Nuclear Launch Detected... =o - Page 16

On November 03 2008 01:28 SpiralArchitect wrote:
Haha dont diminish what I sad to some stupid argument. The Japanese started the war and they have to deal with the consequences, many people seem to think that the citizens hold no responsibility. That is what I said and any serious debater would use that argument.

On November 03 2008 01:32 Frits wrote:
What I meant was that just because the Japanese comitted warcrimes it's not okay for the allies to suddenly start comitting warcrimes like it's justifiable, which is the argument you used.

On November 03 2008 01:33 KlaCkoN wrote:


You could make that argument, the very same argument justifies 9/11 though.
I think both events were horrible crimes against humanity

On November 02 2008 20:46 Daigomi wrote:
(like micronesia could say there is a lot of ignorance in this thread, while I couldn't say that even if I disagreed with other people's opinions).

On November 03 2008 01:42 NIflheimar wrote:
I think we should close this topic. It hits way to many sensitive spots and can't be properly argued on the internet.
mankind has done many mistakes especially in WWI and WWII and it's almost impossible to say either yes or no in this kind of topic.

On November 03 2008 01:36 SpiralArchitect wrote:

What I was trying to say was a lot of posters are saying "Oh poor Japan, oh my god they are losing civilians, oh my gawd they surrendered already!". I see where you are coming from thought but I do not mean that. Americas justification of the bomb doesnt mean it isnt a war crime and had we lost the war, or not come out of it so well positioned internationally we would have been tried. I just think too many TL.neters are overlooking the Japanese crimes and not thinking about the whole scope of the picture when throwing their pity at the Japanese.

By no means do I believe in a "You did this I do that" mentality, I am sorry if I worded my post badly.

On November 03 2008 01:50 Jibba wrote:

Modern day US does not have a war economy and we're not indoctrinated to fight. You could use that argument to justify an attack on a Jeep or airplane factory during the war and from the Japanese perspective that really would not have been that out of line.

On November 03 2008 00:58 Jibba wrote:

Truman first learned of the atomic bombs as a tool to force diplomacy from the Soviet Union. This was definitely taken into consideration during the meetings. Tensions between the two sides had already been rising which led to their fight at Potsdam. There was no policy approach until the Truman Doctrine, but Truman was definitely using the military to fulfill that purpose.

On July 24 I casually mentioned to Stalin that we had a new weapon of unusual destructive force. The Russian Premier showed no special interest. All he said was he was glad to hear it and hoped we would make "good use of it against the Japanese."

I was perhaps five yards away, and I watched with the closest attention the momentous talk. I knew what the President was going to do. What was vital to measure was its effect on Stalin. I can see it all as if it were yesterday. He seemed to be delighted. A new bomb! Of extraordinary power! Probably decisive on the whole Japanese war! What a bit of luck! This was my impression at the moment, and I was sure that he had no idea of the significance of what he was being told. Evidently in his immense toils and stresses the atomic bomb had played no part. If he had the slightest idea of the revolution in world affairs which was in progress his reactions would have been obvious. Nothing would have been easier than for him to say, "Thank you so much for telling me about your new bomb. I of course have no technical knowledge. May I send my expert in these nuclear sciences to see your expert tomorrow morning?" But his face remained gay and genial and the talk between these two potentates soon came to an end. As we were waiting for our cars I found myself near Truman. "How did it go?" I asked. "He never asked a question," he replied. I was certain therefore that at that date Stalin had no special knowledge of the vast process of research upon which the United States and Britain had been engaged for so long...

At the close of the meeting of the Big Three on the afternoon of July 24, the President walked around the large circular table to talk to Stalin. After a brief conversation the President rejoined me and we rode back to the "Little White House" together. He said he had told Stalin that, after long experimentation, we had developed a new bomb far more destructive than any other known bomb, and that we planned to use it very soon unless Japan surrendered. Stalin's only reply was to say that he was glad to hear of the bomb and he hoped we would use it. I was surprised at Stalin's lack of interest. I concluded that he had not grasped the importance of the discovery. I thought that the following day he would ask for more information. He did not. Later I concluded that, because the Russians kept secret their developments in military weapons, they thought it improper to ask us about ours.

I am just as convinced now as I was when I wrote that first book, "Speaking Frankly," in 1947, that Stalin did not appreciate the significance of the statement. I have read stories by so-called historians who assert that he must have known, but they were not present. I was. I watched Stalin's face. He smiled and said only a few words, and Mr. Truman shook hands with him, left, coming back to where I was seated and the two of us went to our automobile.

I recall telling the President at the time, as we were driving back to our headquarters, that, after Stalin left the room and got back to his own headquarters, it would dawn on him, and the following day the President would have a lot of questions to answer. President Truman thought that most probable. He devoted some time in talking to me that evening as to how far he could go -- or should go.

Stalin never asked him a question about it. I am satisfied that Stalin did not appreciate the significance of President Truman's statement. I'm pretty certain that they knew we were working on the bomb, but we had kept secret how far that development had gone.

Mr. Churchill and I had previously discussed together the problem of telling Stalin and, if so, whether before the explosion of the bomb or after. If we did tell him would he ask for the know-how at once? A refusal would be awkward, but inescapable.

There were embarrassments every way, but on balance I was in favour of telling Stalin. My chief argument was that the United States and Britain would have to refuse the secret information. They would be better placed to to this if Stalin had already been told that we possessed this weapon and meant to use it. There was not much to this, but the Prime Minister thought it the better way.

On the question of when Stalin was to be told, it was agreed that President Truman should do this after the conclusion of one of our meetings. He did so on July 24th, so briefly that Mr. Churchill and I, who were covertly watching, had some doubts whether Stalin had taken it in. His response was a nod of the head and a brief "thank you." No comment.

I do not recall the exact date, but after the close of one of the formal meetings Truman informed Stalin that the United States now possessed a bomb of exceptional power, without, however, naming it the atomic bomb.

As was later written abroad, at that moment Churchill fixed his gaze on Stalin's face, closely observing his reaction. However, Stalin did not betray his feelings and pretended that he saw nothing special in what Truman had imparted to him. Both Churchill and many other Anglo-American authors subsequently assumed that Stalin had really failed to fathom the significance of what he had heard.

In actual fact, on returning to his quarters after this meeting Stalin, in my presence, told Molotov about his conversation with Truman. The latter reacted amost immediately. "Let them. We'll have to talk it over with Kurchatov and get him to speed things up."

I realized that they were talking about research on the atomic bomb.

It was clear already then that the US Government intended to use the atomic weapon for the purpose of achieving its Imperialist goals from a position of strength in "the cold war." This was amply corroborated on August 6 and 8. Without any military need whatsoever, the Americans dropped two atomic bombs on the peaceful and densely-populated Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

On November 03 2008 02:00 KlaCkoN wrote:


A _lot_ of americans actually are indoctrinated to hate muslims / support the killing of them. Just see Palins quotes about "They hate our freedoms, they will try to kill us for them".
And believe it or not some people even on this rather liberal site agreed.
The twin towers were a huge symbol for the ecconomic force the US used (and uses) to opress people in africa/middle east.
From the point of view of someone who is on the recieving end of that stick it is not far fetched at all to consider that symbol a valid military target.

Don't misunderstand me, for all its pecularities I rather like america and I think 9/11 was a horrible crime which can never be justified, just as I think bombing japanese cities was a horrible crime which cannot be justified.

On November 02 2008 16:04 lluvia_0 wrote:
what....
the....
fuck....

How can anybody justify the bombing of millions of innocent people?
There is no argument. No justification. It's fucking murder!

On November 03 2008 02:09 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Stalin certainly wasn't being blackmailed at Potsdam, this kind of interpretation belongs geopolitical analysis shorn of actors and motives.

On November 02 2008 14:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
The ground assault would have resulted in more casualties on both sides.

The job of the American Government is to protect American lives at any cost. We did exactly that.

On November 03 2008 02:22 Physician wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rHrV2QhArA&feature=related