked at it again.

I am trying to say that I, just as you, don't support the killing of children, would not choose it given the choice. When you see the carnage it will kill you, would consider it a crime if it was done intentionally. I suspect that no one here would disagree with you on the thought.

jstevens August 11th, 2008 2:03 pm

He alluded to the point I've been trying to make. On the battlefield its very often not just two soldiers going at it. There are civilians that get in the line of fire, civilians that are used as shields and cover, civilians surrounding military targets, the modern battlefield includes civilians as a fact.

Is a Stuka in a dive more terrifying than an atom bomb. I've heard one and I knew it wasn't going to drop anything and it still made me nervous. I'd say yes. Is a Doodlebug more terrifying? Again I'd say yes. Those atom bombs were over in an instant. So it would also be a question of timeframe. The A bomb would be much more terrifying now than then.

If the Germans fire bomb London would you have selected to leave Hamberg alone?

The point I'm trying (not well) to make is that its very difficult to say someone else made a mistake if you weren't faced with a similar decisionand really hard in peacetime.

In my opinion its too far out of context.

Trust that I respect your opinon and believe that I disagree on the reality, not the thought.

How often is war a result of two soldiers who want to "go at it"?

Soldiers are victims of war just as women and children are victims of war. They appear to suffer the most, actually. I think there is way too much emphasis on the distinction. We accept the distinction because we hear it so much.

If it's just teenage boys that die it's all okay?
I know you don't really mean it that way GW North. I have two teenage nephews. They could be called to war (in a draft) at anytime.

To me they are children, and they could be forced to pay the price for the sins of government.

But it stopped the killing stupid. You think it's alright to have millions more killed in a war begun by the Japanese? ___ Grow up, I say that, because your arguments are childish.

~GW North~ your attempts to deny your uncalled for insults are pitiful. What you wrote is still there for any to read. Give it up and try to reply to the points I made. Of course it would likely be better to just forget it and do something productive, as ~Thomas More~ suggests.

>>Your moral certitude is showing here. I'll stack my feelings about killing and war up against anyone here.

You and Kem both seem to miss the point. The point I made was that if two soldiers from either side want to go at it with guns and tanks, it a different issue entirely then if those same soldiers want to all of a sudden include the children and Civilians of the other side.

Again WHO is not at issue. The act itself is wrong and I will stake my moral certitude against yours here at any time.

My simple rule, if an act of violence must include killing Children by necessity, then I can not support that act.

I do not care if it Japanese killing Chinese Children, Canadians killing German Children, or Americans killing Vietnamese children, the act is not supportable.

The greater the number of children/innocents killed in such an action, the greater the crime.

This should not be very hard to understand.

This applies equally to 1945 in Japan as it does today in 2008 in Iraq.

The issue remains current ALL the time.

pk

Here are types of respnses the corner "white caps" give to a link, that stated Japan had nuclear weapons programs that began in 1936 and were headed by some of the top nuclear scientists according to Albert Einstein.

White Caps:___ "Japan didn't have a nuclear weapons program." ___ "Japan never had a nuclear weapons program." ___"Any who say Japan had a nuclear weapon program is delusional, a right winger." ___ "Japan didn't have any uranium" ___"Even if Japan had a nuclear weapons program, they didn't have enough money to make it a success."

But nothing credible or even incredible to back up their strong opinions. Kem Patrick is a nut case and not worth arguing with. Cindy Sheehan would say to him, "Bullshit".

Rave on White Hats, bring some more here to display their ignorance.

And four more posts from the white hat corner group who ignore the issues raised by another blogger, refuse to debate the facts and bring out their trusty Strawman to evade any fair questions.

They also condemn any who bring up some issues they were and are ignorant of and refuse to respond to the links provided. They continue to condemn the actions of the United States government and or Truman, but refuse to answer a fair queston, which is:

"Since you feel that strongly about Truman's decisions, what would you have done if YOU had been the president in 1945?"

And exactly where have I shouted down my opponents? I have replied to a few insults with both appropriate replys and with humor and cannot see with your obvious obtuse attitude, where you feel it reasonable to say you have joined in a "debate". ___ LOL.

You have a Reference to the article Cindy spoke on this issue Verocity?

I don't believe Japan had a nuclear weapon in 1945, but they were certainly working on one, as was Germany and Russia. Germany almost certainly could have had one first if Jewish oppression hadn't sent some of the best scientists fleeing to America.

Who knows what these countries would have done had they been first in its development, but I can't call upon an example of restraint in any area.

I wasn't around for World War II, but I don't think we should evaluate the decisions of that era from our perspective of relative security today.

The atomic bombs were merely a novel type of horror among many horrors in that war. There are many occasions to feel ashamed of America's actions, but liberals tend to blame their own country, first, worst and with extreme bias.

I read the counterpunch articles above. I couldn't overlook the fact that they came from the website of a real menace--Alexander Cockburn--the guy whose main thrust is to dispute global warming science.

Misanthrope: Great posts. Amen. It's really sad that this happens every time that a new article on the atomic bombings is posted to Common Dreams. It probably is valuable in that, all too often, it seems that all of us here are in agreement on core issues. I'm afraid the defenders of the atomic bombings here are more representative of U.S. opinion at large and it's valuable to have some exposure to that perspective from time to time.

Kem: You don't win a debate by shouting down your opponent nor by engaging in ad hominem attacks.

In Article ii of the Genocide Convention, it states that "Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group such as: 1. Killing members of the group."

The group in this case is a part of a national group, namely the Japanese people. There are many precedents to show that the "in part" in this case meets the criteria of the Convention. For example, the International Criminal for the former Yugoslavia concluded that "The killing of members of part of a group as such located in this small geographical area".

To prove intent, it is only necessary to show that Truman knew that Japan was defeated and was desperately seeking to surrender and at the same time, he did not consult his military commanders. He also postponed the Potsdam meeting, much to Churchill's chagrin, until after the bomb was successfully tested.

The bombing of these two Japanese cities meets the criteria of the Genocide Convention and therefore constitutes genocide. It was a horrific, unconscionable act that stands as the first use of a weapon capable of destroying life on this planet and as an example of the depths of evil to which we can sink.

http://counterpunch.org/model08082008.html

KP (for some obscure reason) has wasted a lot of time and energy trying to justify the unjustifiable.

We do not need to "debate" his links, we do not need to prove that the Japanese did not pose an Atomic threat to either the troops or the mainland of the United States.

We simply maintain that the use of our Atomic bombs against the people of Japan was(as History has conclusively shown) at best a horrible mistake and, at worst, a vile and evil experiment in mass murder.

Notice how pathologically upset he is, but his anger is directed not at the corrupt and venal generals and politicians that made this unforgivable mistake. No, as usual, his sad ravings are focused upon the many people who have made the mistake of disagreeing with KP.

This is always the case, whether we are debating AGW, the clathrate gun hypothesis, the false flag episodes of the U S Military, the truth about 911, or the shameful legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Political leaders, military men, and scientists frequently portrayed military innovations like aerial warfare and napalm in a positive light, as instruments that would ultimately preserve rather than destroy lives. By mastering the means of extreme violence, they claimed, the US could make wars shorter, more decisive, and more humane. In the right hands such violence could be a force for peace and human progress. Of course, all governments involved offered similar rationalizations; Hitler, for example, had claimed that the German bombing of Holland would "save lives" in the long run. The rhetoric of both Allies and Axis was full of Machiavellian justifications of the bombings as necessary to save lives and bring peace [16].

Here's the link, not that you'll read it, nor reading it, understand:

http://counterpunch.org/young08092008.html

And anther DUNCE cap is now awarded to a new blogger here named >>>>>>>>>Brummmmmmm, Toot , toot and a drum roll >>>>>>>>>>> ~SHOTTIAN~ Congradulations stupid, place the pointy white hat on your empty head and go sit in the corner and face the wall.

DR. Nisina headed the Japanese "Army" nuclear weapons program. ___ A seperate program of the Imperial Japanese "Navy" was headed by Professor Bunsaku Arakatsu who studied under Albert Einstein. He built his own cyclotron. His team included the Nobel Prize wining ___ (Dr. Hideki Yukawa.)

Did Japan have any uranium you ask? Where have you been? Read ALL of the comments and then read the links already posted here. Japan had more weapons grade uranium than the United States had at that time.

Openheimer said so, the Japanese government said so after the war ended, and if you can furnish any CREDIBLE links to prove otherwise, please feel free to do so, ___ after you have finished sitting in utter shame in the corner for eight hours. And leave that pointy white hat on your pointy head, you are a ~DUNCE~.

Dropping the A bomb is a humanartian crime YOU say. ___ I agree.___ Killing a baby with a bayonette is a humanatitarian crime. Killing a person with a flame thrower is a humamitarian crime, shooting a person with a sniper rifle is a humanitarian crime, knocking someone's brains out with a club is a humanitarian crime. War is a humanitarian crime.

When someone starts a war, they must expect that humanitarian crimes are going to occur on both, or all sides of the conflict. If the two A bombs had not been used, the war would have continued and (millions) killed.

Get it there DUNCE? MANY MILLIONS of civilians and military on both sides would have been killed with weapons of various styles and it would have been crimes against humanity. Humans would have been killed, forever, men, women and children. ___ MILLIONS, stupid.

If we had not used the two A bombs when we did and the war had dragged on, would the Japanese have had the time to use their atomic weapons against our troops? We don't know, __ you don't know dunce, ___ Truman didn't know the answer to that very pertenant question. You can say it was not possible, but any ignorant or stupid DUNCE can say that.

And if you just keep saying the same stupid things, that you just posted, you are lying to yourself and not doing any good whatsoever for anyone. Seek the truth, or shut up and stop making a damn fool of yourself. I'm tryng to help you DUNCE. The other dunces here have demostrated, that they are beyond help. Give yourself another chance.

Remember the following: a crime is a crime. Dropping A
bombs is a humanitarian crime. Those responsible for the dropping were aware of their crimes and have done everything to justify themselves for more than 60 years. The majority of the credulous Americans believed and, apparently,continue to believe what their government says even after the experiences of Vietnam and Iraq disasters, another humanitarian crimes. This is quite apart from what the Japanese have done during the WW2. However, it is preposterous to say Japan was anywhere near manufacturing nuclear weapons. Did it have any amount of uranium? (May be they obtained it from Niger.) Any attempt to develop the nuclear weapons was led by Dr Nisina and the Nobel prize winning physicist Dr Yukawa was not a member of this project.

Oops again, It was 1958 not 1948, sorry a typo. And actually the Davey Crocket was a recoiless rifle, not a mortar. But it packed a hell of a punch and the Japanpese aircraft launched from a I-400, were capable of carrying a dozen or more bombs that size.

If you read the Japanese mission plans, they could reduce the crew size from four to one man, not use their floats and carry a nuch heavier bomb load and have a far longer range.
We learned a great deal about smaller atomic bombs from the Japanase and German scientists after the war ended. Google: Atomic weapons.

"No country had the capacity to make lighter nuclear weapons."

Your source? Oops, we both posted at about the same time ~WOLF~. Japan had some of the very best nuclear wizards, ___ according to Albert Einstein.

Funny, we had atomic weapons that were fired from 122mm cannons in 1948, and also the maller Davey crocket, fired from a mortar. The Japanese were five years ahead of us with their nuclear weapons porgram.

Are you privy to what the Japanese scientists were capable of in 1945, or are you formulating your opinions on what we were capable of in that regard in 1945?

In addition, how much does a "dirty" radio-active bomb weigh? What exactly does "reality check" mean, when coming from one who is not actually aware of the facts?

argus t August 11th, 2008 1:10 am

Reality check folks.

"No country had the capacity to make lighter nuclear weapons."

How do you know, the Japanese were always good at miniaturizing things, besides no one has said they would drop a tall boy or fat boy, a few 500 lb. dirty nukes dropped on LA or SF would have scared the population and the government shitless.

Besides we decisively ended the war BEFORE the I-400's could be effectively used.

Reality check folks.

The Japanese I-400 submarines carried floatplanes with a bomb capacity of 1,764b.

The bomb dropped on Hiroshima weighed 9,700lb and that on Nagasaki 10,800lb

No country had the capacity to make lighter nuclear weapons.

Then contention that a submarine launched aircraft could have hefted a nuclear weapon in 1945 is ludicrous and the U.S. government must have know it.

Sydlitz August 10th, 2008 10:30 pm

LETS get a little more insight, lets say some of these citizens just had a fight among themselves, (analogous to maybe Europe) Then let's say one of those in the fight had taken away the weapons of a few of the citizens and said they must work for him for free and they no longer had any rights that they used to have and he built an iron curtain around them so they could not get out of his control (analogous to eastern europe). Now some of the other citizens in this dispute not wanting to loose their rights and have to work for free and be slaves for the new bully on the block (analogous to perhaps Russia?). Now those other citizens (analogous to western Europe) asked the affluent citizen who just happens to own many firearms (guess which country) and is well-known for being the only person in town to have actually murdered someone else with a gun (in self defense) to protect them so they would not loose their freedoms to the new bully on the block who had as many guns as this affluent well-armed citizen. SO wouldn't you think that the chief concern of all these citizens would NOT be how to restrain and/or disarm this affluent well-armed citizen who was protecting them but to assist him in saving and freeing the other citizens who were the slaves to the new bully on the block.

My analogy is more in line with how the world really works and not some fantasy you dreamed up to push your flower power idea of how you THINK the world should work.

PS. In my last post I miss typed and posted I44 sub, as we all should know it is
I-400 sub.

RichM August 9th, 2008 3:23 pm

I don't agree with your opinon at all about this. Surprise!

GwNorth August 9th, 2008 3:31 pm
Kem if you and Thomas More and Snowolf want to pick up your guns

Your moral certitude is showing here. I'll stack my feelings about killing and war up against anyone here.

Revisionist history and second guessing are fun, but not honest or truthful.

History tells the truth about this. I am still waiting for the person that can explain why if Japan were tottering on the brink of surrender, if they were just a poor defeated enemy, why it took them 9 days and another bomb before they did surrender.

Someone from the UK had the best comment. This is a silly thing to waste time on, realists aren't about to change and the academic moralists certainly aren't about to change.

I intensely believe that personal insults and denigration lead to conflagration rather than serious discussion and exchange of thoughts. I would like to suggest that we all try not to engage in it. I promise to try my best. Doesn't mean I'll be a Chamberlin.

(this has nothing to do with gwnorth)

To anyone that wants to make this personal, to challange my personal morality, my personal values, my personal knowledge of some facts, step on up and we will go toe to toe. Not even on a website will I be called a warmonger or murderer or any other insulting name.

Otherwise I feel we might all be better served to address ourselves to more important asnd current problems as our British friend suggested.

Pax

You "suppose" wrong, ~Verocity~, but you do continue to try to make YOUR point, to discredit me at every opportunity possible, even when I make a joking remark. Stop trying to give me lessons here in public bud. Piss off.

As I've said to you previosly last week, you are not my parent, or my teacher, a friend or a mentor. I'm 73 years old now and don't need your silly advice. You also refuse to debate honestly, so just ignore me and I will ignore you whenever possible from here on out.

Hi ~Wolf~ good link, thank you.

I cannot reply to some others here an ddoon't want to any longer, but will converse here with you. Truman and his staff were aware the Japanese had submarine aircraft carriers, but were unaware of their exact size or performance. As I had written here previously, Truman was aware they had bombed us in Oregon and knew it was possible for them to bomb any city on the west coast at least, and or our important nuclear facility in Washington state.

Someone here wrote, with no back up data of course to support the very ignorant opinions stated, that the Japanese were no longer capable of using their I-400 subs by August of 1945. Well, when the war ended, all of the I-400 subs surrendered and all were fully fueled except one, which was already half way across the Pacific. It turned out that those subs had an un-refuelled range of 37,000 miles and were twice as fast as our fastest and carried three excellent, very fast and fairly long range bomber aircraft.

The one I-400 that surrendered in mid Pacific, was fully prepared for a bombing strike and there were over 200 men aboard. The craft was eight stories high and there was an aircraft and engine overhaul facility located on one lower deck. The sub was larger than a destroyer.

A naval officer, a submariner and a graduate of nuclear physics was assigned to study the ship and it's cargo. His name was ~Thomas O. Paine~. Paine's report on the cargo and it's assigned mission, is still so highly classified, it's contents are available to nobody. Why would that be, what was the sub carrying an dwha twas it's actual mission, that would be so highly classified?

Paine's other reports concerning the sub were classified top secret, up until the 1980s, they are in The Halsey special reading collection at the Naval academy library. I have personally read all of them and have studied them.

After the war, T.O. Paine worked for the GE boat division and was one of the top level hogs who designed our first atomic subs. He later was a big shot with NASA during the moon missions. He's pretty credible, far more so I'd guess, than any who have commented here on the subject.

And the German sub U-234, was carring weapons grade uranium, destination Japan according to every report I have ever read. Some reports state that is not a positive, most state that Oppenheimer said it was. He also is a fairly credible source in my opinion.

Germany had 99 like sub shipments that were destined for Japan, many carried uranium, several never got there. How much uranium did Japan have? Who knows, except the Japanese?? Truman didn't know, all HE DID KNOW, was they had some and the U-234 was carrying enough to "produce two atomic bombs". Oppenheimer's
words.

Add that info, with the fact that the Japanese had submarine aircraft carriers which had been used to bomb us, and you have some very serious consideratins to ponder if you're the president of the United States during a world war.

Japan had a five year lead on us with nucler power development, which wizard can say they didn't have a viable atomic weapons program?

I have asked a few here to reply honestly to the links I offered and state what they would have done as the president then. I get no decent responses , one only replied to my jokiong comments about Pearl Harbor and UFOs. A very serious response too. Aothje trys to show tht a highy respected autohr has a limitee deducation. How far did Abe Lincoln or Samual Clemens advance in school?

These know it alls can suck eggs ~WOLF~, as you noted, they sure can't debate with any fairness or credibility, just blather on and offer personal opinions and argue using the Strawman technique. Thanks again for posting that link.

Since this has been brought up, I personally support Cindy Sheehan and always have. I admire her courage and her decency and her opinions about the Iraq war and occupation of Iraq and Bush and Pelosi.

If Cindy is unaware of the links and information and history facts I have posted here, and most Americans are unaware of them, that is not the issue at hand here, Cindy is not posting here and if she did, I'm certain that she would debate me or any others fairly.

You don't ~VEROCITY~ and since you have come out of the closet, as you stated here a few days ago, and support the Global Warming deniers like ~Mesanthorpe~, I have absolutely no respect for you anymore, none at all.

And as I wrote here previously, I know that you would ignore the questions I asked you about on this issue. And you have done so and broght up Strawman arguments instead. You are a pitiful soul and not at all what you pretned to be. You had me fooled for a long time, I'll say that for you, which isn't saying much.

I think my fellow Americans could gain some insight into these nuclear weapons issues by way of an analogy. Let's say we have a small community of 200 or so citizens (analagous to the community of nations). Then let's say that 15 or so of these citizens possess firearms (analagous to nuclear powers). Let's then focus on one affluent and prominent member of the community who just happens to own as many firearms as the rest of the community put together and is well-known for being the only person in town to have actually murdered someone else with a gun (analagous to using nuclear weapons to attack another country, guess which country we're talking about now?) Given all this, wouldn't you think that the chief concern of all these citizens would be how to restrain and/or disarm this affluent well-armed citizen?

any sort of violence, let alone bombs, is the epitome of cruelty and suffering. it is the very thing I strive to fight against in this lifetime. nuclear weapons up the par on the potential damage, and the thing we should be most afraid of is that their damage is instant and those inflicting it are very separated from it, therefore making it easier for them to just push the button. this was a step that was completely unnecessary and harmful, and these nuclear weapons need to be eradicated. I for one don't believe we know enough about nuclear energy etc. either and should not continue that as well because the risks are too high.

okay. so here's my pessimistically liberal stereotype bit for this one: where was the U.S. this week?!

Kem:

http://sub-log.com/i-400_japans_secret_panama_canal_strike_submarine

That which they cannot fit into there myths and fantasies they ridicule as false, no matter how much truth they face their myths and fantasies must prevail.

Results 1 - 10 of about 14,400 for japanese I-400 sub.

Only the first 19 pages of results (190 results) have to do with the I44 sub.
A simple google crushes their myths and fantasies.

as they say in Hiroshima, "No More Hiroshima"...

From Robert K Wilcox's website:

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
B.S. Degree: Journalism

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
Scriptwriting I & II

John Truby Screenwriting Course & Workshop

Robert McKee Screenwriting Course

Irv Bauer Screenwriting Course

One final, gotta run. Robert K. Wilcox is a historian, a writer of both fiction and non fiction and specializes in biographies and military books. He's highly regarded by his peers. He was a top level newspaper reporter and is very caeful to keep his facts straight and obtain credible sources before he has a book published.

His facts in the book on the subject of Japan's nuclear weapons program were well researched and cnfirmed by the Japanese who were there.

I have no problem with anyone having a small library. Got one myself. Thinking of adding on to the house to make room for more books. You suggested that others might not have ready access to Wilcox's book, though, as your reason for not citing it sooner. I was doing a playful riff on Scrooge's line about prisons and work houses. Sorry if you didn't catch that.

As to your last bit:

The Japanese had no functional nuclear weapons, nor did they receive enriched uranium from Germany (just ore), nor were those silly subs of yours capable of getting anywhere near U.S. shores what with the fuel shortage and the complete air superiority of the USAAF. I'm sure you'll now say that I haven't done the impossible, namely proving a negative, but you did promise to shut up if I said all that so I'll hold you to your word. Good night and good luck. I'm going back to watching the Olympics.

Yep, Rooevelt, Yamamoto and Tojo got together and planned the Pearl Harbor attack. Hitler okayed it and General Marshall got a kick back for going along. He strted writing the Marshall plan in October of 1941. And don't forget the giant UfO that secretly transported Roosevelt and his girlfriend to Ashiya Japan to meet with Tojo.

Yeah Chicanery, we have a library and several book stores. You have a probem that I have a small library? You never have have told me withanycredence or back up data where the links I posted were innacurate. So someone says Wilcox is wrong, __ Is that a fact? Wonder if that someone has an agenda?

Just right out say, that the Japanese had no nuclear weapons programs, nor did they recieve tons of enriched uranium from Germany and that their I-400 subs were not capable of delivering atomic weapons to our cities and I'll shut up to your arguments. .

Will you just stop your lengthy bullshit for twenty minutes and tell me why the links I posted are faulty and give credible references if you find they are?

If near a milion died in ONE B-29 raid, or even iF it waS only 150,000, how can you or anyone say that millions of Japanese would not have died if the war continued for even another three months? Your comments are just your blathering on ht esubject.

If we had made an invasion, I can assure you from living inSouthern Japan for two years, the war would have probably lasted anohter year at a minimum. It wasn't France or Germany, it would be like fighting a war in a strung out West Virginia with a population density of California.

Also, please do tell us, what you would have done to STOP the killing, had you been the president and had the info Truman had available to him? Available to him, available to him, available to him at THAT time.

I know from experience, that you will ignore whatt I just wrote and skip off with your usual lala-land writing and not answer any questions with any sense. Are you on medication? ___ I'm not.

"Here is one I have here in my collection of a five ton truck load of books titled, "Japan's Secret War", by Robert K. Wilcox. I didn't offer that reference, as it is not readily available to the other bloggers here."

Are there no libraries? Are there no bookstores? Also, Walter Grunden, a professor of history at Bowling Green State University, thoroughly debunked Wilcox's work in his book, "Secret Weapons and World War II: Japan in the Shadow of Big Science". As a screenwriter and journalist, Wilcox's writing style may be more entertaining than that of Grunden, but I'm afraid his historical analysis is somewhat inferior.

~CHICANERY~ yes indeed I prefer books to Wikipedia. Here is one I have here in my collection of a five ton truck load of books titled, "Japan's Secret War", by Robert K. Wilcox. I didn't offer that reference, as it is not readily available to the other bloggers here.

Unlike you, I find that the internet is very useful for information. I posted ONE link about Japan's Atomic weapons program as it is readily available and I didn't believe it necessary to post the 190,000+ links available on the subect and never dreampt anyone would suggest, as you did, that I may have written the program for the History Channel. ___ I wish.

So you have suggested a historian who researched and wrote a book about the subject, is he correct? Maybe? There is a great deal of credible evidence he is not correct and a great deal of that credible evidence comes from Japanese who were there.

Read the books written by the renouned Japanese journalist Shenpei Miyata for example. And I don't write the book for him BTW. __ LOL again.

What on Earth is wrong with you ~JOZEF~? If Einstein, or anyone else, never came up with the E=Mc2 math equation, would the sun stop putting out it's life giving sunbeams? LOL, it radiated em out for billions of years before Albert Einstein was born.

The math equation E=Mc2 resulted in (humanity developing atomic power and atomic weapons). That is what I was referring to with my offhand comment in respec to my dislike of atomic power.

I'm quite certain that you know that, you are just arguing word usage for no sensible reason, let's drop it, because it's silly and childish for you to keep bringing it up. Lol, LOl, Duuuhhhhh.

I find it very interesting that many are so angry that Truman authorized the use of the atomic bombs, but igonre that if they had not been used, the war would have continued on for months and millions of Japanese would have died during those months, millions burned alive I may add.

The argument that Japan was ready to surrender is so far from reality there is no credible reason to consider it. This argument is credible. There were approx 120,000 people who lived in every "square mile" of tokyo.

In just one of many B-29 raids, (16 square miles) of Tokyo was obliterated, and very few escaped the wind swept inferno that resulted. The official death toll from that raid was far less than a million. Well, I'd guess it would be a bit difficult to sift through the hot ashes and count the millions of bones. I'd also guess that offical census records were not handy after all of the bombings.

I have to guess on actual death or estimated tolls because I wasn't there, but common sense and statistical probabilities says that many millions would have died if the war didn't end.

"~JOZEF~ Think. It was the math formula E=Mc2 that resulted in mankind developing nuclear power that was used to develop the atomic bomb. Our sun has nothing to do with ~Albert Einstien's~ mathamatical insight." More nonsense again. Sorry, but this is what it is. You think if Einstein would not have come up with that equation it would have stayed nature's little secret? The relationship IS nature. Our sun has everything to do with Einstein's equation. It was the PHOTOVOLTAIC effect for which Einstein got his noble prize on the road to E=mc^2. Photons, you know those particles that come from, well....., the friggin sun!

Edit feature sux

The one Link I posted about Japan's nuclear program referenced it was an hour long program which had been broadcast on the History channel ~Verocity~. There were Japanese citizens on that program who worked on their atomic weapons program. You need last names to make it credible for you?

If you Gooole Japan's atomic weapons program, you will discover that officials of the Japanese government, grudgenly admitted that indeed they did have a viable atomic weapons program that began in 1936.

How do you know how much money the Japanese spent on their program, or what wages they paid, and or how many tons of enriched uranium they recieved from Germany at zero cost? You don't know that, or know what you are talking about again, which is not unusual for you anymore.

You also attempt to detract from the issue at hand by putting up Strawman arguments. What's your problem? And I fully agree with what ~Goose2~ wrote on this issue and I often don't agree with you on several issues, so way bring that sensless comment up? ___ You know why, and so do I.

The decision Truman made was based on much less knowledge than is available today. He was also under the gun to make many decisions fast after FDR died. FDR kept him out of the loop on everything. The 'safe' decision was to drop the bombs.

This is what is wrong with the whole war based world. Murder is normal, death has different value depending on who is dying. If 100 Iraqis and 1000 Afghans and 10,000 Africans died in the same year as the top 10 highest paid CEOs, which would be the lead story for the year?

War paints people in the corner and removes logical choices especially when the rich get richer and just the poor die. WW2 actions by the US were more justified than Bu$h the inferior's illegal occupation of Iraq. If we are all so smart why don't we stop the current outrage where we are at fault and can do something about it? (to some extent)

There are dozens of articles about the Japanese I-400 subs and I never stated those alone were the entire issue, and Thomas O. Paine wrote several papers on those subs. Is he credible enough for you? Once again you have not addresed the links I offered and stated why they are wrong. You are just mouthing personal opinions.

I don't always agree with ~Goose 2~, seldom do. He's agreeing with me BTW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hOIpDSWySw

And ~Verocity~, you asked me, will I at least adimt that Japan's nuclear program may have been of little threat, etc.?

Indeed I will admit it. It MAY have been so.
I will also firmly state, the the American high command didn't know if that was so and neither did President TRUMAN and that fact (was- and is- my- entire- point).

Truman had limited intelligence about the Japanese nuclear intentions and programs, he could not afford to gamble, that their nuclear program was a dud. He was unaware that the Japanese Army nuclear faciities were located in Northern Korea for example. If he'd known that, Russia would never have had North Korea handed to them on a silver platter, or even a wooden bowl.

BTW. What ~GOOSE 2~ posted here about the issue is most appropriate.

Ummm....Kem, the most recent links I posted were to reviews of well-RESEARCHED books, both written by HISTORY PROFESSORS.

I prefer books as a source of information, don't you? Wikipedia is wonderful for getting basic info, but it should always be taken with a grain of salt. For all I know, you wrote the entire I-400 entry yourself. I prefer the info in my husband's copy of Erminio Bagnasco's "Submarines of World War II".

To answer your question ~VEROCITY~ I post on such issues the same reason that YOU do. Does that bother you? Or would you prefer to have it all alone, or only share the comment's section with those who agree with you?

I do believe that we can agree on one thing. This is a site to blog comments, share opinions and links that are appropiate to the issue and argue, debate, and sometimes have fun doing so. That answer you with any satisfaction, or are you going to write some wierdly worded comments, and tell everyone that ~Kem Patrick~ is wrong again?...LOL.

You and ~MIMICCS~ sure do a lot of "sighing" ~Chicanery~, I do wonder if you two are one and the same? Your prose and writing styles is so much alike.

The three links you just posted are a prime example of your attempts to detract from the truth. The one of the I-400 class submarines you posted is pitiful, all it shows is the conning tower and no data as to it's strategic threat.

Here is a much better photo and detailed explinations of it's conventional and nuclear threat capabilities. The same link I posted previously, one you still refuse to address.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/japanese_submarine_I-400

The other two links you posted are personal opinions of an author who has written his personal opinions. That authors "personal opinions" were not available to Truman in 1945 and anyone can write a book about anything to make a monetary profit. The last link you posted is an advertisemnt for a book.

We have to weigh the evidence of writings, including photos and personal observations of the writers and determine which papers are the most credible.

You refuse to address the links I offered, for if you did, you would have to concede, that what I have been saying here may be accurate. By refusing to address those articles, you are just mouthing off. You have ample company here who are just as obtuse about it.

Sigh.

http://stonebooks.com/archives/050724.shtml

http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Use-Atomic-Bomb/dp/067976285X

I have not asked you to prove a negative ~Chicanery~. I asked you to PROVE what you are claiming.

I have proven what I'm claimng with the very credible links I have posted here. You say they are wrong and state that claim by YOUR opinions ONLY. Prove YOUR claims is what I asked you to prove.

Well ~Verocity~, you didn't address the links I offered either. You just offered your own personal biased opinions.

There are many other links to back up what the ones I posted report and they are not written by the government. Tell us exactly where the links "I have posted here" are incorrect and state YOUR sources. Your's and My personal opinions are not important, unless we have evidence to support them and you know it. So does everyone else. Put up or shut up.

Sorry, Kem, it's impossible to prove a negative, as you well know. Walter Grunden's got a good book out there on the Japanese atomic capabilities, though, and Gar Alperovitz wrote a good book on the atomic bombings and the decision that led to them.

Here's your photo of the I-400: http://www.pacificwrecks.com/ships/subs/I-400/08-27-45/i400-tower.html

Don't know what that's supposed to prove, but, since you asked so nicely...

We are in agreement on one crucial point. All war is horrible. That's why I can't find it in me to allow specious justifications to be given for any of them.

To go off topic a little bit, actually the Sun may not in fact be "a great fusion reactor in the sky" after all.

Check out www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=x49g6gsf&pf=YES

Naturally, the perspective offered by above article implies that "everything else is not what we think it is either".

I have been seriously interested in the whole 'plasma cosmos' scenario since last fall, when the tractor I was driving was struck by lightning . . . (old funky but beloved Ford tractor used for raking hay, husband had just put on a long upright exhaust pipe after original exhaust manifold had finally given up the ghost, lightning traveled sideways from cloud bank miles away to the north and found exhaust pipe . . . )

We live in a very electrically active area and plasma cosmology makes a lot of sense to me.

Question : what kinds of uncharted and unchartable energies are released during a 'nuclear event' ?

Right on the money KEM. Your history on this is 100% correct. These revisionists here are not interested in truth, but polemic.

There may have been signals from Japan that they would sign some armistice, but that was not somthing we were going to agree on and they knew it because we stated that in 1943. If Japan were so keen on surrendering they would have before August 1945. Even then they didn't surrender after the first bomb or even after the second bomb. It took 5 days after that because the military leaders in Japan, not the Emperor, were willing to fight to the last Japanese.

As for a Japanese Nuclear program, it was very advanced and there are signs that they had an actual test off the coast of North Korea that resulted in what we would today call a "fizzle" where the fissionable material was not compressed correctly causing only a partial chain reaction. This has not been proven, but we know they had enriched uranium, the brians and eye-witness accounts of Korean fishermen that say the night turned to day and a mushroom cloud of fire formed.

As you say Kem, at the time we had a war weary nation that expected to have to invade the home islands. A nation that watched the Japanese civilians on Iwo Jima and Saipan grab their children and jump to their deaths on the cliffs rather than being captured. A nation that saw the Japanese newsreals of children being trained how to use bamboo spears to attack the Americans should they come. A nation who's ships had been subjected to swarms of kamakazi aircraft where the crews knew before the took off that they were going to crash into American ships.

If we had gone in on the ground, there would have been HUGE casualties. For the actual overview of the plan go to http://www.blackvault.com/documents/wwii/marine1/1239.pdf

Anyway. You are right on the money KEM. Revisionism like this is simply wrong and should be stopped.

Edit please.

~Chicanery~, I am fully aware that nuclear weapons used against Japan caused horrible injuries and the death of thousands. It was horrible. ___ Any war is horrible.

Do you have any photos to share of the many more thousands of dead civilians, wemon, babies and children in Tokyo, from bombing raids? Do you have any photos to share of the Japanese Rape Of Nanking, or the beheading of the flight crew members who flew on Doolittle's bomb mission of Tokyo?

How about Japan's nuclear weapons facilities and their I-400 class subs, ya got any photos of those things?

You ever seen photos of a gold star on a blue background flag hanging in an American's front window of their house? That is what thousands of wives and parents had to love, their son or daughter, wife, or husband was gone forever.

Their usually very young, but dead loved one, who did not start the war with the Japanese, a nation that WAS developing atomic weapons to use on us. Please do PROVE to us, that they were not doing that ~Chicanery~, as you and several others here claim it isn't so. I DARE you to prove it.

~CHICINARY~ Your charges that I have offered little evidence for my opinions here is not true.

If you will read my first three posts here at the beginnig of the commment section, it is quite obvious that I do not favor wars, do not favor atomic weapons and I have posted a excellent evidence to back up what I have written about Japan's nuclear weapons program.

I also posted excellent evidence of Japan's plans to use atomic weapons and how they planned to accomplish their plans. You and several others here who have mocked me, have ALL refused to discuss the links that I posted and tell us why they are false, or incorrect, or propaganda bullshit. They are either factual or they are lies. Tell us what YOU believe they are and why. I suspect you never bothered to read any of them.

I have posted several blogs here in responce to several others, therefore I have many blogs here, as evidenced that I am now responding to your last unfounded charges which you directed at me.

Could you explain why those articles I posted are incorrect? At least address the evidence I have offered. If not, then you too are just blathering accepted nonsense and refuse to accept the truth about Japan's nuclear weapons program and the reason Truman made his decisions. Join the gang of those who refuse to offer decent debate on the issue and be obtuse and maintain your ignorance on some important history of WW-2.

Chicanery (9:05 am) - ROFLMAO! Outstanding post -- it couldn't possibly be said any better. Kudos.

Kem: The facts that you've presented on this issue have been few and far between. You're great on other issues, but seem to have a blindspot here.

My point is this. Hijacking every single discussion of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as you seem to like to do is akin to yelling abuse at the participants in a funeral procession. Let people mourn. That's what the article you've commented on here was about. Tell me that all the people in the photos on the attached link deserved it, Kem. I dare you.

http://www.gensuikin.org/english/photo.html

~JOZEF~ Think. It was the math formula E=Mc2 that resulted in mankind developing nuclear power that was used to develop the atomic bomb. Our sun has nothing to do with ~Albert Einstien's~ mathamatical insight.

You are just arguing over word usage, no matter who ever figured out E=Mc2, we never would have developed atomic weapons if mankind had not figured it out. Naturally the math formula is correct, atomic weapons proves that. The mistake I referred to is, "it's a shame it was ever figured out". Can you handle that?

And I see another person, ~Chicinary~ who does not wish to know som einteresting history of WW-2 has arrived and posted an ignorant blog while ignorng the historical facts about WW-2 and makes fun of the issue. Another ignoramous who refused to address the presented facts but does not hesitate to display ignorance and childish satisfaction. Am running out of dunce caps here.

Someone should pick up a book around here every once in a while, one that is not a general history of the war or a "blame America for everything" screed.

I would suggest John Toland's "Rising Sun" for starters- one where he actually spoke with the participants. It turns out that the decision to drop the bomb was far more involved and nuanced than either side here is willing to admit.Many scientists and military people did not want to use the bomb,(ie Eisenhower) while many saw it as a way to quickly end the war and save lives. Marshall did not want to use it for the reason that it would then become known to the Soviets the exact destructive power- therefore losing some of its deterent effect. Truman in the end decided that it was a military weapon that should be used- but only after the Japanese were given one last chance to surrender. They were, and rejected it. ( The premier Suzuki tried to be coy about NOT rejecting it- as he wanted to surrender but was afraid of the military cliche. He told reporters that "we must mukusatsu it". He told his son that he meant for the word to stand in for the english term "no comment" -there being no japanese equivalent- but the Allies understandably treated it for its literal meaning "treat with silent contempt."

Many of the Japanese DID want to surrender, while most of the military cliche in power decidedly did not. The emperor himself wanted an end to the war ( he was a peaceful man by inclination and enjoyed marine biology far more than military affairs) but because of the hidebound traditions of the time he really had little choice but to go along with the hardliners that were urging that the surrender demands be rejected in favor of an all out fight. In the end, he broke tradition and ordered an end to the fighting- but only after the bombs were dropped.

The Japanese are right to commemorate the hideous blasts of these weapons. It is right to point out as Barbara Tuchman does in "Guns of August" that better comunications between antagonists can sometimes avert war- or in the case of the Atomic bombs the deployment of these weapons- but it is sophomoric to come up with sound bites to explain complicated events.

The Japanese started the war (in 1931 by invading Manchuria, not 1941 with Pearl Harbor). In the process they killed 15 million Chinese, Manchurians, Koreans, Vietnamese, Burmese, Dutch, Filapinos, British, American, and South sea islanders. They paid a terrible price, with 4 million dead.

In the end, they kept their emporer, the occupation forces left, and there society was transformed into the peaceful industrial powerhouse they are now with American aid

Let's hope that nuclear weapons will continue to not be used by anyone again.

best regards

Defending American Imperialism
A Play in One Act

(The Ghost of Harry Truman, a restless spirit, is pacing in cyberspace)

Ghost of Harry Truman: Oh, dear. Yet another article on Common Dreams about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Every time someone brings that topic up, the chain I drag behind me rattles and seems to tighten ever more around my neck. Whatever shall I do?

Thomas O. Paine: I have just the solution, Mr. President.

(Enter Kem Patrick)

Kem Patrick: Lieutenant Patrick reporting for duty, sir!

Paine: President Truman needs you son.

Kem: I'm ready to serve, sir!

Paine: Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to head a force of Japanese submersible aircraft carriers armed with nuclear weapons developed by the Japanese during WWII. The purpose of these weapons is to destroy any attempt to rationally discuss America's use of atomic weapons against Japanese civilians. You'll have to navigate dangerous waters filled with hippies and other progressives who seem to think that dropping atomic weapons on civilians can never be justified. Don't assume that just because they are hippies that they are not dangerous because they will be armed with facts. Don't let that intimidate you. Keep detonating those Japanese nukes until they shut the hell up. Are you willing to undertake this dangerous mission?

Kem: Sir, yes, sir!

Paine: Get to it then!

Ghost of Harry Truman: Hopefully now I can rest in peace!

(Repeat Scene 1 ad nauseum)

"~JOZEF~ names the three letter word "SUN", shone every day and we didn't worry about wiping out life on Earth with a few dozen bomb explosions, or storing man made radio-active poison from now thru perpetuity."
_
At any moment that "SUN" that you don't worry about might belch a coronal mass ejection of enormous proportions and wipe earth out. Or cause the power grid in New York City to fail where people die as a result. Then there are the people who get skin cancer and cataracts from sun explosure, x-rays, cosmic rays, microwave radiation, solar wind, etc. And eventually, the sun will expand into a red giant creating the last barbeque on earth with humans and all other life on its spit. I am going to venture to guess that more people have died throughout the millenia as a result of the sun than man instigated nuclear power. Now don't misread my words. I am opposed to nuclear power and weapons. The reality is, however, that we exist as a consequence of it and that the equation E=mc^2 describes its process. The equation is neither good nor bad. It just is.

KEM

"Nah, I'll just say that we disagree about the benefits of the development of nuclear energy. Pehaps you could explain to me ___ and to everyone, what great benefits we have derived since nuclear power developed by manknd here on Earth has been a fact?" Please read my posts again. Both of them. Where do I say that human involvement in nuclear power and/or energy was a good thing or that it provided benefits? Nowhere. That's where. What I said was that E=mc^2 was the equation for the nuclear process that is as natural as sunlight hitting the earth from the "great fusion reactor in the sky". That the equation and discovery of it by itself are neither "in error", nor "wrong", nor evil. I prefer a world without nuclear weapons and energy. That said, I will repeat, I am not about to advocate turning off the sun which is E=mc^2. My retort had to do with you calling the equation E=mc^2 wrong. It is not. But you may read into my comments anything you want. Call them anything you like as well. I can take it.

And you do the same thing here that you do on the important G/W threads ~MIMICCS~. You offer a link and it turns out to be a paper written by a 19 year old college histoy student. Is that the best you can do to "prove" your weak arguments MIMNI? ____ "Sigh" is right.

So what MIMI? We were not going to allow their surrender terms. If Truman had he would have been impeached in a day and shot for being a traitor during a war. And you post an article written by a graduate student of history as facts. ___ Sigh..........

The Russians declared war on Japan after we dropped the second atomic bomb. An example: Germany was defeated also, we owned the air and the seas, the Germans were surrounded and fought to the death and refused to surrender. The Japanese were far more fanatical than the Germans were and they didn't have Kamikaizis.

An invasion would have been horrific for both sides and millions of Japanese civilians would have died if they didn't surrender. They surrendered after Truman used the bombs. Again, what decision would YOU have made? Spit it out, you seem to have all of the answers.