Current News

[Denim Chicken]

out of curiosity, do you support what our country has done in the past 50 years? do you labor there

Much of it I do not

 

[dsturgeon]

Much of it I do not

I don't like any of it, but i find the ethnic language to be very strange. Wiping out the other country or army seems to be how war has always gone. The blending of ethnicity/beliefs in the labeling of each side is weird to me.

how and when stuff is used

I havent been following this war, but what i have read or picked up

 

[Denim Chicken]

The war in the Pacific was not winding down. The US just fought one of the bloodiest battles of the war in Okinawa, which led to the conclusion an invasion of Japan would cost 1 million US lives and the lives of about 10 million Japanese, not to mention the war would go on for another 2-4 years. That fact is, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more Japanese civilians than either of the atomic bombs we dropped. The bombs forced the Japanese to surrender before we had to firebomb other Japanese cities killing millions more people. William Tecumseh Sherman said, "War is hell." He also said, "You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our Country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out." If you don't want the cruelty of war, then don't start a war.

It is easy to second guess history but at the time Americans had been at war for almost 4 years and had been aware of numerous atrocities committed by the Japanese again US and British POWs as well as Chinese and Philippine civilians. There was no sign Japan would capitulate. For the war to end, something drastic had to happen. The atomic bombs saved lives, maybe millions of Japanese lives.

“that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender …. In being the first to use it we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”

Admiral Leahy, Truman's Chief of Staff

“the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

Eisenhower, before the bombing


Seven of the United States’ eight five-star Army and Navy officers in 1945 agreed with the Navy’s vitriolic assessment. Generals Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and Henry “Hap” Arnold and Admirals William Leahy, Chester Nimitz, Ernest King, and William Halsey are on record stating that the atomic bombs were either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible, or both.

 

[JoeKing]

“that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender …. In being the first to use it we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”

Admiral Leahy, Truman's Chief of Staff

“the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

Eisenhower, before the bombing


Seven of the United States’ eight five-star Army and Navy officers in 1945 agreed with the Navy’s vitriolic assessment. Generals Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and Henry “Hap” Arnold and Admirals William Leahy, Chester Nimitz, Ernest King, and William Halsey are on record stating that the atomic bombs were either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible, or both.

The idea that the Japanese were "ready to surrender" and it wasn't necessary to hit them with a nuclear weapon is just an opinion that was proven to be false when they were given the option to surrender after the first nuclear attack and they refused. It took the second nuclear bomb to convince them to surrender.

 

[Denim Chicken]

The idea that the Japanese were "ready to surrender" and it wasn't necessary to hit them with a nuclear weapon is just an opinion that was proven to be false when they were given the option to surrender after the first nuclear attack and they refused. It took the second nuclear bomb to convince them to surrender.

Nothing was proven false. They interpreted cables that indicated they were looking to surrender. However, even with that I'm not saying it was proven that they would have, nor can you claim the opposite.

 

[JoeKing]

Nothing was proven false. They interpreted cables that indicated they were looking to surrender. However, even with that I'm not saying it was proven that they would have, nor can you claim the opposite.

In early 1947, when urged to respond to growing criticism over the use of the atomic bomb, Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in Harper's Magazine that by July 1945 there had been no sign of “any weakening in the Japanese determination to fight rather than accept unconditional surrender.” Meanwhile, the U.S. was planning to ramp up its sea and air blockade of Japan, increase strategic air bombings, and launch an invasion of the Japanese home island that November.

“We estimated that if we should be forced to carry this plan to its conclusion, the major fighting would not end until the latter part of 1946, at the earliest,” Stimson wrote. “I was informed that such operations might be expected to cost over a million casualties, to American forces alone.”

 

[Denim Chicken]

In early 1947, when urged to respond to growing criticism over the use of the atomic bomb, Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in Harper's Magazine that by July 1945 there had been no sign of “any weakening in the Japanese determination to fight rather than accept unconditional surrender.” Meanwhile, the U.S. was planning to ramp up its sea and air blockade of Japan, increase strategic air bombings, and launch an invasion of the Japanese home island that November.

“We estimated that if we should be forced to carry this plan to its conclusion, the major fighting would not end until the latter part of 1946, at the earliest,” Stimson wrote. “I was informed that such operations might be expected to cost over a million casualties, to American forces alone.”

Ah, an estimation from the very man who oversaw the Manhattan Project.

 

[John813]

I'd assume the next step for Iran would to "allow" Hezbollah to invade.

Will be interesting if Iran actually enters this battle themselves, as that would probably get more countries involved.
Always had the believe Iran didn't mind the loss of Hamas or even Hezbollah to do their dirty work.

 

[JoeKing]

I'd assume the next step for Iran would to "allow" Hezbollah to invade.

Will be interesting if Iran actually enters this battle themselves, as that would probably get more countries involved.
Always had the believe Iran didn't mind the loss of Hamas or even Hezbollah to do their dirty work.

Hezbollah won't open a second front in the North until the IDF is heavily committed with boots and bullets inside Gaza. But yeah, that would be Iran's logical next move. I'm curious how our two carrier groups in the Med would respond to that.

 

[Creeper]

Ah, an estimation from the very man who oversaw the Manhattan Project.

When the allies invaded Okinawa in April of 1945 they had over 500,000 troops, about 183,000 were combat troops. That number was increase to about 250,000 during the bloody 82 day campaign to take the island. Japanese forces were estimated to be about 70,000 plus many more Okinawan the Japanese forced into combat. By the end of the battle, almost 13,000 Americans were dead or missing, and over 36,000 were wounded. 110,000 Japanese soldiers and Okinawan conscripts were killed.

The Japanese mainland was estimated to have about 5.5 million soldiers and an unknown number of Japanese civilians trained to fight to the death. Given the experience we had in Okinawa and Iwo Jima, the Americans had every reason to estimate the high number of casualties on both sides. If anything, I think the US underestimated the duration of such a battle. An invasion of Japan would have taken years, like Vietnam, and once we were on the ground there, the US of nukes would have already been ruled out. It would have been a bloody slog and a lot more people on both sides would have died.

Atomic weapons are evil but at the end of the day, it comes down to counting bodies. And as I said, firebombing Tokyo killed more Japanese civilians than either atomic bomb.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

In early 1947, when urged to respond to growing criticism over the use of the atomic bomb, Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in Harper's Magazine that by July 1945 there had been no sign of “any weakening in the Japanese determination to fight rather than accept unconditional surrender.” Meanwhile, the U.S. was planning to ramp up its sea and air blockade of Japan, increase strategic air bombings, and launch an invasion of the Japanese home island that November.

“We estimated that if we should be forced to carry this plan to its conclusion, the major fighting would not end until the latter part of 1946, at the earliest,” Stimson wrote. “I was informed that such operations might be expected to cost over a million casualties, to American forces alone.”

So you argue the other post was just an opinion and then follow-up posting an opinion.

 

[VaqueroTD]

Nothing was proven false. They interpreted cables that indicated they were looking to surrender. However, even with that I'm not saying it was proven that they would have, nor can you claim the opposite.

I thought we worked out the whole Japan A-Bomb thing out 10 pages back and were back to Israel & Palestine.

As a WWII history nerd, just want to clarify what I wrote then. There were members of the civilian government who did want to surrender but Japan was controlled by the military that was heavily governed by the centuries old code Samurai code of Bushido. An American wouldn't understand. But if you want to see plain examples, look at all the kamikazes from the Imperial Japanese Army INCLUDING Generals on several of these suicide missions. And visit any Pacific Island involved in WWII, and you'll find crazy old Japanese ex-warriors that came out of the jungle in the 1960's and 1970's to finally surrender. Nevermind how hard it was for the Marines and other Armed Forces to take these islands where the Japanese fought to the bitter end no matter the odds. The code is real, the Japanese Imperial Army believed in it -- no surrender and suicide if it was the only option. It took two A-Bombs, AND an invasion from Russia on their flank AND assurance that the Emperor would be retained, to finally let the ones who did want to surrender talk sense into the others.

One of the things that pisses me off about the revisionists is they even argue about the casualty estimates from Truman and the U.S. Government if the Allies had to invade. Excuse me? Arguing over 1,000,000 dead GIs versus 500,000? Isn't that the same foggy moral ground you're trying to debate with the A-Bomb? War is war. Israel is about to find out first-hand that it's very difficult to invade a city building-to-building. American forces would have been wiped out in heavy numbers if they had to storm the beaches of Japan and make their way through the interior which is heavy mountains and unforgiving terrain.

One thing that I think the military has not caught up on with technology is the social media and modern ability to communicate and film live. Many of these issues were never questioned in WWII because people just couldn't see them. Militaries are great at new weapons, vehicles and bombs, but I don't think they have fully realized this mass media, live war machine that now exists, The hospital bombing is a prime example. Hamas was quick to get that out as propaganda against Israel, while the US and Israel both insist their intelligence shows it was friendly fire from Hamas. That is my biggest fear. There is already so much tension in that area, anyone with some talent at propaganda is going to get the entire region up in arms against Israel, which I assume is why Biden already visited. Someone had to try and stop the fuse because it's been lit for decades since Jews started migrating and settling in these lands. Here is a great short video to show the history of Israel and Palestine, from ancient times to now. The problem with this conflict is it's not cut and dry. You have to understand the history which for me makes it depressing and realizing there may never be peace. You can't go back 100 years and tell Jews not to settle, you can't kick out Palestinians who have been there for thousands of years. I'm not sure anything will ever be worked out there except them just killing each other. Sad.

 

[JoeKing]

So you argue the other post was just an opinion and then follow-up posting an opinion.

You are the one who called it an opinion. The Secretary of War at the time, reported what he knew was fact. You call it opinion because you just don't want to accept it. That makes a debate impossible. I'm done talking to you because of your ignorance.

 

[Denim Chicken]

As a WWII history nerd, just want to clarify what I wrote then. There were members of the civilian government who did want to surrender but Japan was controlled by the military that was heavily governed by the centuries old code Samurai code of Bushido. An American wouldn't understand.

There is evidence that that is not the case.

As an instance of dozens of pieces of evidence, intercepted diplomatic cables of July 12-13 1945 show that Japan’s Emperor had intervened to attempt to end the war prior to the use of the atomic bombs. Subsequent intercepted cables showed Japan responding positively to a US offer of a surrender based on the Atlantic Charter as put forward in an official US government radio broadcast on July 21 1945.

 

[VaqueroTD]

There is evidence that that is not the case.

As an instance of dozens of pieces of evidence, intercepted diplomatic cables of July 12-13 1945 show that Japan’s Emperor had intervened to attempt to end the war prior to the use of the atomic bombs. Subsequent intercepted cables showed Japan responding positively to a US offer of a surrender based on the Atlantic Charter as put forward in an official US government radio broadcast on July 21 1945.

You prove my point. I didn't say there weren't forces in Japan who wanted surrender. To give you an idea how serious the military was about fighting to the end... even after all in power agreed to surrender after both A-Bombs, there was still an attempted coup where the Japanese Imperial Army attempted to stop the Emperor's recording that would be broadcast to the Japanese public the next day. It failed. What happened to the people who led it and failed? Suicide. Telling you.... they are hardcore.

Another fun fact: Allegedly the turning point for the Emperor to decide to surrender was when one of his advisors told him the military was taking shrapnel from the American bombers and using it for much needed supplies to make more weapons and supplies. Specifically, using them as shovels for the bombing damage, because they didn't have any.

It is completely unfair to use diplomatic cables and the politics and arguments between factions in the enemy as a reason to justify no use for an A-Bomb. It is war. Complete and total surrender, just like Germany. If Japan had come out and surrendered quickly, because it was obvious to everyone they were going to lose, the A-Bombs would not have been used. This is like when we talk about the game on Monday morning. Hindsight is 20/20.

 

[Tabascocat]

Apparently, it was a Hamas missile that destroyed the hospital, not Israeli.

 

[JoeKing]

Apparently, it was a Hamas missile that destroyed the hospital, not Israeli.

To be more precise, the organization that fired the rocket that inadvertently hit the hospital in Gaza was fired by the "Palestinian Islamic Jihad" (PIJ), not Hamas.

What is PIJ's relationship with Hamas?

Though it has frequently collaborated closely with Hamas, PIJ remains a rival. Strategic, ideological, and interpersonal differences have long prevented any real rapprochement between the two. PIJ has always remained clandestine, with a compartmentalized cell structure, in contrast to the mass mobilization favored by Hamas. Nor does it have an extensive welfare network or involvement in the administration and government of the bigger group. PIJ and Hamas have frequently clashed on tactics, negotiations, and a range of other issues, even if many of their ultimate objectives and core Islamist beliefs remain identical.

​

​

 

[Creeper]

There is evidence that that is not the case.

As an instance of dozens of pieces of evidence, intercepted diplomatic cables of July 12-13 1945 show that Japan’s Emperor had intervened to attempt to end the war prior to the use of the atomic bombs. Subsequent intercepted cables showed Japan responding positively to a US offer of a surrender based on the Atlantic Charter as put forward in an official US government radio broadcast on July 21 1945.

Regardless of what cables said the fact is the Japanese did not accept any terms of surrender until after the two bombs were dropped. The emperor did not overrule the military prior to that. In fact, a number of Japanese generals committed ritual suicide when the Emperor decided to surrender. There is no disputing that the war would have continued for some time had the bombs not been dropped. And one point you cannot argue is Japan did not surrender after the 1st bomb was dropped even though they were given the opportunity to do so. It is worth noting that the US hid the fact that they only had two bombs and it would take many months to develop a 3rd. They were concerned if the Japanese knew there were only 2 bombs they would not surrender after the 2nd bomb was dropped.

Remember too that LeMay launched a firebombing campaign on Japanese cities and even after massive devastation and hundreds of thousands killed, the Japanese continued hostilities and refused to surrender. If the Japanese were weakening their resolve they did not communicate that the allies.

Hindsight is 20-20 the stakes were too high for hand-wringing.

 

[Creeper]

Apparently, it was a Hamas missile that destroyed the hospital, not Israeli.

The story about Israel bombing the hospital and 500 dead never made sense. To start with the number of casualties for a single bomb is ridiculously high. In February of 1991, an Iraqi Scud missile made a direct hit on an US army reserves barracks in Saudi Arabia. 28 army reservists were killed. A Scud is a ballistic missile that carries a 2000 lb warhead. That is about as big of a payload as any Israeli missile or bomb. The fact is 500 deaths from a single bomb is an absurdly high number of casualties. Need more evidence? How about 3 commercial jetliners full of jet fuel crashing into 3 buildings, include two 110 story office buildings. The buildings subsequently collapsed into piles of rubble In the 2 WTC towers About 2753 people died at the WTC and 343 of them were firefighters who arrived after the attack. Some were in the two planes that were used as missiles. It was estimated 30,000 to 50,000 people were working at the WTC at the time of the attack. Even if we assumed that 2500 people were in that hospital when that building was hit at 7:50PM, the idea that one bomb would kill 20% of them defies logic.

The story was unbelievable from the beginning. The fact that US media gave credence to this story without any visual corroboration is journalistic malpractice at best.

 

[VaqueroTD]

The story about Israel bombing the hospital and 500 dead never made sense. To start with the number of casualties for a single bomb is ridiculously high. In February of 1991, an Iraqi Scud missile made a direct hit on an US army reserves barracks in Saudi Arabia. 28 army reservists were killed. A Scud is a ballistic missile that carries a 2000 lb warhead. That is about as big of a payload as any Israeli missile or bomb. The fact is 500 deaths from a single bomb is an absurdly high number of casualties. Need more evidence? How about 3 commercial jetliners full of jet fuel crashing into 3 buildings, include two 110 story office buildings. The buildings subsequently collapsed into piles of rubble In the 2 WTC towers About 2753 people died at the WTC and 343 of them were firefighters who arrived after the attack. Some were in the two planes that were used as missiles. It was estimated 30,000 to 50,000 people were working at the WTC at the time of the attack. Even if we assumed that 2500 people were in that hospital when that building was hit at 7:50PM, the idea that one bomb would kill 20% of them defies logic.

The story was unbelievable from the beginning. The fact that US media gave credence to this story without any visual corroboration is journalistic malpractice at best.

I think the best evidence they have is no bomb crater. But Israel looks really bad tweeting and then taking down a post that stated they had just bombed a terrorist hideout in a hospital, and then also taking down a fake that they said was evidence. Like I put in the earlier post with the video history of the conflict… you have to understand how to wage the social media war now. Israel will look guilty on this to anyone who does not support their cause until they have undeniable proof. This link provides a good timeline of the events, in particular the media reactions, following the hospital attack.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/18/what-is-israels-narrative-on-the-gaza-hospital-explosion