Why was the Nuclear War thread closed to comments?
Probably because it will just encourage morons to start a bun fight.
Well that's a shame. I was late to the party unfortunately. But the nonsense from some... There's pretty clear evidence, for example, that Japan were about to surrender prior to the atomic bombing.
To witness several people come flying in and ridiculing the suggestion purely on the basis that it was said by Kung Fu was a frustrating read.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 5 minutes ago
Well that's a shame. I was late to the party unfortunately. But the nonsense from some... There's pretty clear evidence, for example, that Japan were about to surrender prior to the atomic bombing.
To witness several people come flying in and ridiculing the suggestion purely on the basis that it was said by Kung Fu was a frustrating read.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's no clear evidence at all that the Japanese were going to surrender unconditionally. Even in the links Kung Fu provided they all say that Japan wouldn't agree to hand over Hirohito.
Nuking Japan (which was still a terrible thing to happen to anyone) ended the war early and saved more lives than it took.
'Unconditionally' is irrelevant. If there is a genuine interests in securing peace and/or ending violence in a given situation, you'd reasonably expect negotiation. I haven't read the links he provided, so I don't want to re-cover old ground, but read the quotations, for starters, in this article, from the US Strategic Bombing Survey.
http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2004/310-rapid-response-media-alert-the-bbc-on-hiroshima.html
That said, the US Strategic Bombing Survey also goes on to say, ""Even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that ... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-lies-of-hiroshima-are-the-lies-of-today
I'm probably one of the few who doesn't immediately get the guns out when I see your name above a piece of text on this forum, but you're way off on this one mate.
I'd also read the whole of the second article. It's quite enlightening as to what the primary objective of the US atomic bombing was... Oddly, of all people, it was French in the other thread who called it correctly. (As a show of force to Russia).
Berba, i'm a big fan of yours but we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I will take a look at the article after the game but I want you to read about Operation :Downfall and the reasons why a land based invasion was too costly regarding American casualties.
It's very easy to look at this with hindsight but the US were at war and the way these things are decided at the time are very different to how we see them now.
Sign in if you want to comment
it seems amongst the bickering
Page 3 of 3
posted on 3/2/15
Why was the Nuclear War thread closed to comments?
posted on 3/2/15
Probably because it will just encourage morons to start a bun fight.
posted on 3/2/15
Well that's a shame. I was late to the party unfortunately. But the nonsense from some... There's pretty clear evidence, for example, that Japan were about to surrender prior to the atomic bombing.
To witness several people come flying in and ridiculing the suggestion purely on the basis that it was said by Kung Fu was a frustrating read.
posted on 3/2/15
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 5 minutes ago
Well that's a shame. I was late to the party unfortunately. But the nonsense from some... There's pretty clear evidence, for example, that Japan were about to surrender prior to the atomic bombing.
To witness several people come flying in and ridiculing the suggestion purely on the basis that it was said by Kung Fu was a frustrating read.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's no clear evidence at all that the Japanese were going to surrender unconditionally. Even in the links Kung Fu provided they all say that Japan wouldn't agree to hand over Hirohito.
Nuking Japan (which was still a terrible thing to happen to anyone) ended the war early and saved more lives than it took.
posted on 3/2/15
'Unconditionally' is irrelevant. If there is a genuine interests in securing peace and/or ending violence in a given situation, you'd reasonably expect negotiation. I haven't read the links he provided, so I don't want to re-cover old ground, but read the quotations, for starters, in this article, from the US Strategic Bombing Survey.
http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2004/310-rapid-response-media-alert-the-bbc-on-hiroshima.html
That said, the US Strategic Bombing Survey also goes on to say, ""Even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that ... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-lies-of-hiroshima-are-the-lies-of-today
I'm probably one of the few who doesn't immediately get the guns out when I see your name above a piece of text on this forum, but you're way off on this one mate.
posted on 3/2/15
I'd also read the whole of the second article. It's quite enlightening as to what the primary objective of the US atomic bombing was... Oddly, of all people, it was French in the other thread who called it correctly. (As a show of force to Russia).
posted on 3/2/15
Berba, i'm a big fan of yours but we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I will take a look at the article after the game but I want you to read about Operation :Downfall and the reasons why a land based invasion was too costly regarding American casualties.
It's very easy to look at this with hindsight but the US were at war and the way these things are decided at the time are very different to how we see them now.
Page 3 of 3