Hiroshima: will Obama apologize and lick boot straps?

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by righteousdude2, May 10, 2016.

  1. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,460
    Likes Received:
    136
  2. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,189
    Likes Received:
    611
    You might try reading the article. The answer to your question is in there.

    The visit, hotly debated in the White House for months as the president planned his coming trip to Vietnam and Japan, carries weighty symbolism for Mr. Obama, who is loath to be seen as apologizing for that chapter in American history.

    “He will not revisit the decision to use the atomic bomb at the end of World War II,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, his deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, said in a blog post on Medium. “Instead, he will offer a forward-looking vision focused on our shared future.”
     
  3. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,613
    Likes Received:
    157
    Dropping the bomb saved lives. The best estimate was that 5 million allied troops would be killed if an invasion of the homeland took place. There were have been more than 5 million Japanese killed.

    It is also said that between 88,000–100,000 Japanese civilians were killed in the bombing of Tokyo with conventional bombs. In fact it is estimated that 88,000 were killed in one raid alone. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo]

    In the Light is correct in his statement.

    Do, does this make the author of the OP happier about Obama's visit?

    Learn from the past and plan for the future.
     
  4. OnlyaSinner

    OnlyaSinner
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    11
    I just finished reading a book called "The General and the Genius", a detailed (though not overly technical) account of the Manhattan Project, centered on the two men - Leslie R. Groves and Robert J. Oppenheimer - who had the biggest roles in driving that project to successfully produce the weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    In the book's fairly brief recounting of the discussion over use of the atomic bomb, there was no specific number given for estimated allied casualties likely to result from an invasion of Japan, but the sense was more like hundreds of thousands rather than millions. Clearly noted was that the Japanese death toll would be much higher than that of the allies, continuing the pattern seen during the "island hopping" campaign of the previous two years. Though there have been hindsight opinions that a demonstration, or some such, might have brought a Bomb-free surrender, the tenacity of the Japanese military on far off islands made it clear that the defense of the Home Islands would've been no less vigorous, and probably moreso.
     
  5. dad1

    dad1
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2016
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    6
    Not the lives of the hundreds of thousands of folks including kids that it burned and killed. If a mugger kills you maybe he saves his life also, because you won't be there to kill him. Hope you are not insinuating Jesus likes the hellfire that was unloosed by another nation on the people in Japan?




    I have heard other versions. Such as that it was not really needed...who do we believe?


    War is hell. Do you think God liked that too?

    I have come to the opinion God is not for any wars of modern man. I haven't seen Scriptures supporting them, anyone else think they have any?

    When the leader of an antichrist regime visits somewhere who really cares what they say??
     
  6. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,613
    Likes Received:
    157
    I will be happy to discuss this or any topic with you if you will please reply in a rational way and not make wild opinionated personal beliefs with no backup.

    Thanks and blessings.
     
  7. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,613
    Likes Received:
    157
    Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths. The same department estimated that there would be up to 10 million Japanese casualties. The ‘Los Angeles Times’ estimated that America would suffer up to 1 million casualties.

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-pacific-war-1941-to-1945/operation-downfall/

    From Wikipedia:

    Estimated casualties
    Because the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population",[26] high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions and purposes, which included advocating for and against the invasion. The estimated casualty figures later became a crucial point in postwar debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    In preparation for Operation Olympic, the invasion of southern Kyushu, various figures and organizations made casualty estimates based on the terrain, strength, and disposition of known Japanese forces. However, as reported Japanese strength in the Home Islands continued to climb and Japanese military performance increased, so too did the casualty estimates.[4] In April 1945, the Joint Chiefs of Staff formally adopted a planning paper giving a range of possible casualties based on experience in both Europe and the Pacific. Given a troop list of 766,700 men and a 90-day campaign, the US Sixth Army could be expected to suffer between 514,072 casualties (including 134,556 dead and missing) under the "Pacific Experience" (1.95 dead and missing and 7.45 total casualties/1,000 men/day) and 149,046 casualties (including 28,981 dead and missing) under the "European Experience" (0.42 dead and missing and 2.16 total casualties/1,000 men/day).[78] This assessment included neither casualties suffered after the 90-day mark (US planners envisioned switching to the tactical defensive by D+120[79]), nor personnel losses at sea from Japanese air attacks.[80] In order to sustain the campaign on Kyushu, planners estimated a replacement stream of 100,000 men per month would be necessary, a figure achievable even after the partial demobilization following the defeat of Germany.[4] As time went on, other US leaders made estimates of their own:

    • In a letter sent to General Curtis LeMay from General Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.[81]
    • In May, Admiral Nimitz's staff estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[82]
    • A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days.[83] When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.[84]
    • In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties).[85] Admiral Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[86] Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.[86] Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa,[87] and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.
    • In July MacArthur's Intelligence Chief, Maj. Gen. Charles A. Willoughby, warned of between 210,000 and 280,000 battle casualties in the push to the "stop line" one-third of the way up Kyushu. Even when rounded down to a conservative 200,000, this figure implied a total of nearly 500,000 all-causes losses, of whom perhaps 50,000 might return to duty after light to moderate care.[88]
    • The US Sixth Army, the formation tasked with carrying out the major land fighting on Kyushu, estimated a figure of 394,859 casualties serious enough to be permanently removed from unit roll calls during the first 120 days on Kyushu, barely enough to avoid outstripping the planned replacement stream.[89]
    • Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson stated "We shall in my opinion have to go through an even more bitter finish fight than in Germany. We shall incur the losses incident to such a war and we shall leave the Japanese islands even more thoroughly destroyed than was the case with Germany."[90] From D-Day to V-E day, the Western Allies alone suffered some 766,294 casualties[91]
    • In the spring of 1945, the Army Service Forces under Lt. Gen. Brehon B. Somervell was working under a figure of "approximately" 720,000 for the projected replacements needed for "dead and evacuated wounded" through December 31, 1946. These figures are for Army and Army Air force personnel only, and do not include replacements needed for the Navy and Marine Corps.[92]
    • A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.[15]
    Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."[93]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties

    Read the article:
    How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
    By showing the world the horrors of nuclear warfare, the atomic bombings made future ones much less likely.

    http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/how-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-saved-millions-of-lives/
     
  8. dad1

    dad1
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2016
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    6
    It is not wild to acknowledge that Jesus does not want to nuke folks. For those that claim God is on their side for so doing, I say He is not.
     
  9. dad1

    dad1
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2016
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    6
    A quick search shows radically different opinions.

    "
    Note: This article was first published on Washington’s Blog and GR in October 2012

    Atomic Weapons Were Not Needed to End the War or Save Lives

    Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives.

    But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise.

    The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

    Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

    General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:

    The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

    Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike

    Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380):

    In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

    During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude….

    Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

    It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon 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.

    General Douglas MacArthur agreed (pg. 65, 70-71):

    MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed …. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.

    Moreover (pg. 512):

    The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.

    Similarly, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500):

    I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.

    Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said:

    I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted.

    ***

    In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn’t have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb.

    War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.

    He also noted (pg. 144-145, 324):

    It definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn’t get any imports and they couldn’t export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomband have had to bring Russia in.

    General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force “hawk,” stated publicly shortly before the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan:

    The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

    ..."
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-re...-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/5308192
     
  10. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    America has the God given right to defend itself. If you don't want to get nuked don't attack another country. Period.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. dad1

    dad1
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2016
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    6
    No it doesn't! Not with nuclear weapons. It is one thing for a man to defend his house, it is another thing for an antichrist regime to mass murder folks. The US has the God given right to judgement of God!
    That is not Jesus' rule now is it?
     
  12. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,189
    Likes Received:
    611
    I would like to know where the OP comes up with the idea that because Obama is going to visit Hiroshima, then naturally, he is going there to apologize.

    Wait, I already know where he got the idea. Talk radio.
     
  13. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,455
    Likes Received:
    93
    No, his weapon of choice, on at least 2 occasions, was a whip. But I estimate it would have taken a few more of those than a-bombs to force the japs to surrender.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    AntiChrist regime? judgement of God?

    Do you engage in sensationalism much?
     
  15. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    Don't be obtuse. Obama has a huge history of apologizing for past actions of America. It is, given his history, a reasonable question by the author of the op or talk radio.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. dad1

    dad1
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2016
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    6
    He wasn't overcoming Rome or Israel with force if you recall. Nor did He ask us to. In fact He told us our kingdom is not even of this world. Turning over tables in a police action for fraud in a holy place is not akin to mass murder of children by nukes. In fact to suggest they are similar is to show we do not know God.
     
  17. dad1

    dad1
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2016
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    6
    I would suspect he would be more likely to chastise Japan for less than desired sodomite rights laws, than being an open hypocrite and apologizing for nukes. After all he heads the nation with the largest nuke capacity or one of them, doesn't he? If he were to apologize, he should rid himself of nukes.
     
  18. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    310
    Two battles were on the minds of the American leadership, Saipan and Okinawa. Take a look at how Japanese civilians reacted in both those battles. It doesn't take much to believe based on those two occasions, that in an invasion of the Kyushu and Honshu would have been even bloodier for the civilian population. Then, there is the standard Japanese tactic the "banazai charge."
     
  19. dad1

    dad1
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2016
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    6
     
  20. dad1

    dad1
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2016
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    6


    "That is a comforting illusion that is deeply held by many Americans, especially older ones. It is one of the fundamental myths emanating from World War II. It was deliberately propagated by President Truman, Secretary of War Henry Stimson, and many others who also spread the erroneous information that the atomic bombs forced Japanese surrender. Truman claimed in his memoirs that the atomic bombs saved a half million American lives.



    ..."

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-untold-history-of-us-war-crimes/5523546



    Maybe we should ask ourselves if one side was right and good and the other evil. Maybe both sides were groups of sinful nations and the Christian view of the matter is that Jesus does not want you to mass murder children and civilians.
     

Share This Page

Loading...