|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
| Moderated by: Saida.M, safetyblitz, Raven, Miss Brighter Days, LadyDay, Kunjufu, Kibibi, Happiness, Dillinger, Breadfruit, Backatya |
|
|
| Author | |
|---|
sol
Excluded
| Joined: | Monday May 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 44 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Saturday July 8th, 2006 22:46 |
|
MADMEN or, why America fears "others" having nuclear power...
As-Salaam-Alaikum.,
In 1945, the Americans dropped 2(TWO) nuclear bombs on Japan killing 100,000 to 200,000 INNOCENT PEOPLE.
In my opinion, the U.S. president was "MAD"! How else can you justify the MURDER of INNOCENT PEOPLE!
sol
____________________
THE SUN SYMBOLIC OF GOD.
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
BIG L
Villager
| Joined: | Saturday April 8th, 2006 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 510 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Saturday July 8th, 2006 23:49 |
|
| You know other nations on this earth are going to develop nuclear weapons. The U.S fears that once they get this weapon of mass destruction, they wont be able to steal that counties resources. Nukes buy you clout, and without clout you’re nobody on the world stage. Last edited on Saturday July 8th, 2006 23:49 by BIG L
____________________
"Go on look at it!!!... that's capatlism, the new fuck Monster, pretty is'nt it? made on the backs of slaves!! so whatca Gonna do about it?"
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
sol
Excluded
| Joined: | Monday May 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 44 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Monday July 10th, 2006 02:56 |
|
 Author
Topic: MADMEN or, why America fears "nukes"... (Read 13 times)
sol
Forum God
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Posts: 569
MADMEN or, why America fears "nukes"...
« on: Jul 8th, 2006, 11:00am »
 Quote  Modify  Remove
MADMEN or, why America fears "others" having nuclear power...
As-Salaam-Alaikum.,
In 1945, the Americans dropped 2(TWO) nuclear bombs on Japan killing 100,000 to 200,000 INNOCENT PEOPLE.
In my opinion, the U.S. president was "MAD"! How else can you justify the MURDER of INNOCENT PEOPLE!
sol
Ahmed_El-Shabazz
Forum Senior Member
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Posts: 282
Re: MADMEN or, why America fears "nukes"
« Reply #1 on: Jul 8th, 2006, 6:46pm »
Quote Modify
Salaam----Brother Sol, you are 1000% right! ONLY mad men/women would even THINK about using such a weapon AFTER seeing what happen 61 years ago in Japan. In fact, did you know that the part of Japan that America bombed was the Christian part, most of those person killed, etc., were CHRISTIAN! Truman was a mass murderer, killing over 200,000 people in 2 days.--I met a person who lived there during the bombing, she is old, and she told me that she was 50 mile away and had 3rd degree burns! She also told me that the following year butterflies were big as a pigeon!
Last edited on Monday July 10th, 2006 02:59 by sol
____________________
THE SUN SYMBOLIC OF GOD.
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
NomadaNare
Villager
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Monday July 10th, 2006 15:50 |
|
In WWII after Germany had already fallen to the allies, Japan wouldn't surrender, so rather than risk more American lives with an invasion, he decided to test out his new weapon... strategically it was the best option... and it was war.
____________________
You're very clever young man, very clever" said the old lady, "but it turtles all the way down." -Anonymous, to Sir Arthur Eddington
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
TheDogon
Villager
| Joined: | Thursday May 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 1605 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday July 11th, 2006 05:10 |
|
NomadaNare wrote: In WWII after Germany had already fallen to the allies, Japan wouldn't surrender, so rather than risk more American lives with an invasion, he decided to test out his new weapon... strategically it was the best option... and it was war.
Check the dates NN. The bomb was ready in plenty of time to use against Germany. And Japan would have surrendered before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.
What did the U.S. military think? Here there is also dispute. We actually know very little about the views of the military at the time. However, after the war many–indeed, most–of the top World War II Generals and Admirals involved criticized the decision. One of the most famous was General Eisenhower, who repeatedly stated that he urged the bomb not be used: “t wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.� The well-known “hawk,� General Curtis LeMay, publically declared that the war would have been over in two weeks, and that the atomic bomb had nothing to do with bringing about surrender. President Truman’s friend and Chief of Staff, five star Admiral William D. Leahy was deeply angered: The “use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.�
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0803-26.htm
____________________
“If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning.
http://www.covenantwithblackamerica.com
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
ac9311
Villager
| Joined: | Thursday March 25th, 2004 |
| Location: | DFW, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 522 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday July 11th, 2006 07:24 |
|
We will never know what the entire story. Here is another point of view.
Both sides prepared for the invasion of Japan. To the Japanese, this meant implementation of their Ketsu-Go (death before surrender) plan. Factions developed in the highest echelons of the Japanese government about the potential effectiveness of Ketsu-Go in delivering terms better than unconditional surrender. The Japanese people grew critical and rebellious as US firebombing took its toll. On Okinawa, US troops destroyed the last vestiges of Japanese resistance cave by cave. New President Harry Truman approved the first portion of General Marshall's invasion plan, a landing at Kyushu. The Emperor asked his cabinet to find a way to surrender that would allow him to retain his position. As the Japanese considered asking the Soviets to mediate an end of the war, the Americans pressured them to enter it on the Allied side. The build-up of defensive troops on Kyushu continued, making the American landing look increasingly perilous. Now having the atomic bomb in his arsenal, historians say Truman's decision to use it was not a difficult one. The Potsdam Declaration demanded unconditional surrender or "risk prompt and utter destruction." The Japanese ignored it.
http://videoindex.pbs.org/program/all_chapters.jsp?item_id=47207Last edited on Tuesday July 11th, 2006 07:32 by ac9311
____________________
ac9311
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
NomadaNare
Villager
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday July 11th, 2006 18:48 |
|
TheDogon wrote:
Check the dates NN. The bomb was ready in plenty of time to use against Germany. And Japan would have surrendered before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.
They didn't test the bomb until July 16 of 1945, by then Germany had already surrendered and the soviets were in Berlin... As for the Japanese:
President Harry Truman, advised by the U.S. military, decided to use the new super-weapon to bring the war to a more humane end. The battle for Okinawa had shown that an invasion of the Japanese mainland (planned for November), seen as an Okinawa-type operation on a far larger scale, would result in more casualties than the United States had suffered so far in all theatres since the war began. It would also result in many more Japanese deaths than use of the atomic bomb would cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWII
good ol wiki...
And seriously? A muslim is trying to point fingers on violence? USA is by far no angel, but neither are you guys...
Last edited on Tuesday July 11th, 2006 19:11 by NomadaNare
____________________
You're very clever young man, very clever" said the old lady, "but it turtles all the way down." -Anonymous, to Sir Arthur Eddington
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
101stAirborne
Villager
| Joined: | Thursday February 17th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1126 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Wednesday July 12th, 2006 20:46 |
|
NN you are quite right. Additionally:
In the fall of 1940, the Japanese army concluded that constructing an atomic bomb was indeed feasible. The Institute of Physical and Chemical Research, or Rikken, was assigned the project under the direction of Yoshio Nishina. The Japanese Navy was also diligently working to create its own "superbomb" under a project was dubbed F-Go, headed by Bunsaku Arakatsu at the end of World War II. The F-Go program [or No. F, for fission] began at Kyoto in 1942. However, the military commitment wasn't backed with adequate resources, and the Japanese effort to an atomic bomb had made little progress by the end of the war.
Japan's nuclear efforts were disrupted in April 1945 when a B-29 raid damaged Nishina's thermal diffusion separation apparatus. Some reports claim the Japanese subsequently moved their atomic operations Konan [Hungnam, now part of North Korea]. The Japanese may have used this facility at for making small quantities of heavy water. The Japanese plant was captured by Soviet troops at war's end, and some reports claim that the output of the Hungnam plant was collected every other month by Soviet submarines.
There are indications that Japan had a more sizable programme than is commonly understood, and that there was close cooperation among the Axis powers, including a secretive exchange of war materiel. The German submarine U-234, which surrendered to US forces in May 1945, was found to be carrying 560 kilograms of Uranium oxide destined for Japan's own atomic program. The oxide contained about 3.5 kilograms of the isotope U-235, which would have been about a fifth of the total U-235 needed to make one bomb. After Japan surrendered on 15 August 1945, the occupying US Army found five Japanese cyclotrons, which could be used to separate fissionable material from ordinary uranium. The Americans smashed the cyclotrons and dumped them into Tokyo Harbour.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/japan/nuke/
There is little doubt that had they time they would of annihilated the West Coast.
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
TheDogon
Villager
| Joined: | Thursday May 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 1605 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Wednesday July 12th, 2006 22:30 |
|
NomadaNare wrote: TheDogon wrote:
Check the dates NN. The bomb was ready in plenty of time to use against Germany. And Japan would have surrendered before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.
They didn't test the bomb until July 16 of 1945, by then Germany had already surrendered and the soviets were in Berlin... As for the Japanese:
President Harry Truman, advised by the U.S. military, decided to use the new super-weapon to bring the war to a more humane end. The battle for Okinawa had shown that an invasion of the Japanese mainland (planned for November), seen as an Okinawa-type operation on a far larger scale, would result in more casualties than the United States had suffered so far in all theatres since the war began. It would also result in many more Japanese deaths than use of the atomic bomb would cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWII
good ol wiki...
And seriously? A muslim is trying to point fingers on violence? USA is by far no angel, but neither are you guys...
NN even I can make an entry into Wikipedia. I can modify it and claim that the U.S. bombed Hiroshima in 2007. But that won't make it fact.
I guess I do a lot of reading. . .
Quotes from the folks at the time with the appropriate sources. This is just for starters. I keep telling you. I don't make these types of claims lightly.
~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER
"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
~~~HERBERT HOOVER
On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."
Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 347.
~~~GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.
~~~JOSEPH GREW
(Under Sec. of State)
In a February 12, 1947 letter to Henry Stimson (Sec. of War during WWII), Grew responded to the defense of the atomic bombings Stimson had made in a February 1947 Harpers magazine article:
"...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.
"If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer."
Grew quoted in Barton Bernstein, ed.,The Atomic Bomb, pg. 29-32.
~~~JOHN McCLOY
(Assistant Sec. of War)
"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."
McCloy quoted in James Reston, Deadline, pg. 500.
~~~RALPH BARD
(Under Sec. of the Navy)
On June 28, 1945, a memorandum written by Bard the previous day was given to Sec. of War Henry Stimson. It stated, in part:
"Following the three-power [July 1945 Potsdam] conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position [they were about to declare war on Japan] and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the [retention of the] Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for.
"I don't see that we have anything in particular to lose in following such a program." He concluded the memorandum by noting, "The only way to find out is to try it out."
Memorandum on the Use of S-1 Bomb, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 77, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 307-308).
~~~LEWIS STRAUSS
(Special Assistant to the Sec. of the Navy)
Strauss recalled a recommendation he gave to Sec. of the Navy James Forrestal before the atomic bombing of Hiroshima:
"I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate... My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood... I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest... would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will... Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation..."
Strauss added, "It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world...".
quoted in Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 145, 325.
~~~PAUL NITZE
(Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey)
In 1950 Nitze would recommend a massive military buildup, and in the 1980s he was an arms control negotiator in the Reagan administration. In July of 1945 he was assigned the task of writing a strategy for the air attack on Japan. Nitze later wrote:
"The plan I devised was essentially this: Japan was already isolated from the standpoint of ocean shipping. The only remaining means of transportation were the rail network and intercoastal shipping, though our submarines and mines were rapidly eliminating the latter as well. A concentrated air attack on the essential lines of transportation, including railroads and (through the use of the earliest accurately targetable glide bombs, then emerging from development) the Kammon tunnels which connected Honshu with Kyushu, would isolate the Japanese home islands from one another and fragment the enemy's base of operations. I believed that interdiction of the lines of transportation would be sufficiently effective so that additional bombing of urban industrial areas would not be necessary.
"While I was working on the new plan of air attack... concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945."
Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 36-37 (my emphasis)
~~~ALBERT EINSTEIN
Einstein was not directly involved in the Manhattan Project (which developed the atomic bomb). In 1905, as part of his Special Theory of Relativity, he made the intriguing point that a relatively large amount of energy was contained in and could be released from a relatively small amount of matter. This became best known by the equation E=mc2. The atomic bomb was not based upon this theory but clearly illustrated it.
In 1939 Einstein signed a letter to President Roosevelt that was drafted by the scientist Leo Szilard. Received by FDR in October of that year, the letter from Einstein called for and sparked the beginning of U.S. government support for a program to build an atomic bomb, lest the Nazis build one first.
Einstein did not speak publicly on the atomic bombing of Japan until a year afterward. A short article on the front page of the New York Times contained his view:
"Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate."
Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb, New York Times, 8/19/46, pg. 1.
____________________
“If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning.
http://www.covenantwithblackamerica.com
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
NomadaNare
Villager
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Thursday July 13th, 2006 17:31 |
|
TheDogon wrote: NomadaNare wrote: TheDogon wrote:
NN even I can make an entry into Wikipedia. I can modify it and claim that the U.S. bombed Hiroshima in 2007. But that won't make it fact.
Yeah, but the millions of people who visit the site and review the subjects will tell you that the U.S. didn't bomb Hiroshima in 2007. It's called peer review. Since this is the internet, everyone's a peer.
You act like people who are in public office always tell the truth. Of course (with the exception of Albert Einstein, he was always a peaceful and truthful person) none of them are going to say, "Yeah we shoulda bombed those Japs and Goddaminit I'm pleased as pie that we did" because they have an image to maintain.
Estimated casualties for Downfall Given the Japanese predilection for fanatical resistance, the fact that Japanese civilians were being encouraged to become suicide attackers, and the large number of Japanese troops to be faced, high casualties were seen to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes—which included advocating for and against the invasion—afterwards, they were reused to argue for and against the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Everybody based their estimates on the experience of the preceding campaigns, but they could draw different lessons:
In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by Gen. MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were questioned by Gen. Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.
In a conference with President Truman on 18 June, Marshall, taking Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. Leahy, more impressed by Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.
Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though in the Battle of Okinawa kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot, and the troop transports off Kyushu would be much more exposed.
A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.
Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000–1,000,000 fatalities, and were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."
For context, the Battle of Normandy had cost 63,000 casualties in the first 48 days. The Battle of Okinawa caused 72,000 casualties, of whom 18,900 were killed or missing over about 82 days . Several thousand soldiers who died indirectly whether because of wounds or other causes at a later date are not included. The entire war cost the United States a total of just over a million casualties, with 400,000 fatalities.
Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. As of 2005, all the American military casualties of the following sixty years—including the Korean and Vietnam Wars—have not exhausted that stockpile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
Again, Good ol Wiki...
Guess how many Americans were harmed in the atomic bombing of Japan? 0
or damn near close to 0. So which one was the better tactical decision? Remember this is war now...
____________________
You're very clever young man, very clever" said the old lady, "but it turtles all the way down." -Anonymous, to Sir Arthur Eddington
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
TheDogon
Villager
| Joined: | Thursday May 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 1605 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Thursday July 13th, 2006 18:01 |
|
NomadaNare wrote: TheDogon wrote: NomadaNare wrote: TheDogon wrote:
NN even I can make an entry into Wikipedia. I can modify it and claim that the U.S. bombed Hiroshima in 2007. But that won't make it fact.
Yeah, but the millions of people who visit the site and review the subjects will tell you that the U.S. didn't bomb Hiroshima in 2007. It's called peer review. Since this is the internet, everyone's a peer.
We had this discussion before. Billions can claim that the bombing was needed. That will not make it true. Here, you seem to agree that expertise is rather important because you cite that the "military" advised President Truman to take this action. Well, maybe high school history books say that. But the facts are written in biographies, autobiographies, articles, etc. from the period in time. The stuff I sent you, you can actually find at any bookstore. Dwight D. Eisenhower was the Supreme Commander of Allied Expeditionary forces at that time.
His "opinion" and "advice" is there in black and white.
The reasons for the bombing had much more to do with politics than anything else.
You act like people who are in public office always tell the truth.
????? President Truman didn't hold a public office?
Of course (with the exception of Albert Einstein, he was always a peaceful and truthful person) none of them are going to say, "Yeah we shoulda bombed those Japs and Goddaminit I'm pleased as pie that we did" because they have an image to maintain.
Er. . .there were dissenting opinions, NN. All you have to do is read up on the time period. The Secretary of War. Remember him? The stage for the cold war was set, President Truman and other members of the administration wanted to send a clear "message". In their view, it could not be sent by simply agreeing to the terms Japan wanted. It could not be sent by simply demonstrating the power of the bomb. We needed human beings in this experiment. And it was decided much earlier in the development of the bomb that the Japanese would be the lab rats.
Estimated casualties for Downfall Given the Japanese predilection for fanatical resistance, the fact that Japanese civilians were being encouraged to become suicide attackers, and the large number of Japanese troops to be faced, high casualties were seen to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes—which included advocating for and against the invasion—afterwards, they were reused to argue for and against the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Everybody based their estimates on the experience of the preceding campaigns, but they could draw different lessons:
In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by Gen. MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were questioned by Gen. Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.
In a conference with President Truman on 18 June, Marshall, taking Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. Leahy, more impressed by Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.
Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though in the Battle of Okinawa kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot, and the troop transports off Kyushu would be much more exposed.
A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.
Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000–1,000,000 fatalities, and were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."
For context, the Battle of Normandy had cost 63,000 casualties in the first 48 days. The Battle of Okinawa caused 72,000 casualties, of whom 18,900 were killed or missing over about 82 days . Several thousand soldiers who died indirectly whether because of wounds or other causes at a later date are not included. The entire war cost the United States a total of just over a million casualties, with 400,000 fatalities.
Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. As of 2005, all the American military casualties of the following sixty years—including the Korean and Vietnam Wars—have not exhausted that stockpile.
the atomic bombing of Japan? 0
or damn near close to 0. So which one was the better tactical decision? Remember this is war now...
Again, all of this has been debunked. Even a casual look at the recorded history shows, the Japanese would have surrendered.
____________________
“If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning.
http://www.covenantwithblackamerica.com
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
NomadaNare
Villager
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Thursday July 13th, 2006 19:09 |
|
TheDogon wrote: NomadaNare wrote: TheDogon wrote: NomadaNare wrote: TheDogon wrote:
We had this discussion before. Billions can claim that the bombing was needed. That will not make it true.
Even though billions of people are inevitably involved in the reviewing of the site, most of these billion these are not the people who take the time to edit the site. Let's be real here, You and I are not going to take the time to edit a Wikipedia article, not only because (well I can only speak for myself here) I don't care enough about World War II to edit a site about it, but also because I don't feel confident enough with the information I have to post something that millions of people will take as fact. So the question is, who edits these sites? History Buffs, Proffessors, and Historians. All of these people have definitely read more books than you and I could ever hope to even fathom reading. It's a bit like the theory of evolution, the factual parts continue and the good parts get taken out and after all of this distilled knowledge I'm pretty confident that most of whatever's on there is pretty accurate.
Here, you seem to agree that expertise is rather important because you cite that the "military" advised President Truman to take this action. Well, maybe high school history books say that. But the facts are written in biographies, autobiographies, articles, etc. from the period in time. The stuff I sent you, you can actually find at any bookstore. Dwight D. Eisenhower was the Supreme Commander of Allied Expeditionary forces at that time.
His "opinion" and "advice" is there in black and white.
I don't disagree with this...
The reasons for the bombing had much more to do with politics than anything else.
Disagree with this...
Of course it has to do with politics. It would be political suicide and very stupid to risk American lives when there's a better alternative. So, TheDogon how else would the US have stopped the war as quick and with no American casualties?
You act like people who are in public office always tell the truth.
????? President Truman didn't hold a public office?
Don't know what this has to do with anything...
Of course (with the exception of Albert Einstein, he was always a peaceful and truthful person) none of them are going to say, "Yeah we shoulda bombed those Japs and Goddaminit I'm pleased as pie that we did" because they have an image to maintain.
Er. . .there were dissenting opinions, NN. All you have to do is read up on the time period. The Secretary of War. Remember him? The stage for the cold war was set, President Truman and other members of the administration wanted to send a clear "message". In their view, it could not be sent by simply agreeing to the terms Japan wanted. It could not be sent by simply demonstrating the power of the bomb. We needed human beings in this experiment. And it was decided much earlier in the development of the bomb that the Japanese would be the lab rats.
And what book did this come from?
Estimated casualties for Downfall Given the Japanese predilection for fanatical resistance, the fact that Japanese civilians were being encouraged to become suicide attackers, and the large number of Japanese troops to be faced, high casualties were seen to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes—which included advocating for and against the invasion—afterwards, they were reused to argue for and against the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Everybody based their estimates on the experience of the preceding campaigns, but they could draw different lessons:
In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by Gen. MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were questioned by Gen. Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.
In a conference with President Truman on 18 June, Marshall, taking Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. Leahy, more impressed by Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.
Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though in the Battle of Okinawa kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot, and the troop transports off Kyushu would be much more exposed.
A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.
Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000–1,000,000 fatalities, and were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."
For context, the Battle of Normandy had cost 63,000 casualties in the first 48 days. The Battle of Okinawa caused 72,000 casualties, of whom 18,900 were killed or missing over about 82 days . Several thousand soldiers who died indirectly whether because of wounds or other causes at a later date are not included. The entire war cost the United States a total of just over a million casualties, with 400,000 fatalities.
Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. As of 2005, all the American military casualties of the following sixty years—including the Korean and Vietnam Wars—have not exhausted that stockpile.
the atomic bombing of Japan? 0
or damn near close to 0. So which one was the better tactical decision? Remember this is war now...
Again, all of this has been debunked. Even a casual look at the recorded history shows, the Japanese would have surrendered.
I would like to see this casual look...
____________________
You're very clever young man, very clever" said the old lady, "but it turtles all the way down." -Anonymous, to Sir Arthur Eddington
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
TheDogon
Villager
| Joined: | Thursday May 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 1605 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Thursday July 13th, 2006 20:42 |
|
NomadaNare wrote:
Even though billions of people are inevitably involved in the reviewing of the site, most of these billion these are not the people who take the time to edit the site. Let's be real here, You and I are not going to take the time to edit a Wikipedia article, not only because (well I can only speak for myself here) I don't care enough about World War II to edit a site about it, but also because I don't feel confident enough with the information I have to post something that millions of people will take as fact. So the question is, who edits these sites? History Buffs, Proffessors, and Historians. All of these people have definitely read more books than you and I could ever hope to even fathom reading. It's a bit like the theory of evolution, the factual parts continue and the good parts get taken out and after all of this distilled knowledge I'm pretty confident that most of whatever's on there is pretty accurate.
???? I have edited Wikipedia articles. I have edited articles on Race, Crime, and "White" supremacy. My handle is, "TheDogon". Right, let's be real. And to be "real", we have to understand how Wikipedia works. You went to that site and only posted the information that supports your view.
NN, why did you do that?
Disagree with this...
Of course it has to do with politics. It would be political suicide and very stupid to risk American lives when there's a better alternative. So, TheDogon how else would the US have stopped the war as quick and with no American casualties?
I am not sure what you are saying. Are you agreeing that this was because of politics and not because of some military goal? Or what?
But as I said and this is fact. . .the Japanese were ready to surrender before the bomb was dropped. Now do I have to pull more information for you. . .or?
Don't know what this has to do with anything...
Okay. You said that You act like people who are in public office always tell the truth.
And I responded with ????? President Truman didn't hold a public office?
Maybe. . .just maybe, I am saying that President Truman can lie also.
And what book did this come from?
I thought I posted it? I am quite sure I did. Maybe you ought to scan back and click on a picture of a book in one of my posts.
Again, all of this has been debunked. Even a casual look at the recorded history shows, the Japanese would have surrendered.
I would like to see this casual look...
Try your local library.
A Secret Memorandum
It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.
In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)
This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:
- Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
- Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
- Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
- Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
- Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
- Surrender of designated war criminals.
Is this memorandum authentic? It was supposedly leaked to Trohan by Admiral William D. Leahy, presidential Chief of Staff. (See: M. Rothbard in A. Goddard, ed., Harry Elmer Barnes: Learned Crusader [1968], pp. 327f.) Historian Harry Elmer Barnes has related (in "Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe," National Review, May 10, 1958):
The authenticity of the Trohan article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification.
____________________
“If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning.
http://www.covenantwithblackamerica.com
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
101stAirborne
Villager
| Joined: | Thursday February 17th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1126 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
| | | | |
