DROPPING THE BOMB

[Phishfan]

Man, I hate to get into this kind of stuff.

Terrorism is based on the highest bidder, not a culture, not a country. Terrorists are high paid mercenaries that go to the highest bidder.

If you look up what Al-Quieda means, you will find out that it was an operative word for actions in the Soviet-Afghan conflict and that it is a CIA funded operation...

"These terrorist cells, namely al-Qaeda, are invariably linked to the CIA. They have been consistently supported by U.S. intelligence. What we are dealing with is a process, which consists in fabricating an enemy. The creation of Al-Qaeda is an intelligence operation used as a pretext to justify a war of conquest. "

John F. Kennedy signed his death certificate when he did two things:

1.    When he failed to get Cuba back for the Mafia and get Castro out of power.
2.    When he went about to dismantle the CIA.

When those two items came up, it was determined that he had to die and his brother, who as Attorney General, had the right to call investigations into various agencies had to go too.

Think Iran-Contra, Air America and operations in Germany.

My previous roommate went to training camp with McVeigh and said that everyone hated him. He came across as an aloof klutz. The government HAS certain people in the military and in government that they do condition to carry out certain assignments. The most BASIC level of that condition is of course BASIC military training but there are other levels higher than that.

When I was in the force, we had to wear dress blues and sit at attention for five minutes in the dark. This was a part of our "training" and then they would roll a "propaganda" film on our enemies during horrible things and showing anti-American stuff. I only realize in looking back that some of the footage seemed like it was shot from a script.

The Oklahoma City bombings show that the blast came from INSIDE of the building. I'll leave it to you to figure out the rest.

And I don't want to get into the 911 stuff.

The CIA has a payroll which includes White Supremacists, Black Panthers, Russians, Middle Eastern people and just about everyone who can be bought. Other countries do too. These people work as double agents. It's part of the game of life. We are the pawns that can be sacrificed at any time.

I would say typically yes, but white supremacists are a different breed of terrorist. I am going to guess that you have never intimately known many of them so it would be easy to lump them into the general thinking of "terrorist", but they are a completely different breed.

[Defense54]

That doesn't justify it.  I am not saying that the bombing can not be justified on the basis of military options, but your line of reasoning absolutely fails.

A war crime is a war crime regardless of what the other side did or is doing. 

Sorry That President was elected to protect us.  The Japanese elected to sneak attack us at dawn in one of the most cowardly events in US History. If they had the Power to get closer to the mainland they would have done it. What it comes down to is a Million of our civilians or a Million of theirs?  Not an east decision for sure but the right one was made.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Sorry That President was elected to protect us.  The Japanese elected to sneak attack us at dawn in one of the most cowardly events in US History. If they had the Power to get closer to the mainland they would have done it. What it comes down to is a Million of our civilians or a Million of theirs?  Not an east decision for sure but the right one was made.

Several errors in your post.

At the time of the bombing the president had came into office as a VP.   

The Japanese surprise attack was an attack on a military installation, not a civilian target. 

Nor would an invasion of Japan resulted in million of American civilian casualties.

That aside, the point of my post was not to say whether the  bombing was the right move or not.  The point of my post is you can not justify a wrongful act by saying someone else would have committed the same wrongful act.  Maybe the bombing was the right decision, maybe it wasn't but, the argument that japan would have used the bomb if they had it, adds nothing to the discussion of whether it was a war crime or not. 

[run_to_win]

Several errors in your post.

At the time of the bombing the president had came into office as a VP.

Good catch!   Everyone knows that VPs have a different set of rules to follow once they take over for the President.     

The Japanese surprise attack was an attack on a military installation, not a civilian target. 

Nor would an invasion of Japan resulted in million of American civilian casualties.

Well, if you consider all the extra civilians drafted into the military as the war drug on for another year or so then it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Here's an error you missed: Japan would have suffered way more than a million casualties.

Due to the importance of honor in their culture, most experts agree that Japan would have fought to the last man.  Out of a population of 71,000,000, Japan suffered 2,000,000 military deaths and "only" 500,000 civilian deaths - INCLUDING the atomic bombs.  An invasion may have greatly increased those numbers, by as much as 2000% by some estimates.  That's 10,000,000 civilian casualties.

For comparison, Germany, with a similar population (70,000,000) suffered 5,500,000 military deaths and 1,600,000 civilian deaths - 3 times as many civilian deaths as Japan without the use of atomic bombs.  Fighting a war on your home turf is costly.

That aside, the point of my post was not to say whether the  bombing was the right move or not.  The point of my post is you can not justify a wrongful act by saying someone else would have committed the same wrongful act.  Maybe the bombing was the right decision, maybe it wasn't but, the argument that japan would have used the bomb if they had it, adds nothing to the discussion of whether it was a war crime or not. 

Agreed.  However, if it saved ~10,000,000 lives can it be considered a war crime?  What other single even in recorded history has saved that many lives?  Couldn't we be talking about whether or not dropping the bombs is the single greatest humanitarian act in human history? 

[JVides]

Wow, late to the party!  Here's what I think (like anyone cares)...

If we learned anything fighting in the South Pacific, it's that the Japanese would fight to the end, even if the fight was hopeless.  Case in point:  the Battle of Iwo Jima, where approximately 70,000 US troops, hundreds of bombers, and dozens of battleships were needed to fight 22,000 entrenched Japanese soldiers. 

http://www.japan-101.com/history/battle_of_iwo_jima.htm

Japanese soldiers would carry out suicide missions in order to take out American GIs.  Invasion of Japan would have been so very costly to the US in terms of lives lost, and the US would've probably needed to go it alone, since Europe was devastated.  This was a numbers game.  Lose 100K + soldiers to a very long war (1 M by some estimates), or strike at the heart of Japan (civilians, sadly) so that the Emperor would see his kingdom could be attacked anywhere, anytime, and surrender quickly.  We should also remember that the Axis had been trying to develop atomic weapons, too, and that had the Axis developed them before the allies, history would have read that New York, or LA, not Hiroshima, was the site of the first nuclear attack.

As for striking at civilians, London was nearly bombed to dust.  so were many other large European cities (less famously, perhaps).  The allies responded by carpet bombing Berlin and other German cities.  This was the way early airborne warfare was done.  Only in the eighties did "smart bombs" exist; only recently did we move away from carpet bombing and into precision.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki had less to do with what was right or wrong and more to do with how it was done back then.

[JVides]

I find it amusing anytime anyone says we just need to drop a bomb on the Middle East. WWII was the last time a bomb of that nature is going to be used without major consequences (other bombs coming right at us). The whole we should just nuke people theory just shows ignorance.

Now HERE'S someone who understands the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (or MAD for the initiated).  Absolutely right, Phishphan.  With all the lost Russian missiles and warheads we hear / read about, I am pretty sure that the next nuclear attack is followed by retaliation, and not necessarily by a nation-state, either.

[JVides]

How do you figure an invasion would have meant more casualties and dropping a bomb didn't? For your information, there are two categories that the military use to define casualties...those that died during battle and those that didn't die but suffered wounds that were bad enough to cause dismemberment or change their way of life. The bomb accomplished BOTH.

I just don't see your argument that a ground assault would have led to more lives being sacrificed. I'm trying to see it but I just can't at this moment. I love the military and I was an Air Force veteran who fully believed in our program of deterrence from war for the right reasons.

Ethurst, I think the argument is that the bombing of 2 smaller cities with limited populations is less costly than invading a nation (putting boots on sand, if you will) with all the heavy machinery that entails (armor, artillery, etc...) and conducting a city-by-city urban war.  Those civilians without the means to escape (1945 Japan wasn't car-heavy) would have been stuck between invaders and defenders, and I know the term "caught in the crossfire" carries weight for a reason, right?  I full well believe that 1M US troops fighting the Japanese in Japan would have resulted in more casualties, spread out over all of Japan, that what occurred.  One source estimates that "only" 105,000 people died between the two attacks, whereas an all out military blitz  would have cost nearly 10 times that many US lives, based on tentative US figures. 

Article:
http://home.kc.rr.com/casualties/

This article further goes on to point out that during comparable operations against fortified Japanese positions, the ratio of US to Japanese casualties was approximately 1 to 3.10 (109,700 US lost to 340,000 Japanese) soldiers.  Extrapolating:  Assume the US lost 500,000 men in combat in Japan (somewhere between 0 and the 1 M estimate).  The historical ratio would indicate that Japanese casualties would be on the order of 1,550,000 SOLDIERS, plus whatever civilians ended up in the fight.  Given the information available, I can't fault what was done.  From our perspective, it saved the most lives all around, and civilian casualties were less than our own military ones were expected to be, never mind what theirs would have been.

As for the emotional side of me, of course flaming civvies is reprehensible, as the thoughts of my daughter and wife combusting makes me want to ralph on my desktop.  Presidents are paid (meagerly) to make these calls, and must make cold, rational decisions.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki may not have been necessary, but they expedited the peace process and probably saved lives in the endgame.

[ethurst2]

I would say typically yes, but white supremacists are a different breed of terrorist. I am going to guess that you have never intimately known many of them so it would be easy to lump them into the general thinking of "terrorist", but they are a completely different breed.

What makes you think that I don't know people that are and have been in the KKK or Skinheads?

Yes, I know KKK people and skinheads and basically when it comes to money, they can be bought. When I lived in Germany, skinheads would roam the streets ogf Kaiserslautern at night looking to be the hell out of arrogant American GI's but if you were cool, they never messed with you and I'm black.

My thought is this. People may think it's dangerous for a black guy to go up to a skinhead or KKK guy and say, let's talk about fishing instead of why you hate me. I learn to take the most weird path with people. They are already going to be defensive about what you are bringing to the table so why not switch it. I've sat down with racists that hate black people and some of it is legitimate and some of it isn't. Does that make me hate the person? No. It's for them to figure out but I've won because I've established dialogue.

The first year I was in Arkansas, I had to travel all over the state and meet with bankers. I had to be in a different town every week. Arkansas is the hub of the Bible belt and KKK activities. I've even went on the road with white examiners who were scared to go into some of those towns. Instead of stay in town, they would rather get a hotel 30 miles outside of the place that we were doing the examination.

Some of these old Arkansas bankers had ties to the KKK. The difference was that I wasn't scared and I knew who I was. My philosophy is this...if you can identify with what a person LIKES then your chances of establishing communication with that individual is good.

I had some of these guys tell me about their meetings and how, since I was black, that I acted differently. I even had one guy ask me why all blacks were on welfare. Many of these guys thought that I was a Yankee from New York but I'm proud of where I'm from. Miami---Liberty City.

But here's the twist. Back in the early 90's, I had to help banks establish disaster recovery plans in case of DOMESTIC TERRIORISM. The FDIC was getting warnings from the FBI of bankers being targeted by white supremacists to fund domestic terrorist operations. I had to go to school for white collar crime concerning financial institutions and covert stuff.

You actually had guys running around off of I-30 training and shooting guns that had changed their mission from a race war to a war against facism and tyranny and for the first time, it was open TO ALL PEOPLE.

And low and behold, the Oklahoma City bombing happened which was a joint operation headed by a white supremacist, Timothy McVeigh, who my last roommate went to basic training with. He wasn't the only guy in on that bombing. Information is being leaked now that it was a joint effort and I don't want to get into that on this forum.

Now money talks. The point that I'm trying to make is that it doesn't matter if you're a white Supremacist, Black panther, skinhead, motor head or chicken head, some people can be bought for a price.

I've even had some of these guys tell me of their disgust of the government and feeling like they were "stabbed" in the back by government. So instead of training for the "race war" they turned their attention to government. The FBI has changed their mission concerning these guys and they are now labeled as "TERRORISTS". Read the Patriot Act and you'll see that they fit the definition.

What makes a terrorist network so hard to defend is that it can include many different groups, cultures and people. It's harder to fight that an established government or country because sides shift. There isn't a hub or headquarters at all.

So yes, to answer your question, I've had intimate dealings with KKK, skinheads, hell-evangelists that you see on T.V. , sports people, governors and even a former President.

I couldn't take any more of it so I chose music as therapy and as a career.

[ethurst2]

Maybe because it did not exist at that time. It was formed March 15th, 1945. Peral harbor happened December 7, 1941.

You must don't know military history. The US since the end of the 1890's were all over the world establishing outposts. Of course they are not going to tell you about it. Take it from me...there is probably stuff in your backyard that you don't even know about that's been there for 70 years plus.

For example. When Hurricane Andrew hit Homestead Air Force Base, people lamented the closing and were trying to figure out why would Congress close a base that is so close to Cuba used for montoring the Carribean. The lame excuse was given that it would cost more to rebuild.

That was 1992.

But check this out, outside of Doral, the US Government has always had a command post. Go down NW 36 Street past the Turnpike and you'll see radar equipment. That stuff has been there for over 40 years and now, they are going to put the US Southern Command and a full blown operational base there which had already existed.

Now the question is...DID YOU KNOW THAT STUFF was out there or did you read in an American history book that it never existed.

The government isn't going to tell you what's in your backyard.

[ethurst2]

Maybe because it did not exist at that time. It was formed March 15th, 1945. Peral harbor happened December 7, 1941.

Okay Fish...let me see if I hear you correctly. You said that there was no 7th Fleet or no presence of any kind of military operation in the Pacific prior to WWII. Well, let me just post what President Rooselvelt did to pave the way for fleets and communications to be staged out in Pacific as early as 1903.

"In 1903, workers for the Commercial Pacific Cable Company took up residence on the island as part of the effort to lay a trans-Pacific telegraph cable. These workers introduced many non-native species to the island, including the canary, cycad palm, Norfolk Island pine, ironwood, coconut, and various deciduous trees, along with ants, cockroaches, termites, centipedes, and countless others.

Later that year, President Theodore Roosevelt placed the atoll under the control of the U.S. Navy, which on 20 January 1903 opened a radio station,

(Believe me, I don't think that they mean Y-100 with your drive-time weather every 30 minutes)

 in response to complaints from cable company workers about Japanese squatters and poachers. In 1904 - 1908 Roosevelt sent 21 U.S. Marines to stop the wanton destruction of bird life by Japanese poachers, and to keep Midway safe as a U.S. possession, protecting the cable station."

Hmm, now why would the US Government spend all that money and Marines just to save some birds?

So since 1903, the US was building up a military presence on the ATOLL's and had possession of many of the islands in that region. The dumbest thing that they did (and I think that it was the Marshall Atoll) was sell some land back to the Japanese.

[JVides]

in response to complaints from cable company workers about Japanese squatters and poachers[/b]. In 1904 - 1908 Roosevelt sent 21 U.S. Marines to stop the wanton destruction of bird life by Japanese poachers, and to keep Midway safe as a U.S. possession, protecting the cable station."[/i]

Hmm, now why would the US Government spend all that money and Marines just to save some birds?

Well, Teddy did like the fauna...

[ethurst2]

Well, Teddy did like the fauna...

I think what lured Rooselvelt to the island was bushels of Mary Jane and he had to find an excuse. So he set up a communications station there.

The one thing that I do know is that there are some fine women in the South Pacific!

[JVides]

The one thing that I do know is that there are some fine women in the South Pacific!

I'm gonna have to go ahead and second that one...

[Phishfan]

ethurst, did I ever say you DIDN'T know any racists/supremicists? No I didn't. I said I was going to guess you didn't. There is a difference. Did I ever say the US had NO military presence in the Pacific? No I didn't. I said the 7th fleet didn't exist during Pearl Harbor (although I do see differing dates of formation, they are all still after the attack).

If you worried more about factual information and less about how your argument sounded you could be taken with a bit more credibility in my book. Leave the conspiracy Hurricane Andrew shit out of a discussion like this. We all know there are things we don't know, but the date the 7th fleet being formed is such a government secret that they still lie about it to this day. Please forgive my while I chuckle.

I also see you left out this quote since the information you pulled was directly from Wikipedia

Midway's importance to the U.S. was brought into focus on December 7, 1941 with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Six months later, on June 4, 1942, a naval battle near Midway resulted in the U.S. Navy exacting a devastating defeat of the Japanese Navy. This Battle of Midway was, by most accounts, the beginning of the end of the Japanese Navy's control of the Pacific Ocean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midway_Atoll

[Defense54]

Several errors in your post.

At the time of the bombing the president had came into office as a VP.   

The Japanese surprise attack was an attack on a military installation, not a civilian target. 

Nor would an invasion of Japan resulted in million of American civilian casualties.

That aside, the point of my post was not to say whether the  bombing was the right move or not.  The point of my post is you can not justify a wrongful act by saying someone else would have committed the same wrongful act.  Maybe the bombing was the right decision, maybe it wasn't but, the argument that japan would have used the bomb if they had it, adds nothing to the discussion of whether it was a war crime or not. 

The VP part of your argument shows how badly your grabbing at straws to make your argument. 


The rest is clearly subjective and proves nothing. We can all assume a million different other scenarios but The Facts are the bombs were dropped and the war ended shortly thereafter. End of story.