General Discussion

Ms. Toad

(34,123 posts)

36. I read your point. It was precisely what I was replyitng to.

Sun Aug 6, 2017, 11:47 PM

Aug 2017

Your minimization of the human damage we chose to inflict is offensivef, as is the dehumanization of the victime. If you believe it was necesssary, own the reality of our choice.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

119 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Was there a third atomic bomb? [View all] roamer65 Aug 2017 OP

"You have a possibility of seven, with a good chance of using them... " PoliticAverse Aug 2017 #1

Yup. Scary isn't it. roamer65 Aug 2017 #6

There should never have been one malaise Aug 2017 #2

We can't change history, malaise. roamer65 Aug 2017 #5

Yes we do malaise Aug 2017 #23

Cat... let me introduce you to Bag. Adrahil Aug 2017 #7

Absolutely correct. roamer65 Aug 2017 #9

And I can safely predict we will do very little on each. NutmegYankee Aug 2017 #37

Sad to say, I agree. roamer65 Aug 2017 #38

Climate change and nuclear energy are intimately connected. If we abandon nuclear energy... NNadir Aug 2017 #42

Nuclear energy, as it exists in nuclear fission plants Warpy Aug 2017 #48

Especially when we meltdown obsolete reactors loaded with MOX fuel. roamer65 Aug 2017 #50

Bullshit. This tiresome crap was clearly insane 20 years ago, but as things are now, it's worse. NNadir Aug 2017 #55

New architecture beats all of them. nt fleabiscuit Aug 2017 #56

How? hunter Aug 2017 #84

Great post hueymahl Aug 2017 #101

Thank you for your kind words. NNadir Aug 2017 #115

The projections for an invasion of Japan would have been carnage LittleBlue Aug 2017 #51

+ millions Foamfollower Aug 2017 #53

Every World War II military leader disagrees with you Jim Lane Aug 2017 #63

"Every WWII military leader"? Really? EX500rider Aug 2017 #82

You want evidence? I've got evidence. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #90

The quotes in that article are not persuasive stevenleser Aug 2017 #112

I specifically distinguished the concepts you say I'm conflating. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #114

A blockade however, could have been both efficient and effective as per Tsuyoshi Hasegawa LanternWaste Aug 2017 #73

The blockade was very effective LittleBlue Aug 2017 #75

And would have killed many more civilians than the atomic bombs hack89 Aug 2017 #98

And yet somehow causing the deaths of children through induced famine is a morally superior Marengo Aug 2017 #104

It's the time factor. More moral to spread the deaths out hack89 Aug 2017 #105

I love the Annual fight over the use of nukes. NutmegYankee Aug 2017 #3

Yup. It's a DU tradition. roamer65 Aug 2017 #4

It wasn't a fair fight. Igel Aug 2017 #8

Here's some important history they didn't tell you about in school Jim Lane Aug 2017 #64

Ive often wondered Eko Aug 2017 #10

Robert Oppenheimer wanted a test in the Pacific with Japanese emissaries as witnesses. roamer65 Aug 2017 #12

Huh, Eko Aug 2017 #14

Np. I love history. roamer65 Aug 2017 #20

Me too. Eko Aug 2017 #22

That is not even remotely true. Only a small subset of Manhattan Project scientists, not... NNadir Aug 2017 #44

My mistake. It was the Chicago group that suggested it. roamer65 Aug 2017 #46

Oppenheimer was a very complex and deep man, Truman less so, but in my opinion... NNadir Aug 2017 #52

My concern is yours. roamer65 Aug 2017 #54

Exactly what we should have done. A deserted island would have been better. Hoyt Aug 2017 #13

I agree, but I think maybe the Soviet invasion of Manchuria... roamer65 Aug 2017 #17

It wouldn't have worked. Kentonio Aug 2017 #59

They were surrounded and beaten. Not like they were going to attack us at that point. Hoyt Aug 2017 #61

People (including many allied POWs) were dying in large numbers every day Kentonio Aug 2017 #65

I'll trust scholars like H Zinn. Truthfully, I think it had a lot to do with we were bombing Asians Hoyt Aug 2017 #70

Claiming that Japan tried to surrender is pure revisonism Kentonio Aug 2017 #76

Maybe you need to brush up on your high school history. Hoyt Aug 2017 #81

That is complete and total bullshit Kentonio Aug 2017 #93

Ha. What do you call rationalizing the destruction of 150,000 innocent women and children? Hoyt Aug 2017 #95

At that time that's exactly what they were forced to do. Kentonio Aug 2017 #96

Forced to do? At that point, Japan was about as much a threat to us as Vietnam and Iraq. Hoyt Aug 2017 #97

The Japanese were holding an estimated 125,000 prisoners when they surrendered. Kentonio Aug 2017 #99

What about the thousands of innocents dying every day in Japanese occupied countries hack89 Aug 2017 #100

Would we not have used a nuke on Germany if any were available prior to the surrender? Marengo Aug 2017 #106

Doubt it. We didn't round them up in mass and intern them like Asians either. Hoyt Aug 2017 #109

According to General Groves, President Roosevelt expressed a desire to do so shortly before Yalta. Marengo Aug 2017 #110

So it's OK for Roosevelt to have a desire, but you won't accept the Japanese were beaten Hoyt Aug 2017 #113

Apparently you don't understand. According to General Groves, FDR, being alarmed by the German... Marengo Aug 2017 #117

I understand completely. People who are into guns are also into nuking people like Japanese women Hoyt Aug 2017 #118

That doesn't answer any of my questions to you, how about you try again? In your own words... Marengo Aug 2017 #119

And yet the tonnage of the aerial bombs US forces dropped on Germany was far greater than Japan Marengo Aug 2017 #111

3.4 million Japanese military personnel in the occupied territories at the time of surrender. Marengo Aug 2017 #107

Approximately 3.4 million Japanese military personnel in the occupied territories at the time... Marengo Aug 2017 #67

I'm arguing we had the most destructive weapon ever and were itching to use it. Just like Hoyt Aug 2017 #69

Those who arguably suffered the most from Japanese aggression, the Chinese, have little... Marengo Aug 2017 #71

200,000 largely civilians - many of whom were children, killed or injured directly by the bomb Ms. Toad Aug 2017 #27

They then changed it again. roamer65 Aug 2017 #29

The fight over an island the size of 10 Washington DC's cost about that many lives. NutmegYankee Aug 2017 #30

I am suggesting you are minimizing the human damage we chose to inflict. Ms. Toad Aug 2017 #32

My reference to monsters refers to the national downplaying of Japan to it's wartime atrocities. NutmegYankee Aug 2017 #33

My point is, you are minimizing, and dehumaninzing the damage we chose to inflict. Ms. Toad Aug 2017 #34

And it appears you never read my original point. NutmegYankee Aug 2017 #35

I read your point. It was precisely what I was replyitng to. Ms. Toad Aug 2017 #36

No you did not understand my point. NutmegYankee Aug 2017 #40

Discussing this with my WWII era parents is always interesting nini Aug 2017 #28

I only argue with the second bomb Yupster Aug 2017 #45

To be fair to them, every day meant thousands more casualties. Kentonio Aug 2017 #60

Also, they didn't surrender after the first one Warpy Aug 2017 #49

First bomb dropped on Aug 6 Yupster Aug 2017 #58

Those bombs saved my fathers life HAB911 Aug 2017 #68

Same thing my mom has told me over and over nini Aug 2017 #79

My dear departed dad, a Purple Heart recipient and spent four years PCIntern Aug 2017 #91

We go berserk every time some country wants a nuke, yet we are the only country vile Hoyt Aug 2017 #11

Then I guess only "vile" countries want them Dreamer Tatum Aug 2017 #15

We darn sure would not have invaded Iraq and butchered thousands if they had nukes. Hoyt Aug 2017 #16

Then you must be agog over N Korea's nukes Dreamer Tatum Aug 2017 #18

Quit reading by pointing at one word at a time. Not "agog" at it, but don't think Hoyt Aug 2017 #21

"assuming they even can" ?? EX500rider Aug 2017 #39

They can't launch them. Terror, Terror, Terror. Hoyt Aug 2017 #62

Yet is the key word there... EX500rider Aug 2017 #77

Christ, sounds like you -- like Trump -- are promoting war. Sorry, I'd call it another Iraq, but NK Hoyt Aug 2017 #78

Pointing out that NK is working towards a working nuke.. EX500rider Aug 2017 #80

Iraq had no military or WMD's. That's why bush invaded Iraq and why countries like NK want nukes. Hoyt Aug 2017 #83

Iraq had quite a big military... EX500rider Aug 2017 #85

BS, no air force, no navy, and an army that went home. Plus, no weapons. Hoyt Aug 2017 #86

Pointing out facts, I know, what's with that?! lol EX500rider Aug 2017 #87

Geez, my small state has an air force bigger than that. And not a one of the few planes Iraq had, Hoyt Aug 2017 #89

Yep malaise Aug 2017 #24

Add in the threat of Trump and those like him, and every country will want nukes. Hoyt Aug 2017 #25

Isn't that the truth malaise Aug 2017 #26

You get China,Russia,Pakistan,India,France,UK,NK,Israel.. EX500rider Aug 2017 #41

By 1950 the U.S.A. had 120 "Fat Man" type bombs... hunter Aug 2017 #19

Both Germany and Japan were working on atomic bombs -- eppur_se_muova Aug 2017 #31

Neither program was even remotely close to success. n/t NNadir Aug 2017 #43

Yes, but how could the allies have known that? hueymahl Aug 2017 #102

They couldn't and they didn't. They were surprised by both programs. NNadir Aug 2017 #116

Thank you, it's conforting to know this. Foamfollower Aug 2017 #47

So Sad DarthDem Aug 2017 #57

Ahhh the wonders of 20/20 hindsight dembotoz Aug 2017 #66

There were 120 Fat-Man type bombs by 1950. hunter Aug 2017 #72

So much history will never be taught dembotoz Aug 2017 #74

I remember reading once that MacArthur wanted to use some of them in Korea. roamer65 Aug 2017 #88

You say 'obviously' but they actually came much closer to being used than people think. Kentonio Aug 2017 #94

PBS Documentary: "The Bomb" moondust Aug 2017 #92

He had a chance to surrender before the second Blue_Tires Aug 2017 #103

No sympathy for the Japanese from me. Ever. nt LexVegas Aug 2017 #108