PJTV responds to Jon Stewart - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

metallicat · 05-31-2009, 09:20 PM

To be honest, I don't have a personal opinion right now. I wanted to post this to read some comments and opinions of those smarter than I on these matters. This is a response to a Jon Stewart interview when he called the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan to be a criminal attack.

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburne...ic_Bombs/1808/

Like I said, I am curious to hear what you all have to say on either the Jon Stewart interview (You can view the interview on the official websites, but I can't figure out how to link them. The interview was with Clifford May), the PJTV response, or the dropping of the bombs themselves.

Displaced Flames fan · 05-31-2009, 09:23 PM

I'll comment on the dropping of the bombs.

It probably saved lives. It was probably criminal.

It happend 65 years ago and none of us here were responsible for it, should feel guilty about it or should be looking for revenge.

metallicat · 05-31-2009, 09:27 PM

Are you talking about American lives? I have certainly hear that before, that it saved the US from starting an aggressive ground campaign in major Japanese cities, and therefore losing many men.

Displaced Flames fan · 05-31-2009, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

Are you talking about American lives? I have certainly hear that before, that it saved the US from starting an aggressive ground campaign in major Japanese cities, and therefore losing many men.

Both. It would've been a bloodbath on both sides. Who knows what other parties would've become involved as well.

GGG · 05-31-2009, 09:35 PM

I think the fire bombing of Dresden was just as bad, so was the germen bombing's in London targeting civilians rather then industry, the internment and theft of land of Japanease americans and Canadian but I am not sure if they were criminal then....

After the war, after all these atrocities on both sides you had the Geneva convention to stop these things from happening. So yes illegal now not illegal then

Hemi-Cuda · 05-31-2009, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I'll comment on the dropping of the bombs.

It probably saved lives. It was probably criminal.

It happend 65 years ago and none of us here were responsible for it, should feel guilty about it or should be looking for revenge.

it was necessary and it did save lives, but i don't see how it was criminal. traditional bombing before and after the first atomic drop killed more civilians than the big bombs did, and they picked the most opportune military targets available to drop the bombs

CaptainCrunch · 05-31-2009, 09:53 PM

It wasn't criminal

It saved lives

It ended the war

It stopped the Russians from getting a stronger foothold in the Pacific.

I have no problems with it.

Berger_4_ · 05-31-2009, 09:57 PM

Not that I have a problem with it but I think Stewart made a good point in the interview...couldn't you have dropped a nuke a little ways off shore and then tell the Japanese government that the next ones were aimed at the cities if they didn't withdraw from the war?

Matata · 05-31-2009, 09:59 PM

The Japanese believed death was preferable to capture. I've seen footage of Japanese women and children jumping off of cliffs after their island was taken. This happened in every island captured and would continue to happen.

Japan also had ambitions to conquer central asia, the rape of nanking and other japanese atrocities were heavy on rape, murder, theft and arson. As much as like modern japan, these were the bad guys in every way. They combined Bushido tradition with western warfare and built an army that no south pacific country could match. A drawn out war between Japan and the US would have created a very different japan than we have today, most likely for the worst.

Besides, the Japanese don't complain much for having a nuke dropped on them, they know they had it coming.

FlamingLonghorn · 05-31-2009, 10:01 PM

What the hell is PJTV? I disagree with Stewart on this one, but that guy is annoying.

Azure · 05-31-2009, 10:02 PM

Someone should tell Stewart that people die when the whole world goes to war.

Is dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima any different than someone getting shot in a firefight on the Pacific Islands?

badnarik · 05-31-2009, 10:04 PM

purposely killing innocent people seems criminal to me in any context.

Crispy's Critter · 05-31-2009, 10:05 PM

in hindsight it was criminal, but at the time, hard to say. The war was already over, Japan was already preparing to surrender. The war would have been over very shortly anyway, as Japan had pretty much lost all their navy and fighter planes, which was supposedly what the Japanese military minds saw as their strength*. However, not sure if that was something that was known or rumoured at the time, or if it only came out years later. So as I said, in hindsight it doesn't look very good, but really without knowing what the US military heads knew or didn't know at the time it's pretty hard to make a judgement on it.

*I should also say that I got that from a book series on the war when I had to do a paper on the siege of Leningrad in high school, so could have been false or rumoured information published as fact.

CaptainCrunch · 05-31-2009, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berger_4_

Not that I have a problem with it but I think Stewart made a good point in the interview...couldn't you have dropped a nuke a little ways off shore and then tell the Japanese government that the next ones were aimed at the cities if they didn't withdraw from the war?

Probably wouldn't have compelled the Japanese to surrender, they would have questioned America's resolve and desire to use the bomb on civilians.

Combine that with the fact that there were only two bombs, the cost to build each one was murderous, nuclear material was incredibly rare and the building process was lengthy and inefficient.

What if the second bomb failed?

There's an old saying.

What do you think I would shoot at if I had the biggest gun on the planet?

It wouldn't be ten miles off shore, especially if I only had two.

Language · 05-31-2009, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matata

The Japanese believed death was preferable to capture. I've seen footage of Japanese women and children jumping off of cliffs after their island was taken. This happened in every island captured and would continue to happen.

Japan also had ambitions to conquer central asia, the rape of nanking and other japanese atrocities were heavy on rape, murder, theft and arson. As much as like modern japan, these were the bad guys in every way. They combined Bushido tradition with western warfare and built an army that no south pacific country could match. A drawn out war between Japan and the US would have created a very different japan than we have today, most likely for the worst.

Besides, the Japanese don't complain much for having a nuke dropped on them, they know they had it coming.

Doubtful. Even after the U.S. dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan still didn't surrender. It took the second one on Nagasaki for the Emperor to finally call for a surrender.

Matata · 05-31-2009, 10:08 PM

e: beaten

CaptainCrunch · 05-31-2009, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crispy's Critter

in hindsight it was criminal, but at the time, hard to say. The war was already over, Japan was already preparing to surrender. The war would have been over very shortly anyway, as Japan had pretty much lost all their navy and fighter planes, which was their strength. However, not sure if that was something that was known or rumoured at the time, or if it only came out years later. So as I said, in hindsight it doesn't look very good, but really without knowing what the US military heads knew or didn't know at the time it's pretty hard to make a judgement on it.

The Japanese were hardly preparing to surrender.

Radio intercepts had them preparing for a murderous fight to the death with American blood staining every inch of the Japanese mainland.

It was irrelevant that their airforce and navy were destroyed. The japanese were going to force the American's to clean out every house, every tunnel every field no matter what the cost was to their own civilians.

They didn't even surrender after the American's dropped the first bomb. It took the combined horrors of both of them.

Matata · 05-31-2009, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leonk19

Doubtful. Even after the U.S. dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan still didn't surrender. It took the second one on Nagasaki for the Emperor to finally call for a surrender.

whats doubtful? Sounds like you agreed with me.

Mean Mr. Mustard · 05-31-2009, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

It stopped the Russians from getting a stronger foothold in the Pacific.

This is likely the biggest point. I always viewed this along with the Potdam Conference to be the opening shots of the Cold War. Russia was invading Japan from the North and was making significant headway in doing so, so Japan was going to be fighting a war on two fronts against the two biggest superpowers of the day. They were in a no-win situation. The Americans were able to show their awesome display of force and halt the Russians in their tracks with the dropping of the bombs. And knowing what we know about the Soviets maybe that is a good thing.

Crispy's Critter · 05-31-2009, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The Japanese were hardly preparing to surrender.

Radio intercepts had them preparing for a murderous fight to the death with American blood staining every inch of the Japanese mainland.

It was irrelevant that their airforce and navy were destroyed. The japanese were going to force the American's to clean out every house, every tunnel every field no matter what the cost was to their own civilians.

They didn't even surrender after the American's dropped the first bomb. It took the combined horrors of both of them.

I was clarifying where I got the info as you were replying. The book did also mention what you stated here, as well as some other plans the Japanese had, but stated that they were purposely allowing many things to be intercepted in order to confuse the Americans. It was probably a bit of revisionist history.