Scott Ritter Says Don't Even Bother

[Guest aevans]

R011:

 

Any chain of inference longer than a single link is beyond the comprehension of some people.

[JOE BRENNAN]

It's obvious the US didn't invade Iraq (either time) to grab its oil but it would (IMHO) be a bit of a stretch to argue that the need to secure oil reserves in the region (and to stabilise it politically for that reason) had nothing to do with the need to deal with the Iraqi problem on both occasions.

145215[/snapback]

It doesn't seem so obvious to the anti-US left, or else they wouldn't constantly deal in innuendo to the contrary. Anti-US type casts that espersion, pro-US type gets upset, and "rational peacemaker" points out that oil is *a* factor, not the same as stealing oil, which most of the pro-US types would easily stipulate, since that *is* obvious, so really a point of questionable relevance. That cycle is so unbelievably played out that I find it really annoying now. Especially again and again on supposedly "General Military" threads. Doesn't anyone have anything new to talk about on actually military topics, can't they at least just keep a 2000 post thread running on FFZ where they do around in that circle endlessly? this forum is getting boring, really.

 

Joe

Edited February 14, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[DB]

It's a pity that this discussion has moved away from being either a discussion of the technical merits (or otherwise) of the original statement or a simple, unencumbered discussion of the game theories associated with trust and rational (or otherwise) behaviours, but if it hadn't it wouldn't be tanknet, would it?

 

Anyway, back onto a question raised some pages ago.

 

Why bother with both laser and missile based defence systems. (And apologies if this has been discussed, but if so, it's been buried in the bile).

 

Ignoring the "point defence" type laser system appearntly under test or deployed in Northern Israel as being against a differnet class of threat altogether, the planned laser system (YAL-1 - the Boeing 747 with a big chemical laser inside) is a tactical ballistic missile defence system. This is so for several reasons, the most significant of which is that it can't be expected to be in range of a strategic missile site when the balloon goes up, but it could be when Johnny Foreigner decides that its TBM launch time. Effective range is of the order of 100 miles and it's supposed to work only against missiles in the boost phase i.e it is expected to damage/destroy the launch system, not the warhead, causing the payload to not reach the burn-out velocity normally. If it gets the warhead sympathetically, all well and good.

 

Note that against this sort of laser system, a fast burn launcher will be less vulnerable. If burn-out occurs before the interception, then the laser would have to hit the payload, which is a more difficult task than hitting the entire missile, and would ahve to cause significant damage to that, which would be harder than doing the same to thin-skinned rocket booster casing.

 

The missile deence systems can be divided into two categories - exo and endo atmospheric systems. An exo-atmospheric system might be more effective against MIRV/MRV type payloads, because it may get them before they split.

 

The endo-atmospheric system is the equivalent of the point defence missile system - it gets (tries to get) a single warhead after it reenters the atmosphere and is on its way downhill.

 

Clearly each system complements the other, each system has different technical challenges and very different degrees of difficulty. So, each is worth pursuing.

 

Incidentally, it seems odd that people seemed to be presenting the "it only means you have to have 20% more missiles to overwhelm the defence" as an opposing viewpoint to "it's aimed at rogue states lobbing single (or low numbers) of missiles" Ther eis no incongruity, no opposition in those two statements.

 

If you have one thousand missiles, then a system that will remove 200 missiles from that equation might be considered to be meaningless. If however, the "rogue" has only 20 missiles, then he has to find a hell of lot more to have n effective threat.

 

How long was it between demonstrating the capability to launch a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead on it to fielding 200 missiles for the US? The USSR? China? I know that the UK has *never* had that capability.

 

David

[Josh]

Apparently the missile test conducted just in the last day or so resulted in the interceptor not launching, again...wouldn't it be simpler just to use a 10kt warhead? At altitude the fall out would be negligible, and if you used a small enough weapon the EMP effect would be very localized. It might not even have a serious EMP effect.

[Jeff]

Not sure how that solves the problem of a failure to launch by the interceptor. Maybe Wile E. Coyote with a match and fuse by Acme Rockets might help.

[Stevely]

Consider our conversation at an end.

 

Stellar

145487[/snapback]

 

 

If only! I'll go out on a limb here and make the call that we won't have to wait but two or three days at the most until we are graced by another babbling, overlong screed by you.

 

Be honest with yourself and stop pretending like you're offended and are going to walk away from this argument. Guys like you never end "conversations," your ilk has a pathological need to hear yourselves preaching the same stupid bullsh7t over and over. Silence is like kryptonite to you.

[FlyingCanOpener]

I just disagree very strongly with the basic premise of your argument ( that they were not going to surrender untill most were dead).

 

Then explain the reasoning behind the fanatical defence of so many Pacific Islands. I'm quite sure that the Japanese High Command would *suddenly see the error of their ways* and discard over 500 years of religious and military tradition and surrender like any "Western" nation. If you think that you have absolutely no clue as to the worldview of the Japanese military command at this time. To even put this statement forward shows your complete ignorance of the conduct of operations in the Pacific Theatre.

 

This site does cover most aspects and if you still feel the same way after you have read this i will be surprised( and shocked) and say no more on this topic. I do understand your reasoning and found that it is based on basic misconceptions and lack of information. Im sure it is not delibarately so so please read that. Thanks.

 

Stellar

145491[/snapback]

 

My opinion is unchanged on the topic, so be surprised, shocked, and please say no more on the topic. To say that the United States dropped atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki merely to intimidate the Soviets is just regarded as "fact" in the refuge of intellectualism, as well as in Leftist fringes of Diplomatic History, and is nowhere to be seen in the realm of military history.

 

The website you bring up is rather shoddy in that no credible sources are cited (A web page from the Seattle Times is used for the pros/cons of dropping the bomb? Give me a break. High Schoolers can't get away with that, much less someone with a Ph.D.) His conclusion on his reasoning to drop the bomb comes solely from private converations obviousally cherry-picked from Byrnes and Truman's archives, and conveniently ignores military officials who line up by the mile to support the dropping of the bomb (He says Eisenhower said it wasn't needed, yet doesn't cite a source. Hmm.... I wonder why... ) much less even considering the military aspect of the decision to drop the bomb. To arrive at a conclusion regarding a military event when you don't even consider the military aspects of the event in question is kind of like determining who will win an auto race without looking at the cars the drivers are driving.

 

To kill this notion even further, that the bombs were used to intimidate the Soviets out of a piece of the Asian settlement, tell me (1) How the Soviets could press a claim if they promised at Yalta (Something *else* your source fails to mention) to enter the war in Asia 3 months after V-E day, and (2) How, if the Soviets were to claim a slice of occupied Japan, were they to get to Japan?

[PCallahan]

I just disagree very strongly with the basic premise of your argument ( that they were not going to surrender untill most were dead).

 

This sitedoes cover most aspects and if you still feel the same way after you have read this i will be surprised( and shocked) and say no more on this topic. I do understand your reasoning and found that it is based on basic misconceptions and lack of information. Im sure it is not delibarately so so please read that. Thanks.

 

Stellar

145491[/snapback]

 

Stellar --

 

The definitive work on this subject (at least currently) is Richard B. Frank's "Downfall." Frank, who is a regular writer on the Pacific war, focuses on the situation in the Pacific from early 1945 on, where the US had effectively reached Japan, and was seeking a way to end the war. He makes extensive use of both US and Japanese contemporary documentation. It has now been released in paperback. Frankly (no pun intended) it is vital reading if you wish to discuss this subject.

 

Pat Callahan

[Guest aevans]

This sitedoes cover most aspects and if you still feel the same way after you have read this i will be surprised( and shocked) and say no more on this topic. I do understand your reasoning and found that it is based on basic misconceptions and lack of information. Im sure it is not delibarately so so please read that. Thanks.

 

Stellar

145491[/snapback]

 

The site you linked to is a course site for an American Studies class that is (or was) taught by an obviously biased instructor. A short review of the course outline, objectives, and readings shows that the guy is a deconstructionist moron. When you appeal to authority, you have to appeal one that people you are debating with recognize and accept as an authority.

[Bill Garvin]

This sitedoes cover most aspects and if you still feel the same way after you have read this i will be surprised( and shocked) and say no more on this topic. I do understand your reasoning and found that it is based on basic misconceptions and lack of information. Im sure it is not delibarately so so please read that. Thanks.

 

I'll add my quote to the storm of derision. The site you link to is a one-sided propaganda polemic written by a jackass. Quoting it as a source or as an appeal to authority merely reveals whow little you understand of the situation in question. It is your reasoning that is based on basic misconceptions and lack of information. However, given the posts you have put up do date I am sure this is indeed deliberately so on your part.

 

I would strongly suggest you do some genuine research instead of cherry-picking polemics that support your preconceptions.

Edited February 15, 2005 by Bill Garvin

[Jeff]

Stellar --

 

The definitive work on this subject (at least currently) is Richard B. Frank's "Downfall."  Frank, who is a regular writer on the Pacific war, focuses on the situation in the Pacific from early 1945 on, where the US had effectively reached Japan, and was seeking a way to end the war.  He makes extensive use of both US and Japanese contemporary documentation.  It has now been released in paperback.  Frankly (no pun intended) it is vital reading if you wish to discuss this subject. 

 

Pat Callahan

145557[/snapback]

 

Agreed, an excellent book.

 

The next step in the strategic bombing campaign against Japan was a "transportation plan" that would have paralyzed the nation. We kept post-war Japan from starving by shipping 600,000 tons of rice and grain to the Home Islands in the year following surrender. If we had completed the TP, then all of that food would have rotted on the docks and hundreds of thousands of Japanese would have starved. Considering it took two atomic bombs and still there was an attempted coup before the Japanese surrendered, it would have been likely that this TP would have been succesfully completed before the Japanese finally surrendered. No matter how you cut it, NOT dropping the bombs would have cost far more lives than dropping them did.

[R011]

Stellar,Tue 15 Feb 2005  0439

 

A world where leaders can use the pretext of some epic liberation of other nations ( as so many historic dictators claimed they were doing) to invade and oppress other people's for the economic benefit of a few.

Seeing as this isn't the case in Afghanistan and Iraq, what's your point?

 

It was a conditional ceasefire and there could be no invasion of Iraq, unless it attacked Kuwait again,

 

Sorry, that's not in the resolution. The Hague Conventions govern when a hostilities may be resumed after a ceasefire. The previous resolutions were still in effect and indeed, recalled by 687 and 1441.

Many countries are in breach of numerous UNSC resolutions

The only UNSC resolutions that actually call for action are the ones issued under Chapter VII of the Charter. Only one nation has been in violation of any Chapter VII resolutions in the last few decades - Iraq.

 

I have checked the facts as much as one can online

 

Baloney. US budget decicits for the last decade are readily avialable on line, as is the defence budget, GDP, and other relevant indicators..

 

It was a grand experiment indeed with the result as follows

And your sourceless quote agrees with what I said.

 

There are some claims and retractions, at the bottem of this page, concerning womd in iraq

 

Actually, there are a bunch of innocuous or out of context statements packaged to give a certain impression by the propagandists who made that site.

 

Either way the US commited the first violation of Un conventions by killing thousands of Iraq's in full retreat during 26-27 Feb

Name the convention ans cite the section of it that forbids the killing of combatant troops. This will be difficult as there is no such prohibition, nor does it make any military sense.

 

Newscientist claimed about 100 000 "extra' deaths about 6 or so months ago.

 

And was promptly discredited.

 

It was and still is obvious to anyone who read abit about this that the Japanese were going to surrender in the near future and certainly before any invasion could happen.

 

And it's obvious to anyone who reads more than "abit" that this was not the case.

[Guest aevans]

I understand that you have chosen to believe what you want and that your bias is acceptable while his is not..... I guess i can be accused of doing the same.

 

Stellar

145845[/snapback]

 

Wrong. Unlike you, I know both sides of the issue in detail, with all of their biases. My analysis is based on matching the arguments against each other and deciding which ones carry more weight. The only thing I can be accused of is thinking -- you can't even be accused of that, much less be found guilty.

Edited February 16, 2005 by aevans

[FlyingCanOpener]

Storm? From your writing i see that you certainly will not stand for much, if any, new information being introduced into discussion so ill finish with this...

 

"In 1946, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey examined the evidence and concluded that that "certainly prior to December 31, 1945, and in all probability prior to November 1, 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." In June 1945, the United States had intercepted Japanese cables to the Soviet Union seeking help with their offer of surrender. In addition, American diplomats and negotiators in June 1945 told President Truman that the Japanese were seeking to surrender on one condition--that they be allowed to keep their emperor. But President Truman and the United States refused these initial Japanese offers, demanding that Japan surrender unconditionally and agree to give up their emperor."

 

And this  "MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...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."

 

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512. "

 

Your first quote affirms the reasoning behind the dropping of the bombs aided in the speedy resolution of the war. You second quote has really nothing to do with the dropping of the bomb. The irony of your quote is that despite MacArthur showing *reservations* in 1945, he was quite willing to drop a few on China in 1950-51...

 

More

I would strongly suggest that you do some genuine research instead of cherry-picking just the facts that support your beliefs. I certainly know the main stream account of events but it is always strange to see how much information is left out of those accounts and what the rest of the information indicates.

 

Stellar

145859[/snapback]

 

You mean just like you did? Considering the "mainstream" opinion is based on rather authoritative works (Like Downfall listed below), and the opposing opinion is based mainly on cherry-picked sources and bleeding-heart emotions, if you were serious about making an "informed" opinion, you would stick with the one with scholarly backing. But then again, it's always easier to choose the option that fits your worldview easier, regardless of the validity of the belief...

[Guest aevans]

Storm? From your writing i see...blah, blah, blah

145859[/snapback]

 

I'm certain the Mr. Garvin is well aware of what the Summary Report of the USSBS says, as well as what some felt about demands for unconditional surrender. Yet he also knows the counterarguments and knows how to balance both positions. You don't and can't.

[Doug Kibbey]

Why for instance was one of the bombs of a plutonium design and the other a Uranium design? If you want to bomb someone into submission is it not better to stick to one design without added risk of experimentation? Stellar

145880[/snapback]

 

That you are even asking this question is a measure of your palpable ignorance of the historical context of the development of the bomb. As someone else suggested, you'd do well to read Richard Rhoads...both his excellent works, in fact. There were VERY compelling reasons for there being two bombs, but I'm not optimistic about making understanding accessable to you. Let's let the pros try....

[Guest aevans]

Your arguments so far is based entirely on one set of facts someone put in a book wich you have now decided to make your bible. I may or may not be introducing new information, that may change or alter perception, and if i am not i will soon  leave you all in joyous agreement. Previous experience in this section of the forum have dissuaded me from taking you up on your last offer but i promise to do so given a better location.

 

Stellar

145886[/snapback]

 

I have read Downfall, but it is far from my "bible". I've seen all of the "new" information you purport to be "introducing". Judging by your reckless insouciance towards the whole body of facts, I was aware of them while you were still defecating grade school chow. Additionally, I've seen a lot of information that you obviously haven't. For you to accuse me or anybody else here of narrowmindedness is such a ridiculous assertion that you should count yourself lucky that you can't see all of the people shaking their heads in wonderment at your cluelessness.

[Guest aevans]

Im sure Mr. Gavin can and will speak for himself and i would kindly ask you to let him do so without you needlessly cluttering the forum with any more personal attacks. You can always open a thread in the FFZ and i will gladly join you there.

 

Stellar

145890[/snapback]

 

1. This is an open forum. I can comment on anything I want to. You're not the police here.

 

2. It's not a personal attack to offer a considered opinion of your knowledge and abilities. From the evidence you have provided on this thread, you don't know all of the history you need to know to offer an educated opinion on this subject. Also, you have given no evidence that you know how to balance opposing arguments and produce a logical analysis. Nothing personal -- just what you have demonstrated.

[FlyingCanOpener]

For you to accuse me or anybody else here of narrowmindedness is such a ridiculous assertion that you should count yourself lucky that you can't see all of the people shaking their heads in wonderment at your cluelessness.

145898[/snapback]

 

 

Ask and ye shall receive...

[Guest aevans]

Yes you can but i recently got the impression this section of the forum were not a free fire zone as you seem to imagine it. I never implied i were the one that made the judgement and simply compared what you said to similar comments i made that was frowned on.

145921[/snapback]

 

You seem to have missed the point -- your comments were and are frowned on because of their fundamental cluelessness, not because there are any rules, written or unwritten, about where people can jump in and offer their opinions. IOW, people are on your case for what you are saying, not the fact that you have chosen to say something.

 

Sorry but your arrogance is of a even less considerate type than mine. So this is what i think of you in your own words no less...

 

"From the evidence you have provided on this thread, you don't know all of the history you need to know to offer an educated opinion on this subject. Also, you have given no evidence that you know how to balance opposing arguments and produce a logical analysis. Nothing personal -- just what you have demonstrated."

 

Im relieved to hear were not going to get personal, i appreciate that.

 

Stellar

 

Total semantic content: "Oh, yeah? Well, so are you!"

 

How utterly, devastatingly mature.

 

BTW, is "Stellar" by any chance a description of your general performance in your chosen pursuits?

[R011]

Stellar,Wed 16 Feb 2005  0505

 

But it was. The Taliban asked for some proof of OBL's involvement but non were offered.

An obvious stall on their part, and a bad idea. Considering that it was hard to tell where the Taliban ended and Al Qaeda began, there was no reason for the US to take those criminals at face value.

 

Chapter vii resolutions are not the only resolutions that call for action

 

In fact, they are. All other resolutions lack any means of enforcement.

 

678 were bascically issued to enforce 660-677 wich were all concerned with ensuring Kuwaiti independance and security. Nothing concerning independant attacks on Irag proper.

678 authorized all necessary measures to free Kuwait and enforce "all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;" . 687 recognized that this had not been assured, hence it was a ceasefire rather than a peace treaty. It and 1441 are both subsequent relevant resolutions, BTW. Nowhere does 687 claim to supercede the provisions of Hague Convention IV that permit hostilities to resume once terms of a ceasefire have been broken.

 

More than one nation has been in violation of it in the last few decades

 

Nope. Only Iraq has been subjected to a Chapter VII resolution in that time. IIRC, the last Chapter VII action taken was the Korean War.

 

What is the new debt ceiling the US senate authorized some months ago?

You claimed that unlike the Soviet Union/Russia, the US did not reduce its defence spending and remained in deficit. Remember:

 

Stellar,Mon  14 Feb 2005  0048

 

When the USSR collapsed they massively cut back defense spending to manage their budget. The  United States have been doing deficit spending for two decades against fast fading threats;

 

This is not true, nor can you credibly claim that you only meant current spending.

 

When you dont want to investigate or work with information you

Did all that last year when all that nonsense first came out . I have no interest in doing it again. You're not worth repeating the work.

 

Geneva Conventions of 1949, Common Article III,

There are several 1949 conventions, each with numbered articles, none of which are called "Common Article III". See if you can find the right one.

 

which outlaws the killing of soldiers who are out of combat.

When you finally get around to actually looking this up, you'll find out that it was not applicable to the situation.

 

Well actually i read more than abit and expected you would assume as much.

 

I see no evidence that you read anything other than partisan opinion pieces that often bear little resemblance to historical or legal fact.

Edited February 16, 2005 by R011

[Jeff]

As i stated earlier there was in fact a conditional surrender after all this killing keeping the imperial family in place if with then obviously no executive power..... Why was this not done sooner as MacArthur (and others)  thought it should have as it was certainly a major obstacle to any possible peace? Imo there was no will to bring the war to as rapid end as was obviously possible with slight concessions.

145880[/snapback]

 

Downfall goes through the peace offers and what was and was not actually offered and who made the inquiries and whether those people had any genuine power or authority to make such inquiries. It's not as slam dunk as you seem to think. Even after two atomic bombs, it still took an attempted coup and the unprecedented intervention of the Emporer to bring the war to an end. He didn't say "surrender", just that the fighting would stop and the war would be brought to an end. That doesn't sound like a country and government begging for a peace but one who finally, begrudging accepted that "the war hadn't gone as planned."

 

From Kazutoshi Hando, The Pacific War Research Society, Japan's Longest Day (Tokyo: Kodansha International, Ltd., 1968)

 

The Japanese government intended, for the moment, to "ignore" the Proclamation. Despite Anami's insistence on some strong statenient of protest, Suzuki agreed with Togo; the government, he said, will, in a word, in a now famous and tragic word, mokusatsu the Proclamation--will kill it with silence. Moku means "to be silent" and satsu means "to kill"; taken together, the word is defined by the Kenkyusha Dictionary as "take no notice of; treat (anything) w'ith silent contempt; ignore [by keeping silence]." It also means: "remain in a wise and masterly inactivity," and that, no doubt, was the sense Suzuki had in mind--but unfortunately the other meanings sounded both more spectacular and more persuasive, and when the word appeared on the front page of Tokyo's newspapers the following morning, it was taken to mean that the government held the Proclamation in contempt--that the government, in fact, rejected it. So the word was understood in Washington, as well as in Britain and the rest of Europe--although it was in American diplomatic circles that mokusatsu exerted its maximum damage. The Asahi Shimbun, one of Tokyo's largest newspapers, that same Saturday morning characterized the Proclamation as "a thing of no great value." The Japanese people were apprised of the existence of the Proclamation and assured at the same time that their government found it unacceptable--which was hardly what the Cabinet had decided the afternoon before. But the people were not to know that--any more than they knew anything else that went on behind the closed doors of the ministries and the official residences or the moats of the Palace--and so they treated the Proclamation with the silentt contempt which their government had told them was all it

deserved.

 

The following day, Saturday, July 28th, Premier Suzuki agreed to hold a press conference at four o'clock, at which he would discuss the Allied declaration. To the all-important, expected queson, Suzuki replied that the Potsdam Proclamation was nothing but a "rehash" of the Cairo Declaration and that the government considered it to be a "thing of no great value." Then, suddenly, he added, "We will simply mokusatsu it," after which he announced the government's determination to continue prosecuting the war until victory was won.

 

Togo was furious when he heard about Suzuki's answer. He protested that the statement was glaringly inconsistent with the decision that had been jointly arrived at by the Cabinet. At the same time he realized that there was nothing he could do: it was impossible to retract the Premier's words.

 

And the damage had already been done. Suzuki's statement was published in Japan on Monday, July 3oth, and picked up by newspapers throughout the world, which reported that Japan had not even bothered to "reject" the Proclamation. In describing this moment later, the American Secretary of War, Henry L. Stinison, said that the United States

 

... could only proceed to demonstrate that the ultimatum had meant exactly what it said when it stated that if the Japanese continued the war, "the full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland."

 

For such a purpose the atomic bomb was an eminently suitable weapon.

 

[sNIP]

 

(resuming AFTER both atomic bombs and the entry of Russia into the war)

 

"We cannot pretend," said General Anami, summing up the arguments on the other side, "to claim that victory is certain, but it is far too early to say that the war is lost. That we will inflict severe losses on the enemy when he invadesJapan is certain, and it is by no means impossible that we may be able to reverse the situation in our favor, pulling victory out of defeat.

 

"Furthermore," Anami went on, "our Army will not submit to demobilization. Our men simply will not lay down their arms. And since they know they are not permitted to surrender, since they know that a fighting man who surrenders is liable to extremely heavy punishment, there is really no alternative for us but to continue the war."

 

The Ministers of Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation, and Munitions disagreed. They pointed out that Okinawa was already being used by the Americans as a bridgehead for their forthcoming invasion of Kyushu (called "Operation Olympic"); that the people ofJapan were on the verge of exhaustion; that the present rice crop was the poorest since 1931; that air-raids and bombings had been increasingly devastating in recent weeks, and likely to grow more so; that enemy ships were already bombarding the coastal cities of Japan--that Japan, in short, had neither the strength nor the means to wage war any longer.

 

"Yes, yes!" cried Anami impatiently. "Everyone understands the situation . . . but we must fight the war through to the end no matter how great the odds against us!"

 

Here Genki Abe, the Home Minister, served notice that he could promise civil obedience if the Cabinet decided to attempt to end the war through capitulation. He recalled the incident of February 26th, 1936, when a group of enflamed young officers had led some two thousand troops in an insurrection that resulted in several deaths, including an attempt on the life of the prime minister, and the wounding of the minister of finance, the Grand Chamberlain, and the Lord Privy Seal, all of them liberal statesmen whose influence the young officers desired to remove from about the Throne. The rebels had occupied the War Office, Tokyo police headquarters, and the residence of the prime minister before the Emperor himself was forced to intervene, commanding the minister of war to take action. Recalling the details of that incident, which had occurred less than a decade before, Abe advised against acceptance of the Potsdam Proclamation.

 

[sNIP]

 

The situation, however, was a perilous one. Both Suzuki and Togo, as they held their late-night dialogue, were desperately aware of the danger. If a stalemate was likely to prove fatal, the wrong move might be even more catastrophic--for the most powerful, and predictable, piece on the board was the Army. It was a piece that for many years had obeyed no rules but its own. If the Army could not have what it wanted, it was willing to resort to assassination, or even outright rebellion, always on the pretext (which it almost certainly passionately believed) that it was protecting the Emperor from his "traitorous" advisers. Both Suzuki and Togo had a deep-seated and perhaps well-founded fear that violent death would prevent their signing the document they were convinced was now Japan's only salvation.

 

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hando/hando.htm

 

The allied leadership was tasked with fighting and winning this war and that meant hammering the Japanese with everything we had until they surrendered, not holding back and hoping for the best.

[Guest aevans]

Actually i got the impression that it was the way i was saying the "unacceptable" ( according to some at least) that managed some frowns. I might however have misunderstood....

 

I have seen your posting in responses to even long time members of the forum and i do consider it rather funny that you bring up my "maturity" . Since i wont claim that i have always acted in a mature fashion ( Too much sarcasm employed) i can but say that your not doing yourself any favours by treating anyone this way. Since i "suicided" my reputation( wich you normally achieve by agreeing with almost all people on most everythingt) in almost my first discussion you would probably do yourself a huge favour by simply attacking my arguments( or just ignoring me if you dont consider them worthy of your time) instead of a reputation i dont think i have, or can establish any day soon, by picking the controversial topics i twice have.....

 

Oh well

 

Stellar

146261[/snapback]

 

My lexical analyzer broke down on that one.

[DaveDash]

Stellar you are a typical case.

 

So many people today look back and judge people by their past actions using their modern day perspective.

 

In an age of massive death, destruction, and suffering, saying from a modern day perspective 'there must have been another way' doesn't cut it.

 

You have to get into the shoes of the people of the time.

 

First of all, the world was in a horrible war that seemed never ending with millions of civilian casualties. MILLIONS.

 

Stellar I'm not sure how old you are, but have you grown up through a massive world war where countries basically stop all normal life and send the majority of your young males off to die?

 

Wouldn't you want that situation to end as quickly as possible with the least loss of life?

 

Yes nuclear weapons cause horrible suffering afterwards, yes there could have been another way, but please don't condem those who did what they thought they must to end the war in the quickest possible fashion with the least possible suffering for _everyone_.

 

The fact of the matter is that given a choice between using nuclear weapons at the time (which had not been used before and all off the horrors surely wern't realised) or prolonging the war and letting millions more suffer the choice was clearly obvious.

 

Just remember, you are basing your opinion on a modern day perspective when nuclear weapons have become one of those bad evil things. That wasn't the case in 1945 and before bringnig your morale judgement on those who have come before you put yourself in their shoes.

 

Even if you continue to disagree with what was done back then, be greatful of the fact that the parties involved have learnt the horrors of nuclear weapons and they havn't been employed since, but do take into account that the only likely party to use nuclear weapons in any form of aggression are certian parties in the Middle East that do not have any form of accountability to their people.

 

Also, I can't be bothered going over all your points, but the one that struck out the most is the 100,000 dead in Iraq. That study has been hotly contested by many and it was done in Britian, not from Iraq.

THe sample population was roughly around 1000 Iraqis and it included hotbeds such as Fallujah which were wildly out of proportion at the time.

 

Anyway, all that aside you do the math. I did a while ago and when the time that figure came out in the media I worked out that roughly 240 innocent Iraqis would have to been dying each day since the war began.

 

240 per day is not something that would go unnoticed by the media Stellar, considering some of the worst days ever we have seen have numbered up to 70.

And considering it unlikely that 240 per day after the end of offical combat operations had ended would go unnoticed, most of those casualties must have been inflicted in the space where combat operations WERE taking place (When it was much much more difficult for journalists to get around the country) in which case the death toll would be in the THOUSANDS per day.

 

Do you really think that the insurgency would have been as small as it was if 100,000 people had been killed? Many Americans know someone who they lost in the WTC attacks and America is a country of 280 million whereas ~4000 lost their lives that day.

If a country of 20 million had lost 100,000 over a short period of time the hatred directed towards the United States would be significant and the insurgency would be a massive uprising wouldn't you think?

 

From what I've read of most Iraqi's blogs (including the bad ones) the 100,000 figure does not sound plausable at all, and if the United States was so uncaring towards colateral damage as to let 100,000 die I don't see their logic in investing in pinpoint weapons that reduce civilian casualties, why not just napalm the whole place?

 

Better yet, basing your points together, why not just nuke em Stellar?

Edited February 17, 2005 by DaveDash

[Doug Kibbey]

The bomb developement is rather seperate from it's employment and their designs are not central to any of my basic arguments. It seems your grappling for a reason to dismiss me? Well thanks for trying to help me; noble is good....

 

If the situation around the employment of the weapons were so clear cut there would be no debate(  as you must know there still is) and considering the  time frame this one spans its resolution will probably not happen here. I happen to think there were real poltical alternatives if even something such as exploding a nuclear weapon at high alltitude in Tokyo bay, after making sure everyone were going to watch, to drive the point home that there were indeed devastating new weapons in the US arsenal with enough around to do demonstrations with. Failing that you can always nuke a city; whats the rush after all if you could have likely managed peace with concessions before?

 

Either way, thanks for encouraging me to add two more books to a reading list i can not manage as it is....

 

Stellar

146268[/snapback]

 

If the development issue is so separate, why did YOU see fit to bring it up and question the parallel designs? ...Wait, don't answer....Because you thought you were onto something until it revealed how uninformed you are, so now...it's peripheral and irrelevant. That about it?

 

One needn't grapple for a reason to dismiss you...ample reason has been provided already by your posts, your sources, and your basis of argument.