Courage not cowardice; balls not bluster

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Joke? Seriously - you posted that?
To not burn schoolchildren alive by the thousands.
To avoid bombing hospitals and killing the doctors and nurses in them.
To give the Japanese leadership time to adjust to surrender, avoid some of the risk of revolt.
To possibly - maybe - there was a chance - shorten the fucking war.

To demonstrate moral courage on the eve of ascending to the leadership of the free world.

erm... it was a military weapon
you're applying your ideology to the situation in hindsight

the whole "military warning the other side of impending attacks" is nonsensical in light of the declared war and the concerted effort to fight - the Japanese didn't warn us of Pearl Harbor or of their Kamikaze attacks. it was war. sh*t got dead using military action.
it was already planned for huge losses -ours and theirs- should we have to invade the mainland. The Japanese were willing to defend it and predicted how we would attack.

There is no concievable way the Japanese would be willing to accept a single bomb that destroyes cities at a single detonation as being a viable working weapon (in that day especially)

it would be like Iraq telling us they built a deathstar that is cloaked in orbit

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The bombs collectively only changed the opinion of ONE Japanese who was in a position to make that new viewpoint matter, and that resulted in a "dead heat", three pro, three anti, NOT a majority pro surrender. That was, however, enough to put the ball in Showa's court.

As for delays, the bombs were sent to Tinian with orders to use them when conditions were right. DC didn't set any dates.

 

[iceaura]

erm... it was a military weapon
you're applying your ideology to the situation in hindsight

No hindsight involved, and no ideology.

the whole "military warning the other side of impending attacks" is nonsensical

Not that time. There was no value in surprise, at all. The opposite.
Unless somebody really, really wanted to hit a city with the new weapon.

it was already planned for huge losses -ours and theirs- should we have to invade the mainland. The Japanese were willing to defend it and predicted how we would attack.

Irrelevant. Once we had the Bomb for sure - sometime in late February or March - we weren't going to invade against resistance. The Japanese plans were futile.

There is no concievable way the Japanese would be willing to accept a single bomb that destroyes cities at a single detonation as being a viable working weapon (in that day especially)

That's hindsight reasoning, and it has a chance of being wrong - the Japanese had very good physicists, and the US had lots of convincing info. They already knew about the fission - all the US would have needed was evidence of having solved the fuel and delivery problems. The US could have handed them the blueprints for Little Boy without serious risk.
For that matter, they could have invited observers to Los Alamos. There was nothing to lose, except maybe a couple of months of the supposed two year lead on the Russians, if the Japanese mistakenly informed them as if they were an ally.

The bombs collectively only changed the opinion of ONE Japanese who was in a position to make that new viewpoint matter, and that resulted in a "dead heat", three pro, three anti, NOT a majority pro surrender.

That's the kind of situation one guarantees by surprise and sudden onslaught of new info, instead of diplomatic negotiation and time to think. They didn't even have time for reliable evaluation of Hiroshima before Nagasaki. They were being asked to alter their entire view of the war in 48 hours on the basis of second-hand info and enemy claims.

As for delays, the bombs were sent to Tinian with orders to use them when conditions were right.

They could have bombed Hiroshima in March, if they had put more effort into getting the fuel - the delay was for the plutonium design. They could have started leveraged negotiations and warnings even sooner.

This is all just looking at the timeline. And notice that even with this timeline out there, we hear the narrative presenting the situation as Bomb or invade, as if it were the only choice. Denial creates a weakness.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You have a source for your horseshit?

 

[iceaura]

You have a source for your horseshit?

Read the three or four links I've already posted to your none, and get back to me if you still have questions.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

No hindsight involved, and no ideology.

it was a military secret. that is where the information stopped. The Japanese weren't privy to the knowledge, unless you can prove otherwise, and I've not seen the evidence supporting this claim. They were unaware of the power until the first weapon was dropped.

your ideology is demonstrated in your post

To give the Japanese leadership time to adjust to surrender, avoid some of the risk of revolt.
To possibly - maybe - there was a chance - shorten the fucking war.

the two bombs were horriffic, but they did "shorten the fucking war" considerably

EDIT: Nukes are still a military secred. Nuclear weapons and all that are still classified

Not that time. There was no value in surprise, at all. The opposite.
Unless somebody really, really wanted to hit a city with the new weapon.

or blow up an entire navy in dock
or bomb the sh*t out of London
or...


... like I said: Ideology

That's hindsight reasoning, and it has a chance of being wrong

except that they didn't actually capitulate after the first bomb, so you can argue that it's not hindsight reasoning

I would think that, combined with the overwhelming manufacturing and resource demonstrations we gave, and that was well known to the Japanese leadership, the first devastating bomb was a big tell-tale sign that the US wasn't really in the mood to play around... it took a second drop to "shorten the fucking war".

all the US would have needed was evidence of having solved the fuel and delivery problems.

ok, call me kooky here but - I think the first drop kinda gave them the evidence they needed

they could have invited observers to Los Alamos

right, because the military has always been big on letting other nations view their top secret projects

why, I can remember, during the cold war, the open house aboard all those top secret Nuclear Naval subs and the Russian diplomats they invited... oh wait! they didn't.
LOL
I wonder why? maybe it would have "shorten[ed] the fucking war"?

like I said: Ideology
H*ll, I can personally tell you that you're not aware of a sh*tload of the military secrets - and any Veteran (especially a combat veteran) can tell you the same... maybe the first Gulf War would have been shorter had we let them know the full might of the US Military

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Read the three or four links I've already posted to your none, and get back to me if you still have questions.

You haven't posted any links that I've seen.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

The US could have handed them the blueprints for Little Boy without serious risk.

aren't all the blueprints to nuclear weapons still classified?

I mean... Little Boy is way, way out of date, so surely you can find me the blueprints and show them, since it would obviously be a good thing to share with nations...

 

[Vociferous]

Mass shootings are not frequent. And even though 30% of Americans own guns, only less than 1% carry every day. That means that two relatively rare circumstances have to come together at the same time and place. Again, too uncommon to be representative

So weapons more useful for performing mass shootings than anything else can be severely restricted without greatly affecting gun owners.

Handguns have been used in more mass shootings, and vastly more homicides, than rifles.

Gun owner doesn't mean "gun-toter."

Neither does "conceal carry permit holder" - a mistake you have made several times.

Where? The 1% (3 million) who carry every day is from a national survey of gun owners, and far less than "roughly 9 million [3%] people carried loaded handguns at least one a month" or the 16 million (5%) conceal carry permit holders.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ingle-day-study-finds/?utm_term=.d56340ae1fde
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3004915

 

[iceaura]

it was a military secret. that is where the information stopped. The Japanese weren't privy to the knowledge, unless you can prove otherwise, and I've not seen the evidence supporting this claim. They were unaware of the power until the first weapon was dropped.

Yes. You are repeating my observations of several posts, emphasized and so forth by me. I of course agree with myself. Your point?

the two bombs were horriffic, but they did "shorten the fucking war" considerably

Yep. Months later. The Japanese surrendered within a few days of finding out about the Bomb.
Too bad they didn't find out about it sooner - Okinawa, the Indianapolis sunk with the sharks, those months of secrecy were months of war.
And then there's the burnt children factor, if anyone bothers.

except that they didn't actually capitulate after the first bomb, so you can argue that it's not hindsight reasoning

It's hindsight reasoning under all circumstances, but especially if you bring in yet more hindsight considerations.
As far as surrendering after Hiroshima - they didn't have time. It took them longer than that after Nagasaki, and they had Hiroshima figured out by then. (Which indicates how quickly they could absorb such radically new information - again: why so late?)

or blow up an entire navy in dock
or bomb the sh*t out of London

? No. Bear down now: Knowledge of the Bomb ended the war. There was no military advantage in it.

right, because the military has always been big on letting other nations view their top secret projects

Are you posting that as an excuse for the blunder? Sure, that's probably a big factor in missing the opportunity. I'm not saying they have no excuse.

ok, call me kooky here but - I think the first drop kinda gave them the evidence they needed

Once they had figured out what happened, figured out the US could do it again, etc. Then came the internal fights with the hardliners.
All of this months later than necessary.

I wonder why? maybe it would have "shorten[ed] the fucking war"?

Try taking actual reality into account. It helps in the thinking department.

H*ll, I can personally tell you that you're not aware of a sh*tload of the military secrets - and any Veteran (especially a combat veteran) can tell you the same... maybe the first Gulf War would have been shorter had we let them know the full might of the US Military

Other people can troll in one or two sentences - more convenient.
Take a look:

You haven't posted any links that I've seen.

That's not true.

Y'know, when people who can post in complete sentences and manage adult lives post rock-bottom stupidities like that - complete failures to follow the simplest of arguments from the most basic of observations - that counts as evidence for my point: denial of Hiroshima has crippled the US, crippled its mind, and in the realm of violence - of good guy bad guy stuff, often gun stuff - in particular. A nation of bullies is a nation of cowards.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3004915

this is a fascinating read - I had not seen it yet.

thanks for posting it
reading it now

 

[iceaura]

aren't all the blueprints to nuclear weapons still classified?

So? The basic design is in one of the Wiki links I posted earlier. It doesn't matter - it needs too much U-235. And it doesn't matter - the Japs would keep it close.
Point is, a Japanese physicist of the time would know what they were looking at - and what it meant.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So, ice, you're saying I've seen the links you posted?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So? The basic design is in one of the Wiki links I posted earlier. It doesn't matter - it needs too much U-235. And it doesn't matter - the Japs would keep it close.
Point is, a Japanese physicist of the time would know what they were looking at - and what it meant.

And they weren't the decision makers. 軍事参議院, Gunji sangiin, they made the decisions. But you, being well versed in Japanese politics during the war, already knew that, right?

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Your point?

made it already

And then there's the burnt children factor, if anyone bothers.

not unless you want to bring up the invasion of China and the actions of the Japanese Army all over Asia
It's an emotional argument and irrelevant, considering

As far as surrendering after Hiroshima - they didn't have time

sorry, but I disagree. They were probably better informed about our manufacturing and technical capabilities than you claim considering Admmiral Yamamoto had extensively traveled the US and studied at Harvard, and was against attacking the US etc

Knowledge of the Bomb ended the war. There was no military advantage in it.

you're forgetting what you said and we're talking about. let me refresh you:

I said

the whole "military warning the other side of impending attacks" is nonsensical

your reply was

Not that time. There was no value in surprise, at all. The opposite.
Unless somebody really, really wanted to hit a city with the new weapon.

this argument is nonsensical in light of the primary attacks using air power on both sides was to bomb the sh*t out of civilians working in industrial areas in order to limit their capacity to function and serve the war

That is, very specifically, not warning the other side while bombing civilians working in the war effort, be it their attacks on London, China, Asia or anywhere else
surprise is one of those really great advantages you can use in war (when you have it) to help the enemy decide to capitulate

Try taking actual reality into account. It helps in the thinking department.

Other people can troll in one or two sentences - more convenient.

then why are you so verbose?

 

[iceaura]

So, ice, you're saying I've seen the links you posted?

Yep. Some of them twice.
That is, if you are reading the posts you are responding to, calling ignorant, etc. I suppose I'm making an unwarranted assumption there - you certainly haven't responded as if you'd actually read them. hmmmm
They're just timelines, Wiki, etc.

And they weren't the decision makers.

So? They were listened to - the Japanese had radar, airplanes, etc.

Handguns have been used in more mass shootings, and vastly more homicides, than rifles.

So?
That's getting to be a handy word.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ingle-day-study-finds/?utm_term=.d56340ae1fde
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3004915

The most solid statistical correlation between crime and conceal carry, according to the Rand folks et al, is between gun theft and conceal carry. Apparently when a person carries a gun all over the place it's more likely to be stolen than if they leave it at home.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

The most solid statistical correlation between crime and conceal carry, according to the Rand folks et al, is between gun theft and conceal carry

Hmmm.... the Vociferous link states

Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at one-sixth of the rate at which police officers are convicted.
■ From 2007 to 2015 (the last full year that crime data is available), murder rates fell from 5.6 to 4.9 per 100,000. This represents a 12.5% drop. Overall violent crime fell by 18 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage of adults with permits soared by 190%.
■ Regression estimates show a significant association between increased permit ownership and drops in murder and violent crime rates. Each one percentage point increase in rates of permit-holding is associated with a roughly 2.5 percent drop in the murder rate. This holds true even after accounting for incarceration rates, the number of police per capita, and other demographics.

so, are you saying we should have gun control to prevent property crimes instead of allowing ownership to prevent violent crimes?

can you clear that up for me?

 

[iceaura]

so, are you saying we should have gun control to prevent property crimes instead of allowing ownership to prevent violent crimes?

I'm saying the Rand corporation has taken a good look at those studies and found them to be - at best - dubiously suggestive. The linear regressions on data aggregated by State come in for particularly pointed critique.

Both the regression model - and I posted another critique of that earlier, with link etc - and the aggregation by State - which has been a repeated issue of mine for years around here - are likely to be invalid. If you include the ordinary errors of mistaking regression to the mean for caused change, etc, you have a mess.

The good news is that the mess is on both "sides".

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You're still bullshitting, ice.

 

[Vociferous]

Handguns have been used in more mass shootings, and vastly more homicides, than rifles.

So?

If you don't care about the majority of gun murders, that's on you and your conscience.

The most solid statistical correlation between crime and conceal carry, according to the Rand folks et al, is between gun theft and conceal carry. Apparently when a person carries a gun all over the place it's more likely to be stolen than if they leave it at home.

I've already addressed that irrelevancy. It didn't say what you thought it said.