• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A good article on Truman wrongly using nuclear weapons

vegas giants said:
I agree with you. Show me where it says the imperial family will NOT be tried for war crimes
Click to expand...

The Emperor is not mentioned at all. That was intentional.

You are still acting as though that was the obstacle to Japan's surrender. It was not.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
The Emperor is not mentioned at all. That was intentional.

You are still acting as though that was the obstacle to Japan's surrender. It was not.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion. Why not mention it directly if we were going to do it anyway.



We did not mention it directly for a reason
 
vegas giants said:
That is your opinion.
Click to expand...

No, it is fact. Once again you have completely failed to back up your assertion.

Why not mention it directly if we were going to do it anyway.

We did not mention it directly for a reason
Click to expand...

You are making less sense with each post.

First you claimed that they would surrender without the atom bombs. When it was pointed out that it would just end up killing more people, you claimed the Japanese would have surrendered if we have just guaranteed the Emperor immunity. The Japanese clearly surrendered without any guarantee of that.

Your argument is as nonsensical as it is incoherent.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
No, it is fact. Once again you have completely failed to back up your assertion.



You are making less sense with each post.

First you claimed that they would surrender without the atom bombs. When it was pointed out that it would just end up killing more people, you claimed the Japanese would have surrendered if we have just guaranteed the Emperor immunity. The Japanese clearly surrendered without any guarantee of that.

Your argument is as nonsensical as it is incoherent.
Click to expand...

Your posts get stupider with each post.


You make claims of things I never said then you get frustrated when I call your claims what they are...opinion.
 
vegas giants said:
Your posts get stupider with each post.

You make claims of things I never said then you get frustrated when I call your claims what they are...opinion.
Click to expand...

You haven't backed up a single assertion you've made. I've asked you to cite your sources and you can't even manage that. Meanwhile I've provided citations to back up my claims and all you can manage is "that's your opinion", because you don't have **** to actually work with.

If you have actual proof, present it. All you're doing right now is whining and screaming because you keep getting proven wrong.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
You haven't backed up a single assertion you've made. I've asked you to cite your sources and you can't even manage that. Meanwhile I've provided citations to back up my claims and all you can manage is "that's your opinion", because you don't have **** to actually work with.

If you have actual proof, present it. All you're doing right now is whining and screaming because you keep getting proven wrong.
Click to expand...

Deny the army studied this and found the bombs were not needed.

Deny the quotes of the greatest military minds this country has ever known on if we needed the bomb.


Deny that those are facts not opinion



Watch this folks
 
vegas giants said:
I agree with you. Show me where it says the imperial family will NOT be tried for war crimes
Click to expand...


Potsdam said the Japanese people get to pick their government as long as it's a peaceful government. It doesn't say Emperor Hirohito couldn't be part of the new government. That implies Hirohito wouldn't be tried for war crimes.
 
vegas giants said:
Deny the army studied this and found the bombs were not needed.
Click to expand...

If you bothered to read, I pointed out that it would have just killed more Japanese than the atomic bombs. You never actually refuted that, so you just kept switching topics.

Deny the quotes of the greatest military minds this country has ever known on if we needed the bomb.
Click to expand...

I did so already.

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."
— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,

The Japanese offers to surrender prior to 9 August 1945 would have been unacceptable, because General Anami and half the War Council refused to accept surrender unless Japan was spared from occupation and that they would not be tried for war crimes, terms the Allies would never have accepted. The latter part is true, Japan had already been beaten. They just wouldn't surrender. Hence the bomb.

"The use of [the atomic bombs] 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"
- Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950

Again, the Japanese had been beaten. They just refused to surrender.

"The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."
— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945

Emperor Hirohito directly contradicts this.

"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it."
— Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946

The scientists in the Manhattan Project had no say in the authority to drop the atomic bomb.

Deny that those are facts not opinion
Click to expand...

They are opinions. Just like everything you've stated here. I've quoted directly from the source. You have yet to do so once.

Watch this folks
Click to expand...

No need, your continuous embarrassment of yourself is 24/7.
 
swing_voter said:
Potsdam said the Japanese people get to pick their government as long as it's a peaceful government. It doesn't say Emperor Hirohito couldn't be part of the new government. That implies Hirohito wouldn't be tried for war crimes.
Click to expand...

What did the surrender document say?


Unconditional surrender
 
Jredbaron96 said:
If you bothered to read, I pointed out that it would have just killed more Japanese than the atomic bombs. You never actually refuted that, so you just kept switching topics.



I did so already.



They are opinions. Just like everything you've stated here. I've quoted directly from the source. You have yet to do so once.



No need, your continuous embarrassment of yourself is 24/7.
Click to expand...

They are facts you have an opinion about.


Your opinion is dismissed for lack of evidence


I now accept your surrender
 
vegas giants said:
They are facts you have an opinion about.


Your opinion is dismissed for lack of evidence


I now accept your surrender
Click to expand...

You still haven't refuted anything I said. Do you want to start from the top again?
 
vegas giants said:
Do as you please.


But your insult was your surrender


I will respond as I please
Click to expand...

If you don't have anything relevant to add to the topic of this discussion, then the point is moot. Your opinions that the US shouldn't have dropped the atomic bomb are foolish and uneducated. This is evident by your complete failure to provide evidence to back it up. Furthermore, when shown evidence to the contrary, your repeated insistence on changing the subject and claiming that sourced text is "opinion" demonstrates you haven't the faintest idea how to honestly debate, or even argue your point.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
If you don't have anything relevant to add to the topic of this discussion, then the point is moot. Your opinions that the US shouldn't have dropped the atomic bomb are foolish and uneducated. This is evident by your complete failure to provide evidence to back it up. Furthermore, when shown evidence to the contrary, your repeated insistence on changing the subject and claiming that sourced text is "opinion" demonstrates you haven't the faintest idea how to honestly debate, or even argue your point.
Click to expand...

Again....read slowly....it isnt my opinion.


It is the opinion of guys like this


The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,*[89]

The use of [the atomic bombs] 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.

— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950,*[99]

The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

— Major General*Curtis LeMay,*XXI Bomber Command, September 1945,*[100]

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment*... It was a mistake to ever drop it*... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.*

— Fleet Admiral*William Halsey Jr., 1946,*[100]




You keep getting the basics wrong over and over and over
 
vegas giants said:
What did the surrender document say?


Unconditional surrender
Click to expand...



Yeah, so?

Once we found out the Emperor needed reassurance about his immunity, we gave him reassurance that he would have immunity.

Unconditional surrender doesn't mean that we couldn't grant the emperor immunity. We didn't imprison his war criminal brother either.
 
vegas giants said:
Again....read slowly....it isnt my opinion.


It is the opinion of guys like this


The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,*[89]

The use of [the atomic bombs] 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.

— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950,*[99]

The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

— Major General*Curtis LeMay,*XXI Bomber Command, September 1945,*[100]

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment*... It was a mistake to ever drop it*... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.*

— Fleet Admiral*William Halsey Jr., 1946,*[100]
Click to expand...

And again.


"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."
— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,

The Japanese offers to surrender prior to 9 August 1945 would have been unacceptable, because General Anami and half the War Council refused to accept surrender unless Japan was spared from occupation and that they would not be tried for war crimes, terms the Allies would never have accepted. The latter part is true, Japan had already been beaten. They just wouldn't surrender. Hence the bomb.

"The use of [the atomic bombs] 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"
- Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950

This is untrue.

His unequivocal concurrence enraged War Minister Anami, the next in line. “I oppose the opinions of the Foreign Minister!” he exclaimed. The Army could not agree to surrender unless the Allies allowed Japan to demobilize her own troops, try her own war criminals and limit the occupation force. “If not, we must continue fighting with courage and find life in death.” His cheeks glistened with tears and his voice became strident as he pleaded for a last decisive battle in the homeland. “I am quite sure we could inflict great casualties on the enemy, and even if we fail in the attempt, our hundred million people are ready to die for honor, glorifying the deeds of the Japanese race in recorded history!”
Click to expand...

Toland, John. The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945 (Modern Library War) . Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

"The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."
— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945

Emperor Hirohito directly contradicts this. He references explicitly in Japan's announcement of surrender.

"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it."
— Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946

The scientists in the Manhattan Project had no say in the authority to drop the atomic bomb.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
And again.


"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."
— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,

The Japanese offers to surrender prior to 9 August 1945 would have been unacceptable, because General Anami and half the War Council refused to accept surrender unless Japan was spared from occupation and that they would not be tried for war crimes, terms the Allies would never have accepted. The latter part is true, Japan had already been beaten. They just wouldn't surrender. Hence the bomb.

"The use of [the atomic bombs] 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"
- Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950

This is untrue.



Toland, John. The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945 (Modern Library War) . Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

"The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."
— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945

Emperor Hirohito directly contradicts this. He references explicitly in Japan's announcement of surrender.

"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it."
— Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946

The scientists in the Manhattan Project had no say in the authority to drop the atomic bomb.
Click to expand...

Oh looky you have a book. Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom