• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Japan whines about being nuked

Trail-Axe

NAXJA Forum User
Location
USA
It always amazes me how many people condemn the USA for dropping two A-bombs on Japan. Those imperialist thugs attack us first, drag us into a war we were not involved in, kill our young men so they can rule the world, and then they have the gull some 64 years later to tell us we need to disarm? Give me a break! If they had won the war (IE: we did not nuke them), do you really think they would have allowed us to continue on as a free democratic nation? No way, we would all be speaking Japanese, and worshipping there emperor. And its not like they left us much of a choice, we dropped one bomb, and still they would not surrender (too much pride), so then we drop another, and then they finally surrender, but even still their military leaders wanted to fight till the last man. Ya civilians died, too bad, very sad, but don't put that on the USA, it was Japan that thought it could rule the world. And now they want the USA and Russia to disarm? Why, so Iran, China, and North Korea can rule the world? I am sure glad I do not own any Japanese cars!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080809/wl_nm/japan_nagasaki_dc_1
 
People overlook a simple factor - national psychology.

Up to that point, Japan hadn't lost a war with anyhone, and their national idea of bushido wouldn't entertain the idea of defeat.

Yes, what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki was horrific. Yes, in two days we killed something like a quarter of a million people with two warshots. No, I'm not saying it was a good thing.

However, while it's true that Germany and Italy had already capitulated 9leaving Japan the only threat,) we needed to deal some variety of massively shocking blow to the Japanese national psyche to get the idea through to them that they were going to lose. Killing a quarter-million people in the space of three days (06AUG-08AUG1945) was a good way to do just that - and we did get some infrastructure there as well

Could we have won conventionally? Sure - probably given another five years, taking the Pacific by the inch west of Guadalcanal, and at the cost of about a million and a half more lives and the GDP of several small countries in materiel and ordnance.

Japan whines about being nuked? 1) It was the only way to get through to them and end the war. One thing being another, I'd rather see 250,000 deaths wholesale than 1,500,000 deaths retail. 2) It was the only way we could get through to them - honestly, if they had been willing to admit defeat earlier on (with the loss of their two principal allies,) we wouldn't have had to. So, you can probably say with all honesty that they brought it on themselves.

And disarm? While I don't like having nukes around any more than anyone else, the genie is out of the bottle. Any disarmament is going to be unilateral - someone somewhere is going to keep their nukes, and what was onces the work of geniuses and visionaries is now the work of a master tradesman - and that's for nuclear explosive payloads. That's not counting "dirty" bombs or anything like that.

There are only two (OK, three) ways a nuclear peace can be enforced:

1) Everybody everywhere destroys every single one of their nuclear payloads, and the instructions for making them, and the people who have even a good understanding of the ideas involved (including me - I've studied some nuclear physics, and have a middlin' understanding of the forces involved. I can't make a nuke from scratch, but I can get a good prototype going and it can be sorted out from there...) and all of the "dual-use" equipment that goes into making them that is usable for other projects as well (hot-freon sublimation equipment for separating isotopes of radioactives, klystron switches, mouldable rigid explosives, ...) it's been nice knowing you guys.

2) Everybody gets nuclear hardware, with the idea that if you use it on someone else, everybody else will blast you right back into the Stone Age. Think of a load of MAFIA bosses in a room, each with a pistol loaded and ready to go. Each surviving by the goodwill of everyone else...

3) Hand over everything listed in #1 above to an extra-national force, answerable to no nation. Personnel serving time with this force are not allowed to even visit their own country until their term is over - consider them as a combination of "policeman of the world" and "hostage to the world". Any nation redeveloping technology for creating a nuclear payload gets blasted back into the Stone Age - immediately, without appeal.

I consider none of these solutions ideal. For the third, I don't think anyone can be trusted to head the "extra-national force" - and I damned sure don't want to hand it over to the current UN (or the UN at any previous time, either. Dag Hammarskjold was a socialist, and he wanted to create a worldwide socialist Utopia...) And, as long as we have power-hungry jackasses running things, there won't be an "ideal solution" to this problem. Does that mean we shouldn't try? I don't think so - but that means we should pay close attention to anyone who can say they've got an "easy solution" to the nuclear problem...

As long as there are going to be people in the room with large-calibre pistols, I'd like to make sure we're holding one ourselves. "If there's guns in the house, one better be yours."

I do not like nuclear weapons. I don't like war. Hell, I don't even like fighting anymore - although if I can't get out of one, I intend fully to finish it. As long as nukes are going to be around, we'd better hang on to a batch ourselves - until we can finally come up with something better...
 
Ahmen to that! If only a leader would have the courage to say something like that publicly, not worried about who he'd offend as long as it was true and simply the right thing to say!!
 
Blaine B. said:
Ahmen to that! If only a leader would have the courage to say something like that publicly, not worried about who he'd offend as long as it was true and simply the right thing to say!!

Two things wrong with that idea...

1) If I went into politics, I'd have to kick my own arse on a daily basis.

2) No-one would elect me anyhow - I'm too damned blunt. I use plain language, I don't dance around issues, and I do my level damndest to solve things. I don't want a second term - I want less problems when I go out than when I came in. Is that so hard to understand?

Besides, I'd probably end up being tried for assault a few dozen times after giving lobbyists the choice of "walk or bounce?" when I find them in my office. If they don't walk, they'll bounce at least twice on the way out instead. I could tell security to do the job for me, but it's not as satisfying as grabbing a double handful and throwing the silly bastage out meself.

It would take a few dozen before htey finally got the hint that I don't want to listen to them - and I'd better not catch them around my staff, either!
 
Yeah, Ive got a feeling no one is listening to the Japanese. I know Im not.
 
Trail-Axe said:
It always amazes me how many people condemn the USA for dropping two A-bombs on Japan. Those imperialist thugs attack us first, drag us into a war we were not involved in, kill our young men so they can rule the world, and then they have the gull some 64 years later to tell us we need to disarm? Give me a break! If they had won the war (IE: we did not nuke them), do you really think they would have allowed us to continue on as a free democratic nation? No way, we would all be speaking Japanese, and worshipping there emperor. And its not like they left us much of a choice, we dropped one bomb, and still they would not surrender (too much pride), so then we drop another, and then they finally surrender, but even still their military leaders wanted to fight till the last man. Ya civilians died, too bad, very sad, but don't put that on the USA, it was Japan that thought it could rule the world. And now they want the USA and Russia to disarm? Why, so Iran, China, and North Korea can rule the world? I am sure glad I do not own any Japanese cars!

[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080809/wl_nm/japan_nagasaki_dc_1"]http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080809/wl_nm/japan_nagasaki_dc_1[/URL]

Actually, Japan was not out to rule the world, that was Germany. Japan just wanted to rule Asia. By setting up an oil embargo to Japan to slow their aggression in China, we actually pulled the last straw out of the camels back. Pearl was an attempt to disable our Navy so that the oil embargo would be lifted, instead they got the war they declared. The Emperor didn't rule Japan, the Military did. The Emperor was and still is, a figure head position.

During WWII, it seems just about everyone was working on the Atom Bomb. In the lead was Germany and us, and we were determined that we would beat Germany to the punch, and we did. However, the bomb was not completed until after Germany surrendered. If Germany would have completed the bomb first, there is no doubt at all they would have used it on somebody, so it was never an option to develop this weapon and not at least take it for a spin to see what it could do.

With our losses running pretty high in the islands off Japan, and them not able to surrender due to their military code, we really had no choice but to do something pretty drastic. Even after the first bomb, some in the Military figured we didn't have the power to do that again. They were mistaken, and Japan surrendered.

Japan's industrial complex was revitalized by the US Military. We rebuilt the Japanese industrial complex into the power house it is today, not the Japanese. We also made sure that the Japanese society turned from conquest and war, to defense. To this day, Japan can only have as much military as it takes to defend itself until we get there.
However, the Japanese industrial machine we created, and still own parts of, has crippled our local automobile industry's.

Dropping a nuke on Japan in their eyes was a dirty thing to do. However, after Pearl, we had no aversion to playing dirty, only to killing so many non-combatants. The price Japan paid for their aggression was horrible, but has educated the world as to the result of nuclear warfare. Japanese society has made it a point, having been the only country actually bombed by a nuke, to make everyone aware of the horror of that reality, and many there have spearheaded world peace movements to make sure it doesn't happen again. Personally, I'd sleep safer at night knowing that every single warhead was destroyed, rather than this little game the US, Russia, and everyone else has been playing for decades.

The war with Japan was a nasty little affair, and was brought on by a lack of understanding on the part of the Japanese military leaders as to the affect the actions at Pearl would have on our national psyche. They were little Hitlers, only interested in their ages old conflict with China.

Germany however, was run by a total lunatic who was actually kicked out of the Military once, but who was able to persuade the population of Germany to once again, try and take over the world. It was Germany that was the real threat. Once Hitler was done with Europe, we would have been next. If we would have lost that war, you'd be sprecken ze deutsch.

On to your Japanese car remark. Automobile manufacture is world wide, and just about everybody owns somebody else. Just a look at what Ford owns gives you an idea how widespread this phenomenon is Many of the smaller Ford trucks are made by Mazda, Chevy's popular Geo series, now just branded Chevy, was all built in Japan (and now China). Japanese car manufactures, are building factories in the US, and providing jobs for US citizens.
 
I wonder how I'd react if my children were born with birth defects and cancer was rampant.
 
I'd probably be pretty mad at my gov't for attacking Pearl Harbor. Idiots. That's how I'd feel.
 
Japan's message on the atomic bombings is something that was defined by Japanese leaders as early as late August / September 1945 (less than one month after the August 9th Nagasaki bombing.) The book "Marching Orders" by Bruce Lee analyzes the role radio intercepts/decrypts had in influencing American and British leaders during the war. Even after the Japanese surrender Americans continued to intercept, decrypt and analyze Japanese diplomatic messages. In those messages we find the beginings of the Japanese victimization story.
"Two weeks later, Foreign Minister Shigemitsu begins Tokyo's exploitation of the issue. The analysts note for General Marshall that ''the Japanese leaders intend to play up the atomic bombings not only to explain Japan's surrender [to an army that does not believe it was defeated in combat], but to offset publicity on Japan's treatment of Allied prisoners [of war] and internees [plus countless other atrocities].'' "

This is just a small part of the what the book is about. Lee had access to 14,000 pages of Magic diplomatic summaries and 1.5 million pages of U.S. Army records dealing with decrypted Japanese and German military and diplomatic traffic and maps that information to the political and military decisions made by out country during the war years.

If you like that sort of thing.

ISBN 0-517-57576-0
http://www.amazon.com/Marching-Orders-Untold-Story-World/dp/0306810360/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218386355&sr=8-1
.
 
Zuki-Ron said:
Don't even start with that crap.

What crap would that be?
 
DrMoab said:
I don't think he can help it.

BRING BACK REP POINTS!!!!

This guy is why they were invented

What's a matter, no one to play with today, nothing intelligent to say, so thought you might Troll a little? lol
 
Trail-Axe said:
What crap would that be?

8Mud just made a simple observation about nukes and birth defects, and you start the whole "Holier than thou" stuff.

Of course YOU don't think it's crap, but trust me on this one, it is.

Trust our beloved Trail-Axe to hit another social land mine. :kissyou:

No, I don't think he can help it :D
 
Zuki-Ron said:
8Mud just made a simple observation about nukes and birth defects, and you start the whole "Holier than thou" stuff.

Of course YOU don't think it's crap, but trust me on this one, it is.

Trust our beloved Trail-Axe to hit another social land mine. :kissyou:

I often wounder why so many are so offended when their neat little lives are soiled by the truth. Millions of children murdered, and instead of being outraged at that fact, we attack those who do give a damn for reminding us it is still going on. I also find it amazing how many people love to say "Don't be holier then me," how dare you, why I'm not a bad person because............. And they lay down why they are so great, how good they are. But when did I ever say how great I was, or when did I ever say look up here and see how high and holy I am?

No, never said that, and I don't think or feel like that. If anything, I look up to many of you. I do how ever say things that I hope will provoke thought. I guess its the standard America cop out any time someone reminds us we have some serious problems that need attending to, to say to the one that mentions it, don't be holier then me, stay down here in the mud with me, "because when you make mention of those things that I know deep down to be true, you make me feel uncomfortable for doing and saying nothing about it myself."
 
I tend to use the mirror test on any and many controversial subjects, it helps me to keep perspective, avoid self righteous or holier than tho positions and blatant hypocrisy.
Simple question, you drop a 500 pound bomb, it's likely, unless you drop it on your own troops, you are committing genocide.
Sometimes right or wrong and labels just aren't relevant anymore.
Wiki
"Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."
I guess it's only genocide, when someone else is doing it.
 
Last edited:
So... Trail-Axe

You are our social and religious conscience? :scared:

Well, you certainly have a long row to hoe. :worship:

You have dragged your own thread OT and into a social and religious minefield. I told you that it's crap, and seeing that you respect a number of us, I would have thought you would have listened to that advice. I must not be one of the respected few :(

In order to support your statements, you have to generate a set of Givens.
Givens are statements that we agree are true in order to continue a logical conversation.

The first given is that "live" begins at conception. That is to say when the sperm hit the egg, and a division happens. I'll give you that.

The second one is more difficult, when is the soul conceived? Is it when the 1st division occurred, or is is when the live form becomes self aware. No consensus on that one, eh?

How about what constitutes murder? The law has one definition, the church another, and none of them apply to animals. Why not animals? Do they not have a soul, and are not self aware, or is this just a Man thing?
Is murder the destruction of a "potential" person, or a whole, out of the birth canal "person"? Again, no consensus.

So, you see, no logical discussion can accrue as too many "Givens" are ambiguous. So now it is an emotional discussion, which by the very definitions of emotion and discussion, is impossible to have.

See why it's crap now?
 
Last edited:
Trail-Axe said:
I often wounder why so many are so offended when their neat little lives are soiled by the truth. Millions of children murdered, and instead of being outraged at that fact, we attack those who do give a damn for reminding us it is still going on. I also find it amazing how many people love to say "Don't be holier then me," how dare you, why I'm not a bad person because............. And they lay down why they are so great, how good they are. But when did I ever say how great I was, or when did I ever say look up here and see how high and holy I am?
I actually agree with you about abortion. I just think you are stupid to bring it up here.
 
Back
Top