Fr Miscamble defending atomic bomb

[Sarcelle]

I had the chance to visit the Kwai bridge in Thailand which was built by British POWs and enslaved civilians.

It was a long time ago and I vaguely remember seeing some pictures of the suffering that took place there.

 

[BlueMaxx]

I was in Thailand in the mid eighties but we were doing “stuff” up on the border…right around the time Pol Pot “retired” and the Vietnamese had launched a devastating attack on the Khmer Rouge.

That was an era of brutal civilian deaths…seriously wholesale murder…the Killing Fields is a whole n’other chapter of war…

 

[Maxirad]

Declassified 1945 Documents Regarding Nuclear Strikes

Collection of "behind-the-scenes" declassified documents from 1945 that reveal the discussions at the highest level of American government, concerning nuclear strikes.

www.patheos.com

 

[GKMotley]

Real history. With the exception of the letter to Mr. Murray, nothing here I haven’t seen in the standard historical treatments, from both sides.

 

[Canvas]

Real history. With the exception of the letter to Mr. Murray, nothing here I haven’t seen in the standard historical treatments, from both sides.

Yes. I have also noticed that Truman really may have seemed to think that Hiroshima was a mainly a military target (it was a major military center) until after the bombing. His 7/25/1945 diary entry:

The weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children.

He [Stimson] and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement [known as the Potsdam Proclamation] asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I’m sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance.

Statement of 08/06/1945

Sixteen hours ago an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese Army base.

And his 08/09/1945 address:

The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base.

^ It should be noted that in his earlier drafts, he called Hiroshima a “purely military base.”

I think Truman was not fully aware of the nature of Hiroshima as a city with a heavy military presence, not a major military facility. I don’t even know for sure that he was aware that the USAAF was going to drop a second bomb as early as August 9, and I believe he ordered a halt to all further a-bomb attacks on August 10 (at least that was what Henry Wallace wrote at the time).

 

[AlNg]

It’s behind a pay wall.

No. It works just fine.

The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It

Seventy years after the bombing, will Americans face the brutal truth?

www.thenation.com

But I know what it is. It’s about Walter Trohan.

How do you know what it is if you did not read it.

it’s unmitigated bushwa.

Without reading it, you make this uninformed comment.
It mentions several others.

“The use of this barbarous weapon…was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.” —Adm. William Leahy, Truman’s Chief of Staff

Amateurs turn it up every now and then

I don’t believe that Adm. William Leahy, Truman’s Chief of Staff
was an amateur.

it’s unmitigated bushwa

The only bushwa is coming from you who didn’t even read the article.
"The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.… in being the first to use it, we…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.” Adm Leahy
"Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that “the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan…”
“Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.””

So we are supposed to believe that General Curtis LeMay, Adm. Chester Nimitz and Adm Leahy are talking “unmitigated bushwa” whereas you are not??

Reading history helps

Why not read the following:

The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb​

by Gar Alperovitz

 

[GKMotley]

Truman’s orders were that the bombs would be dropped, as they were ready, assuming no surrender. He did put a hold on the 3rd, to wait for reaction. And Marshall also wanted all subsequently produced bombs held, for use on Kyushu.

Hiroshima was a quite important military base, with the highest military to civilian ratio in the Islands, and also the port of departure for troops going to Kyushu. But the idea of being able, with any bomb mission, to avoid a mass targeting, as opposed to some sort of precision bombing, in Japan, had long been discarded.

 

[Larry1700]

That’s good to know. Thanks for the info.

 

[GKMotley]

Not for me it doesn’t.

My reference to Trohan was because of the para at the end of your post. That is Trohan’s 19 August article being discussed. That is bushwa.

As to the quotes, yes, I’ve read them many times. Leahy’s most often cited quote is from his autobio. And he expressed similar thoughts in a post war article. He had sincere moral scruples against the bomb, but made no argument against it during the war. He did make the odd claim that it would notwork, based on his Navy expertise in explosives, before the Trinity test.

Nimitz’ comment is technically correct, since Japan was defeated before they were used. What they achieved was the surrender of Japan. When he was first briefed on the bomb, in Feb, he asked can’t we get one sooner. And had also advocated the use of the third bomb, on Tokyo, if needed. LeMay’s comments were similar. And, as an argument for not using the bombs, they are worthless. They would have had to be raised before the decision was made to use them. For all such post hoc quotes, and others, see Maddox/WEAPONS FOR VICTORY, and the first chap. of HIROSHIMA IN HISTORY, edited by him.

No, but what you might do is become a little more educated in the context of the history.

As to Alperovitz, do you really think that having been accumulating books on this subject for around 25 years, I wouldn’t have the dean and doyen of revisionists on the shelf. That would include Book 1,Part VI, of course.

Wouldn’t mind reading your link. Can’t.

 

[Larry1700]

This is very interesting. Thanks for posting the link, Maxirad.

Here’s an excerpt I found, which I thought it would be a good idea to post:

—BEGINNING OF QUOTE—
7/25/45 Diary Entry:

We met at 11 A.M. today. That is Stalin, Churchill and the U.S. President. But I had a most important session with Lord Mountbattan & General Marshall before than. We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.

Anyway we ‘think’ we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexican desert was startling – to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused the complete disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high, created a crater 6 feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower 1/2 mile away and knocked men down 10,000 yards away. The explosion was visible for more than 200 miles and audible for 40 miles and more.

The weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new [Kyoto or Tokyo].

He [Stimson] and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement [known as the Potsdam Proclamation] asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I’m sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler’s crowd or Stalin’s did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.

8-9-45 public statement:

The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base.
—END QUOTE—

 

[AlNg]

Not for me it doesn’t.

It works for me. Anyway you can look up the article in the library.

.((a quote))…we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb

The dropping of the atomic bomb set a bad precedent. In a future war, any country can now feel justified in using the rationale that they are using an atomic bomb to save lives. This puts millions of innocent people and children in danger of immediate death by incineration or of a prolonged life of agony and pain due to radiation damage.
IMHO, this is not a good thing.

 

[Larry1700]

I’ve seen the documentaries about WWII (in Europe and the Pacific), Vietnam, and another one or two wars. With non-nuclear weapons, the war drags on for years, and many people lose their lives and limbs during horrible face-to-face battles.

War is terrible, whether nuclear or not. I can’t say one is “preferable” to the other. I’m glad I’m not the one having to make decisions about how to win them.

 

[AlNg]

I’m glad I’m not the one having to make decisions about how to win them.

I think it is better to focus one’s efforts on how to avoid war, not so much how to win a war.

With non-nuclear weapons, the war drags on for years

And what is the sense of dragging on for years in Afghanistan? Wasn’t Reagan in favor of the Afghan freedom fighters who are now are enemies? What was the sense of the Vietnam war? The communists won anyway. And in an atomic war, how many bombs and how many millions of children will have to be killed before a surrender? In the meantime, the earth will be polluted by deadly radiation which will mean a slow and agonizing death for millions more. But as more and more countries develop nuclear weapons an atomic war becomes more likely. The precedent for atomic war has been set by the Americans who were the first to use the atomic bomb, claiming that it saved lives. Censorship does not allow me to say too much more.

 

[Larry1700]

I certainly agree, but sometimes war is (virtually) unavoidable.

 

[AlNg]

I certainly agree, but sometimes war is (virtually) unavoidable.

That can be a serious problem if atomic bombs are used again. First of all, the nuclear bombs today are 3000 times more powerful than the one used against Japan. So even if you are not one of those millions immediately incinerated by the blast, you are likely to suffer from radiation poisoning, even if you are within a relatively reasonable distance from the blast. You can suffer massive internal bleeding of the nose, the stomach and the rectum. You could lose several liters of bodily fluids every day and your body will lose its ability to generate blood cells and platelets leading to organ failure. you may have uncontrollable vomiting. You may start to shake violently. Your whole body may start to swell and small red blood spots will appear all over your face and body and you become delirious, losing your mind and your mental facilities as you become demented from the radiation poisoning which has taken over your body.
It was a huge mistake to set such a bad precedent and use the atomic bomb against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With the internet, the advances of scientific and engineering knowledge, it becomes more likely that a small country could use the bomb. There has been speculation that Israel could use an atomic bomb.

3 Reasons Israel Would Start a Nuclear War

As scary as this sounds—and unlikely—it is possible.

nationalinterest.org

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180831-israel-threatens-to-use-nuclear-weapons-to-wipe-out-its-enemies/

Israel ready to use nuclear weapons against Iran: Israeli expert: EADaily

The situation in the Middle East is increasingly tense. More and more countries are actively involved in the Syrian conflict: this is Israel, and Russia, and Turkey, and Iran, etc. What threats can you see for the region from recent developments? February 14th, 2018. EADaily

eadaily.com

 

[Larry1700]

I’m not an advocate of nuclear war, nor conventional war for that matter.

Based on your posts, I take it that you’re not a fan of America or Israel, so perhaps we should end our dialogue here.

 

[AlNg]

I take it that you’re not a fan of America or Israel

I am not a fan of atomic weapons. As I see it, their use will result in the horrific deaths and prolonged poisoning of tens of millions of innocent people. i have many friends in the USA and in Israel. That does not mean that I agree with the political opinions of some of their leaders.

 

[Larry1700]

Regarding your previous post about Afghanistan, I wonder how many Afghanis died in all the various wars and tribal conflicts before the United States got there?

I strongly believe we were justified going to Afghanistan (and anywhere else that terrorists came from), but my support for “nation building” has been waning over the years.

 

[AlNg]

I strongly believe we were justified going to Afghanistan (and anywhere else that terrorists came from),

Are we on the same side now as we were when Reagan was President? The terrorists today, were called freedom fighters then? Didn’t Reagan back the “freedom fighters” (i.e. today’s terrorists)? At that time the “freedom fighters” were the Mujahideen, but did they not become the Taliban or at least part of the Taliban ten years later?

 

[Rob2]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)