We're gonna nuke Iran!
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, February 28, 2026 17:47
VIEWED: 4913
PAGE 4 of 7
I think it's clear the White House policy is that the bombings will continue until the poll ratings improve.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, I reckon we're mostly in agreement.
I think it's fair to say that there was a possibility that Japan's unconditional surrender could have been gained without resorting to the two A-bombs - we could have clearly stated the threat to them (i.e. 'We have bombs than can take out a single city each') and made some assurances as to the fate of the emperor. The Japanese were very stubborn and mightn't have agreed to this but even then, we could have at least used one bomb at a time.
In short, I don't know why we didn't really take any of these halfway steps towards peace. But neither do you. We can take guesses, but I disagree with you that 'Intimidating the Soviet Union' is a good one.
I would suggest that at that point of the war, after a lot of bloody fighting to force back the Japanese we were looking to force some retribution on a highly militaristic society that had opened hostilities by sneak attack, and had treated our POWs despicably. Public opinion would have demanded no less than this, and though the president should be detached from public opinion to some extent, I think public opinion had a point. You say;
Quote:
The surrender terms given to the Japanese in the Potsdam Proclamation made no mention of Japan's most important surrender condition, which was the status of the Emperor who the Japanese saw as a god.
Furthermore the Proclamation made some statements that appeared to directly threaten the Emperor:
"There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest"
"stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals"
But are you sure that we were obligated to guarantee complete immunity from international law for the emperor? Sure, it might have been the only way that Japan's civilians might be spared a lot of suffering. But Japanese troops had carried out many atrocities against everyone including us over the past decade, and it seems to me this emperor should've at least been tried for war crimes.
Interestingly, perhaps the only reason why we didn't in the end was because we had already exacted such horrible retribution on the Japanese that we didn't want to then go and serve the 'stern justice' to their emperor, that he may well have deserved.
Perhaps if we had, the Japanese people would by now have faced up to the atrocities that they committed in this period. But then, as you say, the Japanese would almost certainly not have surrendered (unless we purposefully deceived them with false assurances) and the war would've gone on much longer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Do you know the Japanese were offering their surrender, but the only term, namely don't destroy our culture, was considered too unreasonable?
The way I have always heard it was that the Japanese did not offer to surrender until after the first bomb was dropped, so theoretically the first bomb was neccesary. But I could be wrong. I know you are right about the second bomb though, the Japanese did try to surrender before that one.
Quote:
Also the effects of the Nuclear bomb on a Human population were not known.
Who better to test the effects of your latest weapon on if not the enemy?
Very true, after all dropping a bomb on Boston would have been a little counter-productive
Quote:
There was some in the fifties who thought the nuclear tests would crack the surface of the Earth like an egg.
What can I say, some people juggle geese.
And there are still people today who believe that the Earth is flat.
Quote:
Nuke Them Before They Nuke You
Another quality home game from Butler Bros.
http://www.criticalmiss.com/issue3/nukecrap1.html
It only has Europe, but still...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
...and it seems to me this emperor should've at least been tried for war crimes.
Once again, I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the emperor really did not have that much to do with the war. I remember seeing more than one source say that the war was concieved and carried out by high-ranking military officials instead of the emperor. Granted the emperor probably could have ended the war, but who wants to end a war that is going well (and who can honorably say "I give up"(Hint: it is not the Japanese))?
I also saw a show about the last attack that the U.S. launched against the Japanese and how that was what actually let the war end.
http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Mag/Index/1995/AS/tlrd.html
For anyone too lazy to read it:
The Japanese military knows the Emperor wants to surrender, they don't want to, they try to stop him, the last American raid of the war flies overhead causing the air-raid defenses to go into effect, this throws off the schedule of the planned coup, the rebels are unable to stop the emperor from broadcasting his surrender message, the war ends.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by KPO:
We can take guesses, but I disagree with you that 'Intimidating the Soviet Union' is a good one.
I disagree. At the time the British and Americans were well aware of what sort of man Stalin was (Churchill walked out of a meeting when Stalin suggested what they should do to the German people).
They knew full well they need to 'reel' the Russians in. I doubt that the bombs would have been dropped if it was the only or main consideration, but I find it hard to believe that showing the Russians the destructive power at Americas command wasn't on the table.
Quote:
But are you sure that we were obligated to guarantee complete immunity from international law for the emperor? Sure, it might have been the only way that Japan's civilians might be spared a lot of suffering. But Japanese troops had carried out many atrocities against everyone including us over the past decade, and it seems to me this emperor should've at least been tried for war crimes.
It’s my understanding that the powers that be at the time believed the emperor wasn't really all that important.
I've read arguments that say it may have been enough to merely allow the position of Emperor to continue, but in the end it depends what you think is more important given your point:
The lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, or trying one man for war crimes?
Quote:
Interestingly, perhaps the only reason why we didn't in the end was because we had already exacted such horrible retribution on the Japanese that we didn't want to then go and serve the 'stern justice' to their emperor, that he may well have deserved.
The original surrender terms stated that the Emperor was 'safe'. One of the advisors responsible for drawing the terms up insisted that the Japanese would be unlikely to accept surrender without it.
It was removed in the final version, I don't know why.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I think that Hiroshima was a 'B' site, as another city ( i can't recall which ) was targeted as the 'A' cite was waved off as it had too much cloud cover.
Nagasaki was the B site for the Fat Man weapon. It was selected as a target, but only a secondary target because it was believed it's hilly terrain would (and did) reduce the weapons effectiveness. The A site was Kokura but it was covered with clouds, and the crew had orders to drop the bomb visually.Quote:
And because the effects of incendiary carpet bombing of civilian centers in Europe was already known.
I'm sure you're trying to make a point...
If the point escapes you, I fail to see the need to draw you a conclusion.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nuclear Posture Review [Excerpts]
Submitted to Congress on 31 December 2001.
Building on the (QDR) this Nuclear Posture Review puts in motion a major change in our approach to the role of nuclear offensive forces in our deterrent strategy and presents the blueprint for transforming our strategic posture.
This report establishes a New Triad, composed of:
Offensive strike systems (both nuclear and non-nuclear);
Defenses (both active and passive); and
A revitalized defense infrastructure that will provide new capabilities in a timely fashion to meet emerging threats
People seem to have forgotten the Bush admin changed nuclear strategy from response to offensive a number of years ago. If you don't think that was preparation for this you're deluded.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
If the point escapes you, I fail to see the need to draw you a conclusion.
Oh, you don't have one and you don't understand what I said. Why didn't you just say?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Oh, you don't have one and you don't understand what I said. Why didn't you just say?
The point was that we didn't want to set fire to city after city in Japan via carpet bombing as was done in Germany. Such a tactic would have cost more in lives , equipment and extended the war out longer. It was time to put an end to it all, and that's why the Hirioshima and Nagasaki were bombed. But you understand this already, yet you feel the need to feign ignorance as you take your petty personal digs. By all means, have at it, have the last word.
I know how much it means to you. ( and pardon my post script of my own comment. I saw fit to ammend my reply , not knowing you'd already be responding ... hope you can reply w/ something that makes sense now )
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
But you understand this already, yet you feel the need to feign ignorance as you take your petty personal digs. By all means, have at it, have the last word.
Well not to get all twelve year old on you but you started it
. I merely asked you to clarify your point, which frankly sounded like a snarky "you Brits burned German cities" reply and you threw your toys out of the pram, but try to make yourself look like the "bigger man" if you wish. I know how much that means too you.But Anyway:
Quote:
The point was that we didn't want to set fire to city after city in Japan via carpet bombing as was done in Germany. Such a tactic would have cost more in lives , equipment and extended the war out longer. It was time to put an end to it all, and that's why the Hirioshima and Nagasaki were bombed.
Lets sort of shuffle past the whole fact that incendiary carpet bombing had already been used against Japan, which kinda invalidates your opening point and get back to what I said.
I.e. that the use of the A-Bombs may not of been necessary if the Allies had included a term in the surrender that ensured the Emperors survival, despite the fact we let the emperor continue on anyway. That we could of told the Japanese about our "awesome destructive power", or even shown them in away that didn't irradiate innocent civilians. Might not of worked but then it might have.
We didn't even try, despite the urgings of experts, maybe as KPO seemed to have alluded there was a revenge factor, maybe there was a lot of things, but making 200,000+ innocent civilians glow in the dark may not have been the only viable option on the table for bringing an expedient end to the war.
Prior to AU's attempt at revisionist history:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
No, I don't undestand what you said. Or why you said it. Which is typically par for the course.
Yes I know, adults are talking, shh.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME