PJTV responds to Jon Stewart

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Azure

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?

This is going to sound harsher than I intend it to, but I believe it's different to the tune of about 150,000 civilian deaths. I would imagine a firefight on a pacific island would be between soldiers. I'm not saying it was the right or wrong decision, but if Iraq detonated a bomb in new york and killed 150,000 civilian Americans I imagine people would describe it as an illegal act.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Crispy's Critter

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.

It doesn't matter if the Japaneses knew whether their communications were compromised or not, those messages signaled an ugly aspect to a American nation that was tired of the war at this point.

The Japanese had no intention of surrender

The American's had visions of GI's chucking grenades and using flame throwers on every house to dislodge a determined and fanatical enemy that had shown suicidal resolve during the war.

The american's had calculated at one point that a seabourne invasion of the home islands would cost them in excess of 140,000 U.S. casualties (If I remember my sources right) and millions of Japanese troops and civilians and the pacification of the Japanese Islands would take a decade and leave next to no infrastructure.

It was hoped that the Japanese would surrender after the first bomb was dropped, that way they could stop the war, the Russians would have to stop and the American's would have one working bomb to hold against the Soviets. They were surprised that the Japanese didn't surrender and used thier reserve bomb.

The biggest crime was the Japanese government and militaries blatent lack of respect for the lives of their own civilians.

[Crispy's Critter]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

It doesn't matter if the Japaneses knew whether their communications were compromised or not, those messages signaled an ugly aspect to a American nation that was tired of the war at this point.

The Japanese had no intention of surrender

The American's had visions of GI's chucking grenades and using flame throwers on every house to dislodge a determined and fanatical enemy that had shown suicidal resolve during the war.

The american's had calculated at one point that a seabourne invasion of the home islands would cost them in excess of 140,000 U.S. casualties (If I remember my sources right) and millions of Japanese troops and civilians and the pacification of the Japanese Islands would take a decade and leave next to no infrastructure.

It was hoped that the Japanese would surrender after the first bomb was dropped, that way they could stop the war, the Russians would have to stop and the American's would have one working bomb to hold against the Soviets. They were surprised that the Japanese didn't surrender and used thier reserve bomb.

The biggest crime was the Japanese government and militaries blatent lack of respect for the lives of their own civilians.

Dude, I was conceding the point that the book was probably revisionist history, and may have been false. No need to go on.

[Magnum PEI]

I've gone back and forth over this issue for years now. But the thing is America would have bombed the hell out of those cities (and many others) with "conventional" weapons anyways. While I have a problem with the tactics of targeting civilians, the atom bomb was probably the best way to go about it at that point in time.

I do have to take issue with one thing mentioned in that video, though. Pearl Harbour was a sneak attack, but hardly a surprise. America knew what it was doing when it imposed all those embargoes on Japan. I should also mention that no civilians were targeted at Pearl Harbour.

[doozwimp]

From my understanding Japan's surrender was imminent, the atomic bomb merely forced the conditions of that surrender. Not an event i condone at all. Essentially a show of their new toy, interesting justification.

[jammies]

The only thing wrong with the USA dropping A-bombs on the Japanese is that they didn't have them 4-5 years earlier to drop on Germany and Japan to end the war then.

It's the "atomic" bugaboo that gets people thinking this is somehow qualitatively different from the conventional bombing the Allies did using exactly the same justifications; "atomic" bombs seem so horrifying now that using them is almost unthinkable, but at the time they weren't seen as anything more than a natural progression of weapons already in use. It was only when the proliferation of such weapons threatened humanity's existence that they were perceived as an entirely different (and immoral) category of weapon, and trying to apply this stigma retroactively is revisionism of the worst kind.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Matata

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

Horrible thing to say. The Imperialists had it coming; the millions of innocent Japanese didn't.

I suppose you've never been to Japan. Go to Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and you can see first hand how much they oppose nuclear war. They know it more than anybody else.

[troutman]

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...ight=hiroshima

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/spe...nt/procon.html

Historians are still divided over whether it was necessary to drop the atomic bomb on Japan to end World War II. Here is a summary of arguments on both sides:

Over-kill:

Japan was ready to call it quits anyway. More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria.

This seems to be the strongest justification IMO:

Immediate use of the bomb convinced the world of its horror and prevented future use when nuclear stockpiles were far larger

[Berger_4_]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

Sorry, I forgot to reply to this. I think risking the failure of the second bomb should have been one they took. No doubt the Americans were pissed off about Pearl Harbour, and no doubt everyone wanted to end the war quickly, but I think if you would have fired that first one as a warning shot and then said "Hey guys, the next one is coming right for Tokyo" the war could have been ended without the number of civilian casualties that were caused.

If you only have two of the biggest guns on the planet, I think you have to use them with extreme care. There's not many things more devastating than a nuclear blast and like troutman said in his first quote, the Japanese were already blockaded, and the Commies were starting to take it to them from the other side. They had nowhere to run.

I can understand wanting the war to end as quickly as possible, it's just that the civilian casualties were awfully high.

[Devils'Advocate]

I didn't watch the whole video. Did they show Jon's retraction the next evening where he admitted to saying things the previous night that he does not believe and wish that he had not said? I believe the words were "They felt wrong coming out of my mouth, but once they are out it's difficult to pull them back in. I said things in the heat of debate that I do not believe and apologize for that." I'm sure that is in there somewhere.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Berger_4_

Sorry, I forgot to reply to this. I think risking the failure of the second bomb should have been one they took. No doubt the Americans were pissed off about Pearl Harbour, and no doubt everyone wanted to end the war quickly, but I think if you would have fired that first one as a warning shot and then said "Hey guys, the next one is coming right for Tokyo" the war could have been ended without the number of civilian casualties that were caused.

If you only have two of the biggest guns on the planet, I think you have to use them with extreme care. There's not many things more devastating than a nuclear blast and like troutman said in his first quote, the Japanese were already blockaded, and the Commies were starting to take it to them from the other side. They had nowhere to run.

I can understand wanting the war to end as quickly as possible, it's just that the civilian casualties were awfully high.

They did drop one on a city and they still didn't quit, why would dropping one into the Ocean have any impact on their decision making if they didn't care that a city was destroyed.

Anyways I hate arguments such as these because they completely ignore the historical context in which the bombs were dropped in the first place. Hundreds of thousands of American men had come home in body bags and those who didn't die and were taken prisoner were tortured in unimaginable ways. People were tired of war, they were tired of everything that went along with total war, and if you have the option to help put an end to your countries suffering, would it not be irresponsible not to? And that is not even beginning to mention the communist threat which everyone knew existed at the time.

Lastly the idea of globalization is a pretty recent phenomenon look at the popular views at the time regarding the Japanese and how they were viewed as humans, in the sense that they weren't

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Russic

This is going to sound harsher than I intend it to, but I believe it's different to the tune of about 150,000 civilian deaths. I would imagine a firefight on a pacific island would be between soldiers. I'm not saying it was the right or wrong decision, but if Iraq detonated a bomb in new york and killed 150,000 civilian Americans I imagine people would describe it as an illegal act.

I should have worded what I said differently.

Is a firefight that results in innocent civilians being killed any worse than dropping a nuclear bomb?

Millions of people died during WW2, and we're making an issue over 150,000? 150,000 that died to save maybe millions more?

[Berger_4_]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

They did drop one on a city and they still didn't quit, why would dropping one into the Ocean have any impact on their decision making if they didn't care that a city was destroyed.

Anyways I hate arguments such as these because they completely ignore the historical context in which the bombs were dropped in the first place. Hundreds of thousands of American men had come home in body bags and those who didn't die and were taken prisoner were tortured in unimaginable ways. People were tired of war, they were tired of everything that went along with total war, and if you have the option to help put an end to your countries suffering, would it not be irresponsible not to? And that is not even beginning to mention the communist threat which everyone knew existed at the time.

Lastly the idea of globalization is a pretty recent phenomenon look at the popular views at the time regarding the Japanese and how they were viewed as humans, in the sense that they weren't

Ahhh touche good sir!

[Azure]

IMO, I think the quote Troutman had is right on. Dropping the bomb at that time, when it was rather small, and not as powerful as the ones we have now may have saved not on the the millions of lives then, but millions of lives into the future.

Because of what happened at Nagasaki and Hiroshima, most of us, including our leaders are horrified by the thought of dropping a nuclear bomb on a country like Iraq/Iran/NK.

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I didn't watch the whole video. Did they show Jon's retraction the next evening where he admitted to saying things the previous night that he does not believe and wish that he had not said? I believe the words were "They felt wrong coming out of my mouth, but once they are out it's difficult to pull them back in. I said things in the heat of debate that I do not believe and apologize for that." I'm sure that is in there somewhere.

I took his "retraction" to be insincere. It just sounded to me like he was talking the way he normally does, in his comedic way.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

I took his "retraction" to be insincere. It just sounded to me like he was talking the way he normally does, in his comedic way.

You thought this was insincere?!?

The other night we had on Cliff May. He was on, we were discussing torture, back and forth, very spirited discussion, very enjoyable. And I may have mentioned during the discussion we were having that Harry Truman was a war criminal. And right after saying it, I thought to myself that was dumb. And it was dumb. Stupid in fact. So I shouldn't have said that, and I did. So I say right now, no, I don't believe that to be the case. The atomic bomb, a very complicated decision in the context of a horrific war, and I walk that back because it was in my estimation a stupid thing to say.

What did you want? Groveling? Begging for people's forgiveness? He admitted what he said was wrong and stupid and I thought it a very man-up thing to do and a rare sight....

[Sainters7]

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.

Exactly. The Japanese think alot different than Western countries do. Honour is extremely important in their society. To them, surrending brings great shame, they would rather die with honour fighting, than surrender. That is why they were so cruel to the Allied POW's, because they saw them as less than men for surrendering, and being afraid to die. At the time leading up to the bombings, when the Nazis were already dead and buried, the Japanese were even beginning to train their children to prepare to fight the Americans. They would not give up. They'd basically fight until not a single one of them was left, you'd essentially have to kill every single person before the war would be over. Put it this way, even the first nuke didn't stop them. It wasn't until the 2nd bomb hit Nagasaki 3 days later that they finally stood down.

Also keep in mind we're talking about a very war-weary world at that point, I'm sure the last thing the Allies wanted to do was prepare for another very long, very expensive Pacific War, which would've seen thousands of more lives lost. Of course looking back on it, its criminal. But given the circumstances at the time, I understand why they did it.

EDIT: When I wrote this I had only read pg 1. I see this view has already been expressed a few times.

[Clarkey]

Is much known of the deliberation that went into the decision to use the bomb? That would make for an interesting book. Any recommendations?

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by doozwimp

From my understanding Japan's surrender was imminent, the atomic bomb merely forced the conditions of that surrender. Not an event i condone at all. Essentially a show of their new toy, interesting justification.

if surrender was imminent, then why didn't Japan do so after the first bomb? they waited until the second was dropped before finally giving in

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

You thought this was insincere?!?



What did you want? Groveling? Begging for people's forgiveness? He admitted what he said was wrong and stupid and I thought it a very man-up thing to do and a rare sight....

Just the way he said it. When you read what he said, you get a different take on what you would get if you see the video. Maybe it's just me, I don't know.