- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Tucker Carlson has divided conservative social media with his take on the atomic bomb
Posted on 4/22/24 at 12:19 pm to Figgy
Posted on 4/22/24 at 12:19 pm to Figgy
quote:
The average Japanese citizen had been so indoctrinated with anti-American propaganda that people were committing suicide rather than being rescued by the American military.
There ya go.
Goobermint Propaganda and mis/dis-info is the common thread of all societies that break.
It's also how all gubmints create fanatics. It's also used to Divide and Conquer.
WASH. RINSE. REPEAT.
0
Posted on 4/22/24 at 12:21 pm to RustyDaDog
quote:
Truman and his advisors concluded that only bombing a city would make an adequate impression. Any advance warning to evacuate a city would endanger the bomber crews; the Japanese would be forewarned and attempt to shoot them down. The target cities were carefully chosen. First, it had to be a city that had suffered little damage from conventional bombing so it couldn’t be argued that the damage came from anything other than the atomic bomb. Second, it must be a city primarily devoted to military production. This was complicated, however, because in Japan, workers homes were intermingled with factories so that it was impossible to find a target that was exclusively military. Finally, Truman stipulated it should not be a city of traditional cultural significance to Japan, such as Kyoto. Truman did not seek to destroy Japanese culture or people; the goal was to destroy Japan’s ability to make war.
So, on the morning of August 6, 1945, the American B-29 bomber, the Enola Gay, dropped the world’s first atom bomb over the city of Hiroshima.
Excerpt from the Truman presidential library
Posted on 4/22/24 at 12:21 pm to RollTide1987
I enjoyed the episode and huge fan of both. Tucker did seem odd at times like he was too cocky or ignorant. Minus those few times I’m glad they made it happen because it was good.
Posted on 4/22/24 at 12:25 pm to momentoftruth87
I've been to Hiroshima and it was not a good thing
Tucker who is a very insincere opinionator (Dominion Lawsuit revealed)
may just be working his usual angle
Tucker who is a very insincere opinionator (Dominion Lawsuit revealed)
may just be working his usual angle
Posted on 4/22/24 at 12:30 pm to RustyDaDog
quote:
I have to disagree with Tucker on this one. The bombs were a necessary evil that saved an untold number of lives.
If war is to be fought it should be fought to win, it shouldn’t be this politically correct BS. It’s unfortunate it it’s true.
I'm comfortable with "I don't know, it's complicated, but I don't really feel any need to condemn an act from 80 years ago where there were potentially hundreds of thousands of lives at risk either way."
It's been touched on, but the part of the discussion that the surface debate rarely gets to is "was invasion of mainland Japan necessary given its depleted state." I accept all the "signs" we typically discuss from Okinawa, Saipan, etc. as true regarding the difficulty. On the flip side, these basic discussions often never ask "what did dropping the bomb mean for world peace for the decades to follow"?
Many on this board have probably discussed these and factored them into their positions, but a lot of people with entrenched views on the overall topic probably haven't (ie, most of the American public).
Posted on 4/22/24 at 12:32 pm to RollTide1987
It’s never a good thing to drop nuclear bombs. Having to fight a war is not a good thing.
Sometimes unpleasant things have to be done, especially to bring about the end of a conflict like that.
Sometimes unpleasant things have to be done, especially to bring about the end of a conflict like that.
Posted on 4/22/24 at 12:38 pm to LegalEazyE
quote:
Also, it let other countries know if you come at us, you're going to pay. So, likely prevented future attacks against us,
And THAT is absolutely something that a Huckster Carlson devotee is incapable of understanding.
Posted on 4/22/24 at 12:40 pm to Tmcgin
quote:
Tucker who is a very insincere opinionator (Dominion Lawsuit revealed)
may just be working his usual angle
You think?
Not Huckster Carlson.
Posted on 4/22/24 at 1:20 pm to Liberator
quote:quote:Wait a minute; WHOSE "analyses" are those "21,300,000" figures??
Okinawa (pop. 500K) saw 150K civilian deaths. i.e., Nearly 1/3rd of the population.
Okinawa-level deaths, suicides, etc. would have resulted in 21,300,000 civilian deaths,
Okinawa saw a 30% level of civilian deaths during the US campaign.
You follow?
If Japanese civilian deaths somehow only amounted to 1/3rd of that, you'd still be talking >7M dead. That's >20x the number of Hiroshima/Nagasaki deaths. It's equivalent to total Holocaust numbers for the entire war.
The A-Bomb stopped that. 7M Japanese, who would otherwise have died, probably reckoned that to be more humane.
Posted on 4/22/24 at 1:41 pm to Pettifogger
quote:Depends on the definition of "necessary." Japan was not going to surrender, sans invasion. If surrender was not necessary, then invasion of mainland Japan may not have been necessary.
"was invasion of mainland Japan necessary given its depleted state."
Posted on 4/22/24 at 1:48 pm to Damone
quote:
some still think the US had to drop the bomb(s) to get Japan to capitulate.
And those who think otherwise are full of bullshite.
Without the nuke, we'd have lost another million deaths in conquering Japan.
Why do you concentrate on the bomb?? - we killed more civilians with the fire-bombing earlier in the war.
What is acceptable to you?
How many additional human sacrifices are we required to offer up to satisfy your god of 'fairness?'
war is hell ----- that is not just a saying ----- that is absolute axiom.
Best way to avoid hell is to not start a war.
Posted on 4/22/24 at 2:00 pm to Damone
They were military targets .....Learn history and do everyone a favor .....Look it up yourself. So you can stop looking stupid.
Posted on 4/22/24 at 2:15 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The A-Bomb stopped that. 7M Japanese, who would otherwise have died, probably reckoned that to be more humane.
One other thing to consider. There were millions of Japanese troops stationed in China and Indo-China still fighting an aggressive war. There would have been more miltary and civilian deaths in those areas.
Posted on 4/22/24 at 2:16 pm to Figgy
quote:
The alternative was far far worse.
I don't know about far worse, but it certainly would've been very devastating in it's own right and taken years.
Posted on 4/22/24 at 2:28 pm to CatfishJohn
Ultimately, the leaders represent the people, duly elected or appointed by “divine” means. If those little bastards didn’t want the bomb dropped on them, they should have removed the Emporer and put his head on a pole. Otherwise, you get what you get. It’s not our job to shed tears for our sworn enemy from 85 years ago
Posted on 4/22/24 at 2:39 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Okinawa saw a 30% level of civilian deaths during the US campaign.
You follow?
If Japanese civilian deaths somehow only amounted to 1/3rd of that, you'd still be talking >7M dead. That's >20x the number of Hiroshima/Nagasaki deaths. It's equivalent to total Holocaust numbers for the entire war.
I just don't subscribe to what I consider a faulty premise.
The unique case of WW2's Okinawa slaughter (center of a desperate All Or Nothing Battle for the island with its citizens in the middle) should not be conflated with Japanese mainland reaction.
The breakdown of reasons for this statistically un-godly percentage of deaths at Okinawa : Japanese Occupation and US committed to taking the island by whatever means necessary ( the natives as usual, all 500,000 of them were EXPENDABLE). The US even assigned a special code name to it: Operation Iceberg.
The Japs were already dug in and loaded for bear on Okinawa (and island they Occupied before the US while The US invasion with it's massive armada and expeditionary force also came loaded for bear. So guess who got it in the shorts from both ends? Native Okinawans.
So besides getting shelled, shot, slaughters and brutalized by the brunt of the American forces, they also were conscripted by the Japs AND subject to forced suiciding from fear and panic by their own.
Most people will laugh, but some (including myself) regard Okinawa as a Ritual Blood Sacrifice. (US generals were sloppy and reckless in the Pacific regarding ANY life -- as in the case at Iwo.
BOTTOM LINE:
Okinawa was a special case and in no way should its high % of deaths and casualties ever factor into any statistical correlation (21,000,000 deaths) that the US War Command claimed would be projected in defense of any Japanese Mainland invasion. These numbers seem obviously contrived only to help justify dropping the two A-Bombs on helpless citizens.
Posted on 4/22/24 at 2:56 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Without the nuke, we'd have lost another million deaths in conquering Japan.
Stop buying the $.02 worth of CYA from the same War Dept Ghouls who are conjoined at the hip with MIC AND write the "history", account of all the Clean W's, accidental L's and "Bad Guys (everybody BUT us, cuz WE are always the Good Guys since...1776 of course) .
quote:
Without the nuke, we'd have lost another million deaths in conquering Japan.
Goodness Gracious...NO.
quote:
Why do you concentrate on the bomb?? - we killed more civilians with the fire-bombing earlier in the war.
You mean TWO A-Bombs? (beee-cause...They were BOTH IMMORAL and UN-NECESSARY?? And we're not even discussing the 1945 fire bombing of 70+ Japanese city population centers.)
quote:
How many additional human sacrifices are we required to offer up to satisfy your god of 'fairness?'
war is hell ----- that is not just a saying ----- that is absolute axiom.
Irony to the nth degree right there.
The US has done its part and complicit in creating a Hell. Plenty of blood sacrifices of American blood in taking two tiny Pacific Islands just for its airbases.
quote:
Best way to avoid hell is to not start a war.
Amen.
( But it takes honest commitments from honest politicians for peace, breaking the "We need a base there because!" narcotic, and a MIC on a short leash.)
Posted on 4/22/24 at 2:58 pm to mattloc
quote:
Excerpt from the Truman presidential library
As sanitized and halo'd as can be expected.
Posted on 4/22/24 at 3:15 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
I'm comfortable with "I don't know, it's complicated, but I don't really feel any need to condemn an act from 80 years ago where there were potentially hundreds of thousands of lives at risk either way."
Reasonable perspective.
quote:
It's been touched on, but the part of the discussion that the surface debate rarely gets to is "was invasion of mainland Japan necessary given its depleted state."
I accept all the "signs" we typically discuss from Okinawa, Saipan, etc. as true regarding the difficulty. On the flip side, these basic discussions often never ask "what did dropping the bomb mean for world peace for the decades to follow"?
Nicely framed on both counts.
Short answer: The answers to you queries might make too many those who feel "loyalty" means "Right or wrong" uncomfortable considering realities that may not put the US in a good light.
quote:
Many on this board have probably discussed these and factored them into their positions, but a lot of people with entrenched views on the overall topic probably haven't (ie, most of the American public).
Most people generally do not like to change their mind on what hardens into etched-in-stone dogma for decades after being repeated since childhood. It's just too much work to "change horses" even if new information will often be discarded no matter what.
The Hiroshima-Nagasaki issue is a subject I've personally had to reconsider and reassess. My revised opinion factor and hinge upon considering the credibility (
) of those assigned to write past and present "historical" accounts that must necessarily dovetail with certain ideological agendae. Posted on 4/22/24 at 3:31 pm to Liberator
quote:
The Japs were already dug in and loaded for bear on Okinawa (and island they Occupied before the US while The US invasion with it's massive armada and expeditionary force also came loaded for bear. So guess who got it in the shorts from both ends? Native Okinawans.
quote:
Okinawa was a special case and in no way should its high % of deaths and casualties ever factor into any statistical correlation (21,000,000 deaths) that the US War Command claimed would be projected in defense of any Japanese Mainland invasion. These numbers seem obviously contrived only to help justify dropping the two A-Bombs on helpless citizens.
You do realize what waited for us on Okinawa also awaited us on Kyushu, do you not. The Japanese had correctly guessed that we would strike that island first in an invasion of the home islands and had even concentrated their stoutest defenses in the exact area where we planned to land. What made Okinawa so deadly were the waves of kamikazes that came at our ships supporting the invasion effort off shore. The Japanese were planning to employ that same strategy though on a much larger scale.
They were also arming and training civilians to kill Allied servicemen. So while Okinawa was indeed a special case, it was a special case because we were attacking “sacred” soil. Imagine the special case that an invasion of the home islands would have looked like.
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News