|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:15 pm Post subject: On justifying Hiroshoma and a nuclear strike against Tehran |
 |
|
Whatever you think of John Pilger (and yes Joo, I know he is a sick depraved fascist) he always provides food for thought.
The lies of Hiroshima live on, props in the war crimes of the 20th century
| Quote: |
The 1945 attack was murder on an epic scale. In its victims' names, we must not allow a nuclear repeat in the Middle East
When I first went to Hiroshima in 1967, the shadow on the steps was still there. It was an almost perfect impression of a human being at ease: legs splayed, back bent, one hand by her side as she sat waiting for a bank to open. At a quarter past eight on the morning of August 6, 1945, she and her silhouette were burned into the granite. I stared at the shadow for an hour or more, then walked down to the river and met a man called Yukio, whose chest was still etched with the pattern of the shirt he was wearing when the atomic bomb was dropped.
He and his family still lived in a shack thrown up in the dust of an atomic desert. He described a huge flash over the city, "a bluish light, something like an electrical short", after which wind blew like a tornado and black rain fell. "I was thrown on the ground and noticed only the stalks of my flowers were left. Everything was still and quiet, and when I got up, there were people naked, not saying anything. Some of them had no skin or hair. I was certain I was dead." Nine years later, when I returned to look for him, he was dead from leukaemia.
In the immediate aftermath of the bomb, the allied occupation authorities banned all mention of radiation poisoning and insisted that people had been killed or injured only by the bomb's blast. It was the first big lie. "No radioactivity in Hiroshima ruin" said the front page of the New York Times, a classic of disinformation and journalistic abdication, which the Australian reporter Wilfred Burchett put right with his scoop of the century. "I write this as a warning to the world," reported Burchett in the Daily Express, having reached Hiroshima after a perilous journey, the first correspondent to dare. He described hospital wards filled with people with no visible injuries but who were dying from what he called "an atomic plague". For telling this truth, his press accreditation was withdrawn, he was pilloried and smeared - and vindicated.
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a criminal act on an epic scale. It was premeditated mass murder that unleashed a weapon of intrinsic criminality. For this reason its apologists have sought refuge in the mythology of the ultimate "good war", whose "ethical bath", as Richard Drayton called it, has allowed the west not only to expiate its bloody imperial past but to promote 60 years of rapacious war, always beneath the shadow of The Bomb.
The most enduring lie is that the atomic bomb was dropped to end the war in the Pacific and save lives. "Even without the atomic bombing attacks," concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, "air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that ... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including "capitulation even if the terms were hard". Instead, the US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was "fearful" that the US air force would have Japan so "bombed out" that the new weapon would not be able "to show its strength". He later admitted that "no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb". His foreign policy colleagues were eager "to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip". General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: "There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis." The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the "overwhelming success" of "the experiment".
etc
etc
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pilger wrote: |
| The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. |
That's right. The allied position was "Unconditional Surrender." The allies believed that for a lasting peace, the Axis would have to be entirely destroyed, and their governments dissolved.
| Pilger wrote: |
| The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a criminal act |
*Waits for Pilger to cite the statute* Oh, right. None given. Even the Nuremburg Trials and Tokyo Tribunals were ex post facto. But doesn't mean that if Pilger had done his job, he could have at least made a case.
I think there are good, balanced cases why the Hiroshima bombing was not necessary (the Nagasaki bombing was most certainly unnecessary). This article by Pilger is not one of them.
The other consideration is, if the Americans had not dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, when and where would the first bomb had been dropped? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It ended the war on our terms. Japan has been peaceful, stable, and our ally since then. Would it have happened w/out the a-bomb? Perhaps, but I am positive at least one more American soldier would have died.
And hardly any historians would disagree that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was a bad decision. Nagasaki is perhaps another story.
And Kuros is right: it was bound to happen at some point. At least it was in a circumstance such as this (ie ended a war and didn't start one). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jandar
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think you wouldn't see a bomb dropped on Tehran or any
population center, unless the Iranians are stupid enough to hide a weapon
in one of their own cities.
My guess is that if there is nuclear event, it would be against a hardened
installation where the Iranians are keeping a nuclear weapon or stockpile
of weapons grade material.
If any radiation were to be generated from such an attack it would be my
guess that it would come from the stockpile rather than the "bomb" itself.
A conventional attack may actually be more dangerous against a
hardened target such as this. By dangerous I mean more radiation
leakage from the stockpile could result from the use of conventional
weapons than from the use of a high heat low radiation nuke. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
220,000 killed by the A-bombs (excluding those killed over the long term, because I don't know the stat) seems modest in the context of what has been a comparatively peaceful era. It's a shame for the poor buggers in Hiroshima and Nagasaki who were killed, of course, but the nuclear era has seen the rapid, unprecedented advance of our species and in my opinion it's not mere coincidence.
The situation between Israel and Iran is obviously worrying. Any overtly religious state, whereby its citizens are assured of going to Heaven and those in another, rival state not, having nuclear weapons is inherently bad, but since Jewish science contributed so much to nuclear energy and considering we in the West have something of a debt, to say the least, to the Jews, letting the Israelis have a few hundred nukes to protect themselves against barbarism seems reasonable, sane and decent to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The most enduring lie is that the atomic bomb was dropped to end the war in the Pacific and save lives. "Even without the atomic bombing attacks," concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, "air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that ... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." |
No. Richard Frank gives a meticulously detailed examination of this thesis and demolishes it entirely in his book Downfall: The End of The Imperial Japanese Empire (http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/f/frank-downfall.html), a book which was in itself 20 years in the making. He demonstrates that the Japanese cabinet had no intention of surrendering -- or even negotiating an armistice -- even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and had to be ordered to surrender by Emperor Hirohito.
In addition, he documents that while approximately 200,000 Japanese died during the atomic bombings, approximately the same number of asian civilians were dying every month during the Japanese occupation of Korea, China and Southeast Asia between 1943 and 1945. This alone justifies the atomic bombings to end the war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| To be honest I find the firebombing of Tokyo to be more horrific than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki but that incident hardly ever gets mentioned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
I still honestly believe Hiroshima was justified and Japan would have continued to fight on until the end.
If you want to read a good book, I recommend Shockwave: Countdown to Hiroshima, by Stephen Walker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thiophene
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
The situation between Israel and Iran is obviously worrying. Any overtly religious state, whereby its citizens are assured of going to Heaven and those in another, rival state not, having nuclear weapons is inherently bad, but since Jewish science contributed so much to nuclear energy and considering we in the West have something of a debt, to say the least, to the Jews, letting the Israelis have a few hundred nukes to protect themselves against barbarism seems reasonable, sane and decent to me. |
If there was a hint of sarcasm in your quote then please ignore the following. But anyone having a thought similar to this is sick. HOw can you justify killing innocent people? How can you justify using the means in which you are so much against? What's wrong with you? Myabe something's wrong with me but saying one nation (who in FACT have killed thousands of innocent people, destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives, taken the homes and livelihood of millions) can use a nuke while the other is banned from having a nuke is absurd...is it not? 'the thousands of you must die a gruesome death because we THINK you want a nuke' Is somethign not crazy about this line of reasoning? And sorry but please don't confuse the average citizen of Iran with the crazy religious fanatics. And how can you use the contributions the Israelis hav made to nuclear energy as an excuse...has the world given the Iranians the chance to contribute?
I wish we could get away from all this jew or iranian or muslim name calling. It doesn't matter if you're a jew, you have the same rights and laws to follow as any other persons. Iranians for the most part have no problem with jews, judaism, or the west. many do however have a problem with zionists of any religion, and historic jews ( there's a name for them but I can't remember). No one in their right mind would give up somehting for a hypocrite.
Personally, the conspiracist in my thinks the big powers want to retain the power so when the world's oil supply dries up, the energy deprived nations have only one place to go. BRILLIANT BUT EVIL! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thiophene wrote: |
| But anyone having a thought similar to this is sick. HOw can you justify killing innocent people? |
I merely stated that the deaths caused by the A-bombs, and all the wars post-WWII, seem mild compared to WWI and WWII. Between them, WWI and WWII saw 90 million deaths - most of them civilians - and 160 million military personnel mobilized. The nuclear era saw no such carnage and one can only assume a major reason is that nuclear weapons guarantee comparative peace and prosperity. Between 1914 and 1945, there were two world wars. Between 1945 and 2008 there have been none. If the price to pay for that is 220,000 dead dolphin-torturers, as opposed to the millions that would have inevitably died during WWIII (between the US and Russia), I can live with it.
| thiophene wrote: |
| How can you justify using the means in which you are so much against? |
Because my statement took place in 2008 and referenced the whole latter half of the 20th Century. The difficulties with Israel and Iran see us enter unchartered territory. The senial theocrats in Iran would nuke Tel Aviv quicker than you can say "mushroom cloud" because everyone in Tehran goes to Heaven and everyone in Tel Aviv goes to Hell according to their infallible book.
[/thread]
| thiophene wrote: |
| What's wrong with you? Myabe something's wrong with me but saying one nation (who in FACT have killed thousands of innocent people, destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives, taken the homes and livelihood of millions) can use a nuke while the other is banned from having a nuke is absurd...is it not? |
No, it's far from absurd. European and, frankly, still largely Christian nations owe the Jews for 2,000 years of demonization thanks, according to the former, Jews were deicidal, animalistic subhumans. Naziism was an overtly Christian movement. I'm terribly sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, the Israelis have carte blanche. The Iranians may have access to nuclear energy perhaps when the folks who run the country resemble any conception of decency and propriety, as opposed to senial theocrats who have child executions and young women executed for the 'crime' of being raped?
I couldn't possibly care less about the Palestinians. The plight of these book-burning muppets with shit for brains sure doesn't piss on my Big Mac.
| thiophene wrote: |
| has the world given the Iranians the chance to contribute? |
Yes. They had their chance in the 30s and 40s when nuclear energy was discovered by European, American and Jewish scientists. They came up with nothing and, in consequence, are entitled to no nuclear energy whatsoever in the complete absence of the systematic collapse of the Mullahs. It's also completely ridiculous how they expect us to believe they need nuclear technology for peaceful energy purposes (Iran ranks second in the world in natural gas reserves and also second in oil reserves).
So - here we have a government that's rabidly anti-Israeli (and yet not overtly pro-Palestinian) that has no need whatsoever for nuclear energy that wants nuke. I say dream on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thiophene
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
I merely stated that the deaths caused by the A-bombs, and all the wars post-WWII, seem mild compared to WWI and WWII. Between them, WWI and WWII saw 90 million deaths - most of them civilians - and 160 million military personnel mobilized. The nuclear era saw no such carnage and one can only assume a major reason is that nuclear weapons guarantee comparative peace and prosperity. Between 1914 and 1945, there were two world wars. Between 1945 and 2008 there have been none. If the price to pay for that is 220,000 dead dolphin-torturers, as opposed to the millions that would have inevitably died during WWIII (between the US and Russia), I can live with it.
Because my statement took place in 2008 and referenced the whole latter half of the 20th Century. The difficulties with Israel and Iran see us enter unchartered territory. The senial theocrats in Iran would nuke Tel Aviv quicker than you can say "mushroom cloud" because everyone in Tehran goes to Heaven and everyone in Tel Aviv goes to Hell according to their infallible book.
No, it's far from absurd. European and, frankly, still largely Christian nations owe the Jews for 2,000 years of demonization thanks, according to the former, Jews were deicidal, animalistic subhumans. Naziism was an overtly Christian movement. I'm terribly sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, the Israelis have carte blanche. The Iranians may have access to nuclear energy perhaps when the folks who run the country resemble any conception of decency and propriety, as opposed to senial theocrats who have child executions and young women executed for the 'crime' of being raped?
Yes. They had their chance in the 30s and 40s when nuclear energy was discovered by European, American and Jewish scientists. They came up with nothing and, in consequence, are entitled to no nuclear energy whatsoever in the complete absence of the systematic collapse of the Mullahs. It's also completely ridiculous how they expect us to believe they need nuclear technology for peaceful energy purposes (Iran ranks second in the world in natural gas reserves and also second in oil reserves).
So - here we have a government that's rabidly anti-Israeli (and yet not overtly pro-Palestinian) that has no need whatsoever for nuclear energy that wants nuke. I say dream on. |
That I understand. Thankyou.
Today's Iran would never nuke any nation. Those in power would never sacrafice their lives for what they believe is good. They certainly value their lives, not the lives of others. They're desperate for power just like other leaders and fear the consequences of nuking anybody. I think there are very few peple in the world who have the 'balls' to drop the bomb. Many say they would given the circumstances but very very few would. Iran could attack and harm Israel right now if they really wanted to, but they know any attack of that kind would be game over. They're not stupid, they know who's in charge today.
Boy, don't I wish I were a jew. I can do what I like and get away with it cause my ancestors went through hardship...well whos didn't? We don't all live in tha kind of world. So I guess it's just a preferance issue with you...not about what's virtuous or whatever? If today's Israel was made of any other group of peple, lets say the Chinese, Iran would not be in the wrong? You don't seem to have a problem with the nuke persay, and Iran would be helping to end te hardship and murder of the Palestinians.
Oh, they didn't pass the Western test, how arrogant of them for even trying. Oil isn't going to last, any soverign nation would be wise to test out the options. When the time comes, the west expects the energy poor to buy buy buy. Greedy bastards. And the fact that they are sitting so high on the energy supply is a very good reason why they NEED nuclear energy. We've seen how greedy the west has been with energy in the past 80 years or so, Iran has to protect itself.
Bravo on them for being brave enough to be openly anti-Israel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
No. Richard Frank gives a meticulously detailed examination of this thesis and demolishes it entirely in his book Downfall: The End of The Imperial Japanese Empire
In addition, he documents that while approximately 200,000 Japanese died during the atomic bombings, approximately the same number of asian civilians were dying every month during the Japanese occupation of Korea, China and Southeast Asia between 1943 and 1945. This alone justifies the atomic bombings to end the war. |
That's a good point.
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
| To be honest I find the firebombing of Tokyo to be more horrific than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki but that incident hardly ever gets mentioned. |
More horrific, I agree. Hardly ever mentioned? Well, I thought it was underlined quite thoroughly in Fog of War. Before that, I caught it just b/c it was a small footnote in Nat'l Geographic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EzeWong
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have a tendency to write a lot on this topic but I think I can sum it down to:
How does killing innocent people save innocent people? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EzeWong wrote: |
I have a tendency to write a lot on this topic but I think I can sum it down to:
How does killing innocent people save innocent people? |
THEIR innocent people versus OUR innocent people. Got it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jandar
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EzeWong wrote: |
I have a tendency to write a lot on this topic but I think I can sum it down to:
How does killing innocent people save innocent people? |
Transposition and simple math.
In economics they call it trade offs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
