Iran passes redline, has enough U235 for Bomb

You just argued that Japan would have surrendered if given the oppurtunity, which they were and they did not surrender.

Click to expand...

No, they had no intent on unconditionally surrendering; they were more than willing to surrender if one could be negotiated, which owing to their conditions would not have been hard at all.

Now your arguing they didn't want unconditional surrender

Click to expand...

This is always what I've been arguing.

show me one gesture they made to try and negotiate...

Click to expand...

On 12 July--the day after advising Ambassador Sato [sic] of Japan's desire to "make use of Russia in ending the war"--Foreign Minister Togo dispatched the following additional message on the subject, labelled "very urgent":

...

"His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland. His majesty is deeply reluctant to have any further blood lost among the people on both sides, and it is his desire for the welfare of all humanity to restore peace with all possible speed.

"The emperor's will, as expressed above, arises not only from his benevolence toward his own subjects but from his concern for the welfare of humanity in general. It is the Emperor's private intention to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a Special Envoy with a letter from him containing the statements given above. Please inform Molotov of this and get the Russians' consent to having the party enter the country...

"Magic"-Diplomatic Summary - 13 July 1945
Ultra Top Secret - Declassified 7/20/05

Click to expand...

It goes on.

You also claimed an invasion would not have been costly, utter nonsense.

Click to expand...

I never said that.

It's all the same with commies, history is whatever fits your view of it. It doesn't matter what really happened, everything is distorted so it's aligned with your ideaology. F***ing reds....

Click to expand...

:rofl

This is hilarious given the fact that it is you that is attempting to not only distort history, but what the person with which you are debating has said as well. And you're doing even a bad job at that. Try to be more subtle; maybe nobody will notice next time.:2wave:

Khayembii Communique said:

No, they had no intent on unconditionally surrendering; they were more than willing to surrender if one could be negotiated, which owing to their conditions would not have been hard at all.



This is always what I've been arguing.





It goes on.



I never said that.



:rofl

This is hilarious given the fact that it is you that is attempting to not only distort history, but what the person with which you are debating has said as well. And you're doing even a bad job at that. Try to be more subtle; maybe nobody will notice next time.:2wave:

Click to expand...

Try to be more subtle? Good one...

To begin with, the gesture was to the emperor, not the Allies. But going past that, Togo did not run the show by any means. And I've already stated that the Supreme War Council(which didn't include Togo) was divided, and that is why the decision ultimately went to the Emperor instead of War Prime Minister Tojo.


Tojo's notes reveal unwillingness to surrender

"Wartime Prime Minister Gen. Hideki Tojo didn't want Japan to accept the Potsdam Declaration demanding unconditional surrender to the Allies, according to his private notes written immediately after the atomic bombings and found recently at the National Archives of Japan.

In the two weeks' worth of memos starting Aug. 10, 1945, Tojo accused the government of being "frightened by new types of bombs and scared of the Soviet Union's entry into the war" in the Pacific theater.

"The Japanese government has accepted the notion that Japan is the loser and it appears to be going to accept unconditional surrender," Tojo wrote.

Click to expand...

I didn't know they were fussing so much about unconditional surrender, as if negotiated surrender would be much different... How would the US have known this?


But the fact remains that the bombings saved lives, that is, any alternative course of action would have resulted in even greater loss of life. Therefore, Truman is justified in his decision to nuke Japan, as it was a war and the decision had been made in the military to use "the full application of [Ally] military power,". General Marshall had estimated it would cost at least half a million lives if the Allies were to invade the United States, and that's excluding the huge loss of Japanese life that would be inevitable. In the end, why should the US have assumed Japan wanted to surrender? Look at my comment I made in response to some other dude, I do not want to write it all over again.

I've heard the arguement that Japan wished to use the USSR as an intermediary, if you know much about that elaborate... I want to hear a legitimate argument from you, if you are right then I will change my opinion. I'm not ignorant like a commie or something like that :lol:

To begin with, the gesture was to the emperor, not the Allies.

Click to expand...

The gesture was from the emperor to the USSR, which was a member of the Allied coalition.

But going past that, Togo did not run the show by any means.

Click to expand...

I never claimed he did. As has already been stated, this was being relayed through Togo from the Emperor.

And I've already stated that the Supreme War Council(which didn't include Togo) was divided, and that is why the decision ultimately went to the Emperor instead of War Prime Minister Tojo.

Click to expand...

Again, why you are stating these obvious facts is beyond me, as I am not disagreeing with them but in fact am acknowledging them.

Tojo's notes reveal unwillingness to surrender

"Wartime Prime Minister Gen. Hideki Tojo didn't want Japan to accept the Potsdam Declaration demanding unconditional surrender to the Allies, according to his private notes written immediately after the atomic bombings and found recently at the National Archives of Japan.

In the two weeks' worth of memos starting Aug. 10, 1945, Tojo accused the government of being "frightened by new types of bombs and scared of the Soviet Union's entry into the war" in the Pacific theater.

"The Japanese government has accepted the notion that Japan is the loser and it appears to be going to accept unconditional surrender," Tojo wrote.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Again, you're repeating what I've already stated and acknowledged. I have never argued that unconditional surrender was an option. Moreover, I'm confused as to why you're even quoting this, as you yourself earlier stated that Togo wasn't in charge. What Togo actually thought is irrelevant.

I didn't know they were fussing so much about unconditional surrender, as if negotiated surrender would be much different... How would the US have known this?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're saying here, due to the poor wording of these sentences. How did you not know they were fussing so much about unconditional surrender? I've been saying in all of my posts that they would not accept it.

How would the US have known what? That the Japanese were willing to negotiate the terms of surrender? Why would you even think they wouldn't know?

But the fact remains that the bombings saved lives

Click to expand...

You have no possible way of substantiating this at all. What we do know for a fact, though, is that the bombings ended hundreds of thousands of lives.

that is, any alternative course of action would have resulted in even greater loss of life.

Click to expand...

Except surrender, which is what we are discussing.

In the end, why should the US have assumed Japan wanted to surrender? Look at my comment I made in response to some other dude, I do not want to write it all over again.

I've heard the arguement that Japan wished to use the USSR as an intermediary, if you know much about that elaborate... I want to hear a legitimate argument from you, if you are right then I will change my opinion. I'm not ignorant like a commie or something like that

Click to expand...

Why should I care if you change your views? It is of no importance to me whether or not you agree with me. I am interested in the development of my views; if you were actually offering up intelligent, productive debate then I would be more than happy to continue this discussion.

However, it is clear by the tone of your posts, by your purposeful distortion and ignorance of what I have said and in the end making such a ridiculous claim as to how the US would know proves to me that you have no interest whatsoever in any form of productive discussion.

If you want to have one, then by all means make a post supporting your argument that doesn't include such distortions or ridiculous inquiries. I will be more than happy to respond. But until then if you want me to educate you then pay me; otherwise, go read about it yourself.

Tubub, Welcome to DP.



KC and dee still trying to rewrite history I see......:roll:

KC and dee still trying to rewrite history I see......

Click to expand...

If this is the case then you could have provided a little more insight as to where exactly anything said was incorrect instead of wasting yet another post on worthless libel and trolling.

But we both know you're not interested in such a thing.

Khayembii Communique said:

If this is the case then you could have provided a little more insight as to where exactly anything said was incorrect instead of wasting yet another post on worthless libel and trolling.

But we both know you're not interested in such a thing.

Click to expand...

Don't mind his one line zingers. It seems to be his only way of contributing.

Khayembii Communique said:

The gesture was from the emperor to the USSR, which was a member of the Allied coalition.



I never claimed he did. As has already been stated, this was being relayed through Togo from the Emperor.



Again, why you are stating these obvious facts is beyond me, as I am not disagreeing with them but in fact am acknowledging them.



Again, you're repeating what I've already stated and acknowledged. I have never argued that unconditional surrender was an option. Moreover, I'm confused as to why you're even quoting this, as you yourself earlier stated that Togo wasn't in charge. What Togo actually thought is irrelevant.



I'm not sure what you're saying here, due to the poor wording of these sentences. How did you not know they were fussing so much about unconditional surrender? I've been saying in all of my posts that they would not accept it.

How would the US have known what? That the Japanese were willing to negotiate the terms of surrender? Why would you even think they wouldn't know?



You have no possible way of substantiating this at all. What we do know for a fact, though, is that the bombings ended hundreds of thousands of lives.



Except surrender, which is what we are discussing.



Why should I care if you change your views? It is of no importance to me whether or not you agree with me. I am interested in the development of my views; if you were actually offering up intelligent, productive debate then I would be more than happy to continue this discussion.

However, it is clear by the tone of your posts, by your purposeful distortion and ignorance of what I have said and in the end making such a ridiculous claim as to how the US would know proves to me that you have no interest whatsoever in any form of productive discussion.

If you want to have one, then by all means make a post supporting your argument that doesn't include such distortions or ridiculous inquiries. I will be more than happy to respond. But until then if you want me to educate you then pay me; otherwise, go read about it yourself.

Click to expand...

Lol... are you kidding? I'm probably one of the only ones who would have a productive discussion with you. I never asked you to "educated me", your arrogance is just annoying, try to be more subtle about it. I implied I wanted a good discussion and was willing to hear your point of view, you've proven to me that you can't do that.

General Marshall estimated it would cost at least 500,000 American lives in the event of an invasion of mainland Japan... other estimates range much higher. Both atom bombs combined do not reach that figure. Therefore, Truman saved lives by dropping the bombs.

The diary was from Tojo, War Prime Minister of Japan during WWII, not Togo. Wow, let me reiterate that the Emperor was not in charge. The Emperor is a figurehead in Japanese society, the only reason he had the power to decide Japan's fate was because the Supreme War Council could not. If the atom bombs had not been dropped, the Supreme War Council would be less divided... the decision would not have gone to the Emperor. I hope I don't have to spell this out for you.

Why wouldn't the United States assume Japan wasn't surrendering? I don't know, maybe because honor is put above all else in Japanese society and the worse sham on a person's honor is defeat, especially a military defeat. And because they had made no gestures of that sort that President Truman or his cabinet were aware of, maybe that's why. No, no way, President Truman is evil like every American is, right?

Let me say what I said before a little more clearly: Your a typical communist. Your outlook on life and view on history is closed to discussion, you have decided that you are right and everything that has happened in the past is in line with your ideaology, no exceptions. It's clear-cut: 1- Enemies of the Soviet Union are evil in everything they do 2- The Soviet Union and its communist allies were not wrong in anything they did. You are all smug, your so sure that your right and everyone else is wrong... in other words, your close-minded, arrogant, bigots. I'm done talking to you unless you have something substantial to say besides saying that you already acknowledged everything I said(what a joke :rofl) and I should educate myself.

Let me say what I said before a little more clearly: Your a typical communist. Your outlook on life and view on history is closed to discussion, you have decided that you are right and everything that has happened in the past is in line with your ideaology, no exceptions. It's clear-cut: 1- Enemies of the Soviet Union are evil in everything they do 2- The Soviet Union and its communist allies were not wrong in anything they did. You are all smug, your so sure that your right and everyone else is wrong... in other words, your close-minded, arrogant, bigots. I'm done talking to you unless you have something substantial to say besides saying that you already acknowledged everything I said(what a joke ) and I should educate myself.

Click to expand...

Talk about close-minded, arrogant bigotry!:lol:

Khayembii Communique said:

If this is the case then you could have provided a little more insight as to where exactly anything said was incorrect instead of wasting yet another post on worthless libel and trolling.

But we both know you're not interested in such a thing.

Click to expand...

You continously portray the US as needlessly/recklessly dropping the bomb which resulted in thousands of deaths. Perhaps this isn't your intent, in which case your presentation skillls need some fine tuning, but its exactly what I and Tubub hear from your arguments. Its clearly been shown that the Japanese were unwilling to submit to unconditional surrender (the only option the US would allow for obvious reasons) despite the many chances given to them and the clear warnings the US had given them prior to the first bombing and the three days between the first and second bombing.

Your tone and consistant exaggeration of the willingness of the Japanese to surrender begs the question as to whether the US had a better option to pursue based on the responses from Japan and the intel available to the US. This is grossly false and a clear indication of your revisionist attempts as its a hindsight interpretation that even today is not supported by the facts. Thus, such a patently false analysis of the events and decisions made brands you as wrong or contemptiously biased. I would hope its the former.

Let me make it straightforward and simple: based on the responses received from Japan and the knowledge available to the US at the time, was it the best option for the US to drop the bomb to entice a unconditional surrender? (Please leave hindsight bias at home)

I say "yes". You apparently would say "no".

Your tone and consistant exaggeration of the willingness of the Japanese to surrender begs the question as to whether the US had a better option to pursue based on the responses from Japan and the intel available to the US. This is grossly false and a clear indication of your revisionist attempts as its a hindsight interpretation that even today is not supported by the facts. Thus, such a patently false analysis of the events and decisions made brands you as wrong or contemptiously biased. I would hope its the former.

Let me make it straightforward and simple: based on the responses received from Japan and the knowledge available to the US at the time, was it the best option for the US to drop the bomb to entice a unconditional surrender? (Please leave hindsight bias at home)

I say "yes". You apparently would say "no".

Click to expand...

Your assertion is correct. The Japanese were willing to negotiate a surrender on the grounds that they could retain the emperor; the US was not interested in anything other than unconditional surrender, and did not even attempt to open up negotiations on the subject.

As far as I thought this was common knowledge; apparently I am mistaken, in that both of you don't believe it.

Chicago Tribune, August 19,1945

JAPS ASKED PEACE IN JAN. ENVOYS ON WAY -- TOKYO

Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals

By Walter Trohan

Release of all censorship restrictions in the United States makes it possible to report that the first Japanese peace bid was relayed to the White House seven months ago.

Two days before the late President Roosevelt left the last week in January for the Yalta conference with Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stalin he received a Japanese offer identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, Harry S. Truman.

MacArthur Relayed Message to F.D.

The Jap offer, based on five separate overtures, was relayed to the White House by Gen. MacArthur in a 40-page communication. The American commander, who had just returned triumphantly to Bataan, urged negotiations on the basis of the Jap overtures.

The offer, as relayed by MacArthur, contemplated abject surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. The suggestion was advanced from the Japanese quarters making the offer that the Emperor become a puppet in the hands of American forces.

Two of the five Jap overtures were made through American channels and three through British channels. All came from responsible Japanese, acting for Emperor Hirohito.

General's Communication Dismissed

President Roosevelt dismissed the general's communication, which was studded with solemn references to the deity, after a casual reading with the remark, "MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician."

The MacArthur report was not even taken to Yalta. However, it was carefully preserved in the files of the high command and subsequently became the basis of the Truman-Attlee Potsdam declaration calling for surrender of Japan.

This Jap peace bid was known to the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald shortly after the MacArthur comunication reached here. It was not published under the paper’s established policy of complete co-operation with the voluntary censorship code.


FULL STORY

Click to expand...

And in case you don't believe this article is valid (as the IHR is a noted revisionist organization), here it is in the archives of the Chicago Tribune.

Khayembii Communique said:

Your assertion is correct. The Japanese were willing to negotiate a surrender on the grounds that they could retain the emperor; the US was not interested in anything other than unconditional surrender, and did not even attempt to open up negotiations on the subject.

Click to expand...

and what is wrong with the US demands?

The US was in the power position, it does not have to acquiesce to the demands of the Japanese. The US would not condone the retention of the emperor. Such a request was an attempt by the Japenese leadership to continue their influence and maintain their hold on power.

No matter the reason the Japenese wanted to maintain the emperor, it matters not. The US offered fair and equitable terms of surrender. This was another example of the Japenese failing to come to terms with defeat.

Beggars can't be choosers.

As far as I thought this was common knowledge; apparently I am mistaken, in that both of you don't believe it.



And in case you don't believe this article is valid (as the IHR is a noted revisionist organization), here it is in the archives of the Chicago Tribune.

Click to expand...

In many wars the terms of surrender are put forward. However, the surrenderer doesn't get to decide his terms. Perhaps you've forgotten that?

Beggers can't be choosers.

This entire argument was about whether surrender was viable as an alternative to either the dropping of the atomic bombs or a costly invasion. I have shown this to be so, and now your only recourse is to respond by basically saying "so what?"

Your post is essentially a concession that surrender was a viable option to be explored that the US opted not to, choosing instead to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in one of the most horrific events in recent history.

You are now defending such a horrific action, to which I don't even need to respond, as what I stated to Scarecrow earlier applies to you as well:

The fact is that you consider it acceptable to kill civilians in such an instance, to which I don't even need to respond. Your statement says pretty much everything about you that needs to be said.

Two of the five Jap overtures were made through American channels and three through British channels. All came from responsible Japanese, acting for Emperor Hirohito.

Click to expand...

This is a bit fuzzy and begs two questions.

1) Who exactly were these “responsible Japanese” envoys? ie...What positions of power (if any) did they hold within the Japanese government?

2) Why did the Emperor himself not directly dispatch to the Allies an exemplar surrender document signed and sealed by His Majesty? Why all the circumlocution?

2) Why did the Emperor himself not directly dispatch to the Allies an exemplar surrender document signed and sealed by His Majesty? Why all the circumlocution?

Click to expand...

From an earlier post:

On 12 July--the day after advising Ambassador Sato [sic] of Japan's desire to "make use of Russia in ending the war"--Foreign Minister Togo dispatched the following additional message on the subject, labelled "very urgent":

...

"His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland. His majesty is deeply reluctant to have any further blood lost among the people on both sides, and it is his desire for the welfare of all humanity to restore peace with all possible speed.

"The emperor's will, as expressed above, arises not only from his benevolence toward his own subjects but from his concern for the welfare of humanity in general. It is the Emperor's private intention to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a Special Envoy with a letter from him containing the statements given above. Please inform Molotov of this and get the Russians' consent to having the party enter the country...

"Magic"-Diplomatic Summary - 13 July 1945
Ultra Top Secret - Declassified 7/20/05

Click to expand...

Also, I'm currently too lazy to further transcribe from the .PDF file, but if you go to page 4, note 2 (pretty much the whole page), it is explained that Sato did not receive the relay prior to his meeting with Molotov.

It should also be noted that the date of this document is July 13, 1945.

Moreover, my concern is not regarding what the Japanese leadership should or should not have done, but that surrender was a viable option to be explored by the Allied powers, and that the allies were fully aware of this.

On 12 July--the day after advising Ambassador Sato [sic] of Japan's desire to "make use of Russia in ending the war"--Foreign Minister Togo dispatched the following additional message on the subject, labelled "very urgent":

Click to expand...

This premise assumes that Russia would have had an interest in ending the war at Japan's earliest convenience. Why would the Kremlin oblige when there were pearls to pluck? Did you know that Russia to this day occupies a string of Japanese islands captured in the waning days of WWII? Although Japan has demanded their return numerous times since, Russia still considers these captured islands as the spoils of war.

This premise assumes that Russia would have had an interest in ending the war at Japan's earliest convenience. Why would the Kremlin oblige when there were pearls to pluck? Did you know that Russia to this day occupies a string of Japanese islands captured in the waning days of WWII? Although Japan has demanded their return numerous times since, Russia still considers these captured islands as the spoils of war.

Click to expand...

Moreover, my concern is not regarding what the Japanese leadership should or should not have done, but that surrender was a viable option to be explored by the Allied powers, and that the allies were fully aware of this.

Khayembii Communique said:

This entire argument was about whether surrender was viable as an alternative to either the dropping of the atomic bombs or a costly invasion. I have shown this to be so, and now your only recourse is to respond by basically saying "so what?"

Click to expand...

let's make this simple so you can understand.

US: Surrender based on these terms or face the consequences.
Japan: We agree to all terms except this one.
US: Unacceptable. Surrender based on these terms or face the consequences.
Japan: No.
US: *kaboom* a-bomb #1 dropped.
US: Surrender based on these terms or face the consequences.
Japan: No.
US; *kaboom* a-bomb #2 dropped.
US: Surrender based on these terms or face the consequences.
Japan: ok.
<Fin>

Your post is essentially a concession that surrender was a viable option to be explored that the US opted not to, choosing instead to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in one of the most horrific events in recent history.

Click to expand...

The US was very clear to the point that the terms put forward must be accepted if the Japanese wished to surrender. It is not the US's fault that Japan would not agree to the terms and prolonged the war. The terms were equitable and fair. The Japenese leadership willfully chose to reject the terms and they choose poorly.

You are now defending such a horrific action, to which I don't even need to respond, as what I stated to Scarecrow earlier applies to you as well:

The fact is that you consider it acceptable to kill civilians in such an instance, to which I don't even need to respond. Your statement says pretty much everything about you that needs to be said.

Click to expand...

In total war scenarios scorched earth policies are acceptable. Calling me evil or any other ad-homs are irrelvant to the truth of this. Yes, its sad that civilians die in war as oppossed to the ones in the military who are the only ones deserving of death.:roll: But as long as conflicts are waged on such gradiose scales as WW1, WW2, and even the American Civil War then such a military tactic will be used.

Since you are repeating yourself, I might as well repeat my original response to the statement that you are repeating:

You are now defending such a horrific action, to which I don't even need to respond, as what I stated to Scarecrow earlier applies to you as well:

The fact is that you consider it acceptable to kill civilians in such an instance, to which I don't even need to respond. Your statement says pretty much everything about you that needs to be said.

Calling me evil or any other ad-homs are irrelvant to the truth of this.

Click to expand...

I never called you evil or applied any ad-hominems. I said that you are justifying the mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians (which you are) and that there is no need for me to say anything more, as it is pointless for me to argue with someone that condones such an action.

Khayembii Communique said:

I said that you are justifying the mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians (which you are) and that there is no need for me to say anything more, as it is pointless for me to argue with someone that condones such an action.

Click to expand...

You are arguing morality from the lofty position of distance and knowledge.

An atomic weapon had never before been used. No one knew precisley the devastating effects of nuclear warfare. The physicists were probably the most attuned, but I can't imagine how they could have imparted this dreadful knowledge/intuition to Mr. Truman linguistically. All Truman knew was that it was a “super-bomb”. But what did this descriptive mean to him in real terms? It wasn't until after the Japanese surrender when Allied investigators entered the targeted cities that the true scope of death, destruction, and radiation poisoning was actually measured and realized.

The testiment to this stark and horrific realization is that atomic weapons have never been used since.

Khayembii Communique said:

Moreover, my concern is not regarding what the Japanese leadership should or should not have done, but that surrender was a viable option to be explored by the Allied powers, and that the allies were fully aware of this.

Click to expand...

We did explore it.

We said "surrender, now, or else we won't stop", and they said "well, let's waste your time by negotiating, shall we?"

So we didn't stop.

Any of the losers here that think bombing Hiroshima was a bad thing think Hitler's bunker in Berlin would have been an acceptable target if we'd had the bomb in August 1944?

Khayembii Communique said:

Moreover, my concern is not regarding what the Japanese leadership should or should not have done, but that surrender was a viable option to be explored by the Allied powers, and that the allies were fully aware of this.

Click to expand...

The terms for surrender were given to the Japanese. They were equitable and fair. They chose to reject them.

Tubub said:

The Japanese had no intent on surrendering, they believed the United States was bluffing about possessing an atom bomb and if the US did have one, they surely did not have multiple. Actually, the US had 2 and if the Japanese had not surrendered after the dropping of both, an invasion would be imminent(It would have taken several months to develop another). Millions of Japanese and Allied troops would be killed, Japan would be a crater and would not be able to recover for at least a half century.

Click to expand...

The next weapon was going to be ready in about 4-6 weeks, well before the troops would have been in position to invade...they were going to be taken from Europe and shipped across the Alantic, and across the Pacific to Japan.

However, after that 4-6 week period, the gadgets would be coming off fairly rapidly and a bomb a week would have been the norm. We had to fire the second bomb because the enemy thought the first bomb used up all the material we had, and because the enemy would have doubted our resolve to use it again.

Those bombs saved millions of lives, it's absolutely incredible that some people can be so confused in their thinking that they can believe those bombs did more harm than good. They're even more confused because they can't seem to remember who started the war in the first place and what the Japanese did to every land they conquered.

There's something wrong with them.

Khayembii Communique said:

No, they had no intent on unconditionally surrendering;

Click to expand...

Too bad for them, huh? They could have maintained their freedom to negotiate....if they'd not lost the war and had no means at all to defend themselves from something as simple as A SINGLE airplane flying over the city.

They were so prostrate they couldn't be bothered to defend their airspace againat ONE airplane.

Freedom to negotiate is a function of the possession of arms, something all the anti-gun fanatics refuse to admit is reality.

They didn't have the guns, so negotiation was not an option we were required to provide them.

Khayembii Communique said:

You have no possible way of substantiating this at all. What we do know for a fact, though, is that the bombings ended hundreds of thousands of lives.

Click to expand...

What a totally ignorant statement.

Since you never studied the Pacific War, except as talking points from your masters to highlight the evils of the United States, it's not surprising you could make such an ignorant statement.

But it's still ignorant.

Khayembii Communique said:

Since you are repeating yourself, I might as well repeat my original response to the statement that you are repeating:

You are now defending such a horrific action, to which I don't even need to respond, as what I stated to Scarecrow earlier applies to you as well:

The fact is that you consider it acceptable to kill civilians in such an instance, to which I don't even need to respond. Your statement says pretty much everything about you that needs to be said.

I never called you evil or applied any ad-hominems. I said that you are justifying the mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians (which you are) and that there is no need for me to say anything more, as it is pointless for me to argue with someone that condones such an action.

Click to expand...

So what about the fire bombing of tokyo? The bombing or Dresden, Berlin, operation rolling thunder? What about Napoleans march into Russia? How about the Norths scorched earth policy against the confederates?

Your Utopianism withers in the face of the realities of history. War is hell, no doubt. But you abandon reason for your impractical ideals.