re: Inside story of the Nagasaki mission

quote:

---

Does everyone you know think the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified and proud moments in American history?

---

All I can say is some people (Pkin) only see a single moment in history and pass judgement without putting the relative timeline in context.... that is a very limited and elementary mindset.

The US dropped the two bombs because at the time, it was the only feasible option to save years and thousands of lives that an invasion of japan would cost.

However, that does not mean that the US military devalue the civilian lives lost in those two cities...

Fast forward to now, in recent conflicts our military has used and implemented every available technology to minimize civilian casualties.

So to answer your question were the bombs'justified and proud moments in American history?':

The A-bombs resulted in the defeat of Japan and ending the war... Yes!! very proud moment in American history relative to that time!!

But if the US dropped 2 A-Bombs on a country now... of course the answer is no, because now we have other options not available in the 1940's.

In 1966 on R & R. I visited both Hiroshima and Nagasaki Museums, spoke with a survivor who showed us how he hid under the table in the room. Very good before and after pictures.

Great story. All the brass thought they'd failed -- and Doolittle giving them the what-for not knowing what plane had just landed.

And hell yes we should've dropped them. What happened to the civilians there is terrible, but in the long run, the world needed to see how goddamn terrible these things were. I'm just glad we got it first.

quote:

---

Until the fall of the USSR, Baton Rouge was a strategic first strike target applying any metric (don't forget a major river crossing). I suspect it still is.

---

I have no doubt that it is. #batonrougelivesmatter

There were so many warheads during the thick of the Cold War that anything with any strategic value at all was a target, and probably multiple times over. In a full nuclear exchange, NOLA, BR, Shreveport/Bossier, Alexandria (England AFB) and Leesville (Ft Polk) would definitely have been hit. Probably Laffy, Houma/Thibodeaux. Monroe might have been obscure enough to be spared, but who knows.

State capitals in general were (are) primary targets. Among other things, governors control The National Guard in their states. You want to destroy the chiefs and as much of the immediate line of succession as you can, so that (say) the Mayor of Bunkie would be in charge.

quote:

---

seriously no one gives a shite about LA Govt.


BR could sink into a hole and it would change a g'damn thing in this country

---

Russia still possess something around 7,500 ( LINK) nuclear warheads. If for some odd reason it ever came to a nuclear exchange between us and them, Baton Rouge would most certainly be obliterated. Along with it, other places in LA like Ft. Polk & New Orleans would be hit. Then there's the targets in nearby states like Biloxi, & Hattiesburg (Camp Shelby) in Mississippi, Mobile & Pensacola in Alabama & Florida also come to mind right off the bat as placed that would be targeted as well.

Needless to say, if it ever came to WWIII, not only would BR be taken out, it would also be in the middle of the fallout area from dozens of other places that had been hit as well.

quote:

---

By more effective... You mean it killed more innocent citizens.

---

WOW!!! What the heck are they teaching in schools these days?!

I'm pretty sure that this has to be a troll job by somebody, but because I have no doubt that there are few people who apparently can't be bothered to even crack open a book about the war, I'll try to summarize this as simply and briefly as possible in hopes that they'll be willing to read several sentences and learn a thing or two.

Since we're on the topic of killing innocent people:
1) Pacifists, such as the person above is claiming to be, chose to do nothing prior to the war and essentially allowed fascists and communists to take over half the planet and kill millions of people in the occupied lands in the process. Some people were even outright exterminated.
2) Because of this, tens of millions more people ended up having to die to free the occupied peoples.
3) The Allies absolutely had to pursue a policy of "unconditional" surrender in World War II--during WW I surrenders were allowed with conditions, which effectively allowed Germany and Austria to re-start an entire, more deadly world war all over again only 20 years later. The Japanese would not accept an unconditional surrender in WWII even after the first bomb was dropped and even after the second bomb was dropped a coup attempt was nearly staged to keep the fighting going.
4) For the bleeding heart liberals out there...well, even Harry Truman, himself a liberal Democrat, knew that it would save far more American--and Japanese--lives to end the war quickly with the bombs. At the very least, he would have had to answer why the bombs were built and then not used while an estimated 250,000 more Americans and countless more Japanese had to die fighting hand-to-hand. And for the record, the Germans and Japanese also had their own nuclear programs and would have no doubt used the weapon had they developed it before the U.S. Also, the Japanese were even training women and children how to do battle if the Americans stormed the Japanese mainland's beaches. Imagine the casualties with literally every available Japanese citizen fighting to the death in kamikaze fashion. And yet people claim the bombs took "MORE innocent civilians" than necessary???

quote:

---

War is Hell.

---

Exactly...Dr. Carson had one hell of a quote on it last night, "There is no such thing as a politically correct war".