[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by The_Rorschach

It needed consent from the Joint Chiefs, which they gave, and they required authorization from the Commander in Chief. I'm not sure where you heard this Kev, but it simply isn't so. Truman nodded to Nagasaki too.

I'm away for a week, on a friend'scomputer, so I can't provide the citation immediately. To my understanding, Truman gave the stamp of approval to Groves to act as necessary, andalthough maybe Truman approved of the Nagasaki bomb, I don't believe he needed to sign off on it (perhaps I'm wrong).

From what I've been reading about the Army and Navy actions during WW ][, it seems a general would be given a certain jurisdiction over an allotted number of men and materials, he would then study his pdf (principal direction of fire) and submit plans based upon his cabilities and the general time line of probably success tp the Joint Chiefs, and wait for approval. Much like MacArthur's RENO missions, many of which were aborted. The JCs would discuss it, revise it, submit it to the President, who would pronounce judgement, and then it would be cycled all the way back down to the general in queston to fulfill.

Right, but Groves to my recollection had been handed full reign over the nuclear program, and ran it as a general expectedly would.

So outraged that they allowed Roosevelt to wage his private little war against the Germans while we lost 80,000 men in the Pacific Theatre and 70% of our standing Army Air Force in the region needlessly. So outraged that only a hand-full of citizens lobbied for MacArthur to recieve the support he needed to wage a war against Japan while the US drove troops into Italy. So outraged that Australia was forced to draft female citizens on wide scale latifundium in order to feed what troops he did have, making Australia give more in the Lend-Lease agreement than she recieved, while supplies were instead given to the Dutch and French. . .Thats was one outraged public.

So apparently "unoutraged" (according to you at least) that we sent over thousands of our men to die. The allocation of various resources seems to have less to do with the broader public, and more to do with the movers and shakers in the Executive and Legislative branches.

Deny it if you wish, but the fact is, Americans hated the fucking Japanese.

"Not dropping the bomb by that point may have proven to be a political nightmare for Truman."

He didn't seek the nomination for VP under Roosevelt, it was forced on him by the Democratic public, likewise he didn't wish the nomination for a second term. In fact, he sought to have Adlai Stevenson run, but was trned down, and also inquired whether Eisenhower felt he was ready for political aspiration. He had no political nightmare. Read his memiors.

Post-H/N pollsshow that most Americans were fine with the bombings. Granted, most would have no idea of the full ramifications for a few years, but they still knew they had fucked up two cities hardcore. Truman had an obligation to answer to the public blood lust, and he furthermore had an obligation to use weapons that drained some $2 billion from the American coffers.

"Determined, yes. Invincible? No. Prolonging the war may have cost American lives, but I personally don't see that as a moral justification for killing the innocent."

So you are contending uitlander lives are worth more than your countrymen. I see. I would sacrifice any hundred Nips in order to protect a single American,

Well, that's where we differ. I value human life, whereas you apparently value social security numbers.

their actions in China and the Philippines are unconcionable. They handled themselves with the basest barbarism, and were duly accorded the fruits of their labours. Civilians suffer in times of war; Emotionally, fiscally and sometimes physically. They are not innocent in as much as their continuance to abide within that country supports the actions of their country.

This is utter nonsense. Every nation's hierarchy has a role in convinving their public that they are righteous and just. People in every country are prideful, as well as maliable. What you just said is the same pure shit that pieces of garbage like Osama Bin Laden use to justify the killing of innocent people.

I believe non-combatant lives should never be taken, if at all possible to avoid, but I won't shed any tears over those that are. War is not, and never will be, civilized. It is unreasonable for anyone to expect otherwise.

Discourse is a two bladed sword, and blah blah....you justify using nuclear weapons, as did people back in the day, on the grounds that it was the most humane route to take, and would preserve the most lives all around. This is the rationale behind most progression in weaponry, that it shall be more precise, more direct, and more containable.

However you apparently don't care about how many "nips" you kill, nor do you care how. So don't chastize me on the grounds of humanity, because I realize it will never be humane, THAT is why I oppose it. I ask for just war if any, not humane. The two words together create an oxymoron. It is not just to punish the civilian population of any country in order to pressure or lobby the government into an action it may not have otherwise taken. Terrorists do this, not heroes.

"They barely surrendered after both of the bombs."

Discoarse is a two bladed sword, and I believe you have here fallen upon it. Either the second bomb was unnecessary because they were ready to surrender, your first argugment, or both bombs were a waste because they 'barely' surrendered after two. Which is it? Was too not enough, or too much? I'm afraid I don't follow.

My argument was that whether or not they would've surrendered, the bombings were unjust. Period.

They actually surrendered after the first one, the communique they initially sent was one of acceptance, but because of the fluidity in Japanese, it seemed to American linguists they were 'considering' a surrender, when in fact, they were considering the terms.

Right, but the terms were unconditioal, and until they adhered to that, the war was still going on. The government's war cabinet wouldn't surrender, even after Nagasaki.

It may interest you to know that Hiroshima was not even the first suggested target: Kyoto was also considered but its unrivalled beauty ruled it out. We wished a display of power, not distruction. It exploded 580 metres (roughly1,885 feet) above the ground, not on impact like many people believe. We were flexing, not stirking.

I'm aware of Truman's discretion over Kyoto, and that's admirable. However beauty and art are secondary luxuries next to human life in my book.

The bomb delivered to Nagasaki was supposed to strike Kokura, now part of Kitakyushu, but as it was under heavy cloud-cover so the aircraft was diverted to its second target. Kokura, unlike Nagasaki, was a military manufacturing holding: Remember the Kokura Army Arsenal?

I'm aware they had selected a group of possible targets, and weather implications caused them to delay. This doesn't change the point, nor thesubstance of my argument.

I think you need to brush up a bit Kev, these bombings were not as heartless as modern Americans who misremember the circumstances like to believe. I realize its all the rage to condemn America at every turn, but whether one choses to believe it or not, we've had some good and able men abiding by this nation.

I realize it's likewise all the rage to Red-bait someone who questions our government's actions, it's a tactic Vince is quite fond of.

I understand the circumstances, I understand how bloody WW II was, and I realize the stubbornness of the Japanese Empire. All of this considered, I disagree with the actions that were taken. I can't change history, nor can I condemn Truman too harshly, because he was in the position, not I. It couldn't have been an easy decision (although he reacted to the bombings with quite the zeal).

Bringing things back to the point, this is precisely the point. Perhaps Ror you view the world as a marble cookie, one side white, the other black, but I do not. We began by questioning the validity of Americans who you claim are merely advocates of socialism at best, and Stalinist spies at worste. According to you, these people could not be nationalists (of course denying the reality that over 1 million Russian Communists died defending their national identity from Germany).

Forgiving and ignoring the remaing condescension that ended your response, I suppose I'll conclude with this: America is great not because of blind nationalists who put (supposedly) the needs of the nation first, but by a whole range of ideas, ranging from Buckley conservatives to Chomsky Leftists. You can love this country, and not support her actions domestically and abroad all of the time. Period.