What you are doing, is changing the subject. I am trying to keep the history strait. Bombing of Japan was an atrocity, a war crime, and two war crimes don't make things right again. Bombing of Japan was as "necessary" as the bombing of Dresden by the Western allies.
Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a revenge by the American military for the humiliation of Pearl Harbor as well as bombing of Dresden was a revenge by the British military for Luftwaffe attacks on London. In both cases these operations didn't make much sense militarily but rather were acts of intimidation and retaliation.
Japanese war machine was based on raw materials and financing provided to it by USA right before WWII (from Oliver Stones history documentaries). You reap what you saw. Also, I've read arguments that Pearl Harbour was a staged false flag.
Wow.. Just wow.
Frankly I do not think you have a clue regarding military strategy, as evidenced by projection concepts such as this or that military action was done as an act of intimidation or retaliation.
And you say that I'm changing the subject? Well, whatever.
Yes, you changed the subject, I followed your lead. What "projection concepts" are you talking about?
You want military strategy, how about this quote (back to subject):
Quote
The most authoritative Air Force unit during World War II was the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, which selected targets on the basis of need, and which analyzed the results for future missions. In Hiroshima’s Shadow, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey report of July 1, 1946 states, “The Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the lord privy seal, the prime minister, the foreign minister, and the navy minister had decided as early as May 1945 that the war should be ended even if it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms…. It is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to December 1, 1945 and in all probability prior to November 1, 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”
Quote
One of the most vociferous critics of the atomic bombings was David Lawrence, founder and editor of U.S. News and World Report. He signed a number of stinging editorials, the first on August 17, 1945.
“Military necessity will be our constant cry in answer to criticism, but it will never erase from our minds the simple truth, that we, of all civilized nations, though hesitating to use poison gas, did not hesitate to employ the most destructive weapon of all times indiscriminately against men, women and children.” On October 5, Lawrence continued his attack, “The United States should be the first to condemn the atomic bomb and apologize for its use against Japan. Spokesmen for the Army Air Forces said it wasn’t necessary and that the war had been won already. Competent testimony exists to prove that Japan was seeking to surrender many weeks before the atomic bomb came.” On November 23, Lawrence wrote, “The truth is we are guilty. Our conscience as a nation must trouble us. We must confess our sin. We have used a horrible weapon to asphyxiate and cremate more than 100,000 men, women and children in a sort of super-lethal gas chamber— and all this in a war already won or which spokesman for our Air Forces tell us we could have readily won without the atomic bomb. We ought, therefore, to apologize in unequivocal terms at once to the whole world for our misuse of the atomic bomb.”
David Lawrence was an avowed conservative, a successful businessman, who knew eleven presidents of the United States intimately, and was awarded the Medal of Freedom by President Richard M. Nixon, April 22, 1970.
“Military necessity will be our constant cry in answer to criticism, but it will never erase from our minds the simple truth, that we, of all civilized nations, though hesitating to use poison gas, did not hesitate to employ the most destructive weapon of all times indiscriminately against men, women and children.” On October 5, Lawrence continued his attack, “The United States should be the first to condemn the atomic bomb and apologize for its use against Japan. Spokesmen for the Army Air Forces said it wasn’t necessary and that the war had been won already. Competent testimony exists to prove that Japan was seeking to surrender many weeks before the atomic bomb came.” On November 23, Lawrence wrote, “The truth is we are guilty. Our conscience as a nation must trouble us. We must confess our sin. We have used a horrible weapon to asphyxiate and cremate more than 100,000 men, women and children in a sort of super-lethal gas chamber— and all this in a war already won or which spokesman for our Air Forces tell us we could have readily won without the atomic bomb. We ought, therefore, to apologize in unequivocal terms at once to the whole world for our misuse of the atomic bomb.”
David Lawrence was an avowed conservative, a successful businessman, who knew eleven presidents of the United States intimately, and was awarded the Medal of Freedom by President Richard M. Nixon, April 22, 1970.
Also, you accused me of some "preferred narrative" or something. Wouldn't it be better if you talked about a more impersonal and scientific term of "theory". The Official theory does not hold, as seen from multiple evidences. A theory that I viewed as the most fact-supported until now was that USA dropped the A-bombs on Japan so as to prevent Japan from capitulating to the advancing Soviet troops. But in light of the evidence presented in this article (cities spared fire-bombimg and designated for A-bombing), I see that the "Soviet-prevention" theory is too weak and that A-bomb test subject" theory has more weight.
NO.
Your sources are not credible. They exist in a small circle of self referential Internet conspiracy sites and nowhere else. You then attempt to draw conclusions from this flawed group of sources...
I actually can't let this slip...
You are trying to disprove me by using a variation on the Ad Hominem logical fallacy. Using your "logic", everything that comes from Fox News or BBC is an absolute and indisputable truth. You never actually addressed the issues raised in the OP article, but rather attacked the medium, where these issues were given a space for expression.
The article is very specific, which core sources it uses. So, in you opinion the following sources are flawed:
- U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey
- Mahatma Gandhi
- World Court (THE COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE) on request by The General Assembly of the United Nations
And as the closing quotes from the article:
Quote
THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF NUCLEAR WARFARE
Because Japan was occupied by the U.S. Military in 1945, the Japanese Government was never allowed any opportunity to file any legal charges about the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although Japanese leaders were tried and executed for “war crimes” no one was ever charged for the atomic bombings. It was not until 1996 that the World Court delivered an opinion on the use of nuclear weapons, (p.565, Hiroshima’s Shadows) “In July 1996, the World court took a stand in its first formal opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons. Two years earlier, the United Nations had asked the Court for an advisory opinion. The General Assembly of the United Nations posed a single, yet profoundly basic, question for consideration. It the threat of use of nuclear weapons on any circumstances permitted under international law? For the first time, the world’s pre-eminent judicial authority has considered the question of criminality vis-a-vis the use of a nuclear weapon, and, in doing so, it has come to the conclusion that the use of a nuclear weapon is ‘unlawful’. It is also the Court’s view that even the threat of the use of a nuclear weapon is illegal. Although there were differences concerning the implications of the right of self-defense provided by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, ten of the fourteen judges hearing the case found the use of threat to use a nuclear weapon to be illegal on the basis of the existing canon of humanitarian law which governs the conduct of armed conflict. The judges based their opinion on more than a century of treatise and conventions that are collectively known as the ‘Hague’ and ‘Geneva’ laws.”
Thus the Court ruled that nuclear weapons are illegal under the Hague and Geneva conventions , agreements which were in existence at the time of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. They were illegal then, and they are illegal now.
GANDHI SPEAKS
Among world leaders who spoke out about the United States’ use of atomic weapons in Japan, Mahatma Gandhi echoed the general climate of opinion. P.258, Hiroshima’s Shadow: “The atomic bomb has deadened the finest feelings which have sustained mankind for ages. There used to be so-called laws of war which made it tolerable. Now we understand the naked truth. War knows no law except that of might. The atomic bomb brought an empty victory to the Allied armies. It has resulted for the time being in the soul of Japan being destroyed. What has happened to the soul of the destroying nation is yet too early to see. Truth needs to be repeated as long as there are men who do not believe it.”
Because Japan was occupied by the U.S. Military in 1945, the Japanese Government was never allowed any opportunity to file any legal charges about the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although Japanese leaders were tried and executed for “war crimes” no one was ever charged for the atomic bombings. It was not until 1996 that the World Court delivered an opinion on the use of nuclear weapons, (p.565, Hiroshima’s Shadows) “In July 1996, the World court took a stand in its first formal opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons. Two years earlier, the United Nations had asked the Court for an advisory opinion. The General Assembly of the United Nations posed a single, yet profoundly basic, question for consideration. It the threat of use of nuclear weapons on any circumstances permitted under international law? For the first time, the world’s pre-eminent judicial authority has considered the question of criminality vis-a-vis the use of a nuclear weapon, and, in doing so, it has come to the conclusion that the use of a nuclear weapon is ‘unlawful’. It is also the Court’s view that even the threat of the use of a nuclear weapon is illegal. Although there were differences concerning the implications of the right of self-defense provided by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, ten of the fourteen judges hearing the case found the use of threat to use a nuclear weapon to be illegal on the basis of the existing canon of humanitarian law which governs the conduct of armed conflict. The judges based their opinion on more than a century of treatise and conventions that are collectively known as the ‘Hague’ and ‘Geneva’ laws.”
Thus the Court ruled that nuclear weapons are illegal under the Hague and Geneva conventions , agreements which were in existence at the time of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. They were illegal then, and they are illegal now.
GANDHI SPEAKS
Among world leaders who spoke out about the United States’ use of atomic weapons in Japan, Mahatma Gandhi echoed the general climate of opinion. P.258, Hiroshima’s Shadow: “The atomic bomb has deadened the finest feelings which have sustained mankind for ages. There used to be so-called laws of war which made it tolerable. Now we understand the naked truth. War knows no law except that of might. The atomic bomb brought an empty victory to the Allied armies. It has resulted for the time being in the soul of Japan being destroyed. What has happened to the soul of the destroying nation is yet too early to see. Truth needs to be repeated as long as there are men who do not believe it.”
[/quote
These "sources" are simply opinions. They are not facts. When they are presented as facts that is mis representation.
For example, consider the following.
David Lawrence was strongly against the atomic bomb, but nobody ever cared about his thought son the matter. Gandi too, was against it. But what else would you expect from Gandi? And the World Court issued a ruling on the matter in 1996. But nobody ever pays any attention to the World Court, it's pretty much a farce.
This places these various opinions in a broader context.
