Oh, then where is your proof?
Letter of a daying veteran to Bush and Cheney
- Thread starter arauca
- Start date
Oh, then where is your proof?
Proof of what?
The historical record is common knowledge, the conclusions to be drawn from it are surely obvious.
And a similar situation has developed with regard to the Iraq War - a simple recounting of the the political and economic dealings of Richard Cheney in the years leading up to and including W's invasion, for example, sets up conclusions that are not so much in need of "proof" as very difficult to avoid.
I have worked for a safe moving company - physical safes, the noun, that is - and in my experience the presence of a large private safe in a businessman's or especially politician's formal office carries certain implications regarding that person's business or political dealings. Just to mention one of the more obscure details of Cheney's unique handling of his Vice Presidency.
I don't know how you could conclude that from the article, it specifically mentions these parts from centrifuges. You can even read his book:
http://www.amazon.com/Bomb-My-Garden-Secrets-Mastermind/dp/0471741272
The fact that they were buried, not destroyed, seems very suspicious to me.
Yeah, what proof?
You don't have any. You are merely promulgating your biases. WWII was not in any way similar to either the first or second Iraq wars. You need to go back to your history books and read up on WWII and pay close attention to Pearl Harbor and the fighting in the Pacific. The issue at hand had nothing to do with Dick Cheney or his stupid sidekick Bush II.The motive for dropping the nuclear weapons during WWII was to save lives, both American and Japanese. And it did, per my previous post.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-japanwarn/
Japan really did declare war on the United States at a time when the US was at peace with Japan.
Keep in mind that the victors tend to write the history books.
Imagine what they would say if we had lost WWII. We'd be described as being even worse than Saddam Hussein - killing a third of a million people with WMD's. And that history would be just as "correct" as the one we wrote.
So did gassing the Kurds. It helped end the war between Iraq and Iran -a war in which we supported Saddam Hussein; we even sold him the ingredients to make the gas and the helicopters used to spray it. Over 500,000 people had already died in that conflict. If we had remained allied with him we would have used the same excuse - "it was necessary to end the war, and we saved hundreds of thousands of lives by killing less than 100,000 enemy."
But since we get to write the history there as well, and we opposed him after that, it was a horrible genocide.
You can't fit even one bomb fuel centrifuge, let alone the "centrifuges" you claimed, in a barrel with a bunch of other stuff buried under your rose bushes in the back yard. "Parts" are not centrifuges - there are a lot of "parts" involved, here.spidergoat said:
Of course. But the fact that they were buried for 12 years documents my assertion pretty solidly - if Saddam had been doing any nuke weaponry development in those years, the plans and blueprints for key equipment would have been dug up first thing.
I honestly have no idea what you find in need of proof in my post there. Please specify the assertions of fact you find doubtful. Here's a list: The US ceased negotiating for Japan's surrender as soon as the scientists involved had determined the bomb could be built and would work. The US kept the bomb a secret long after its feasibility had been established, and even after actually building and detonating one - the Japanese were given no chance to respond or react to the existence of the bomb in the months before the obliteration of the two major cities, and no realistic opportunity to surrender before the bombs could be dropped. The choice to demonstrate its existence by detonating two of them without warning, different designs, in quick succession over major civilian population centers, was debated: alternatives were known to exist then, which were rejected by the people at the scene of the decision. The people making that decision were considering not only Japan's surrender, but the effect on the Soviet Union. The places of detonation were not chosen for maximum military effect or damage to armed forces, but for maximum shock and awe at the scale of damage to be inflicted on the entire civilization of Japan (and suitability for data collection, in determining the effects of the bombs and comparing the two types of bomb). And so forth.joe said:
So?joe said:
Do you have any evidence that history has been rewritten in this case? In a totalitarian state victors can rewrite history. But we do not live in a totalitarian state. The problem with rewriting WWII is that there were millions of witnesses on both sides and many of them are still alive.
The Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds had nothing to do with WWII or the deployment of nuclear weapons. US actions in support of Saddam were deplorable. There is much in the Middle East that the US should be ashamed of. But again, that has nothing to do with the US use of nuclear weapons in WWII. If you want to criticize the US, fine. There is much to be critical of; the US has screwed up a lot of stuff, especially in the Middle East. But you don’t need to invent stuff or stretch credulity. It just damages your credibility and the validity of your arguments.
So can non-totalitarian states. Google the Tonkin Gulf incident. How long did it take us to realize that that incident - the reason for our entry into the Vietnam War - was falsified?
WMD use on civilians has nothing to do with WMD use on civilians? Interesting perspective.
That's a strawman argument. I never asserted that he was developing nuclear weapons at that time.
Amnesia so soon . . .? This is what you were asked to prove.
There is no connection between the US use of nuclear weapons in WWII and Saddam Hussein. The US used nuclear weapons in WWII for the reasons previously stated which had nothing to do with Iraq.
Again, I suggest reading up on WWII. The Allies made the Potsdam Declaration in July 26, 1945 which warned Japan of imminent and utter destruction if it did not surrender immediately. It also laid out the terms of surrender. The first nuclear bomb fell on August 6, 1945.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration
“Terms of the Declaration
On July 26, the United States, Britain and China released the Potsdam Declaration announcing the terms for Japan's surrender, with the warning, "We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay." For Japan, the terms of the declaration specified:[1]
the elimination "for all time [of] the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest"
the occupation of "points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies"
"Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943.[3]
"The Japanese military forces shall be completely disarmed"
"stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners"
On the other hand, the declaration offered that:[1]
"We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, ... The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established."
"Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to rearm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted."
"The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined and responsible government."
The only mention of "unconditional surrender" came at the end of the declaration:[1]
"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."[1]
Contrary to what had been intended at its conception,[citation needed] the declaration made no direct mention of the Emperor at all. It did, however, insist that "the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest must be eliminated for all time".[4] Allied intentions on issues of utmost importance to the Japanese, including whether Hirohito was to be regarded as one of those who had "misled the people of Japan" or even a war criminal, or alternatively whether the Emperor might potentially become part of a "peacefully inclined and responsible government" were thus left unstated.[citation needed]
The "prompt and utter destruction" clause has been interpreted[citation needed] as a veiled warning about American possession of the atomic bomb which had been successfully tested on July 16, 1945, the day before the Potsdam Conference opened. Although the document warned of further destruction like was happening during other aerial bombings, it didn't mention anything about nuclear bombing or dropping of any nuclear weapon on Japan. Therefore some interpreted that the "prompt and utter destruction" meant that it was talking about atomic bombs, but during that time, the concept of atomic bomb and the destruction that it can cause wasn't known by anyone with a basic knowledge in Japan.
Leaflets and radio broadcasts
The government did not disclose the declaration to the Japanese people. However, the ultimatum was broadcast to the Japanese Home Islands on the radio while leaflets describing it were dropped from American bombers. Although picking up leaflets and listening to foreign radio broadcasts had been banned by the government, the American propaganda efforts were successful in making the key points of the declaration known to most Japanese.[citation needed] As a result, Prime Minister Suzuki felt compelled to meet the Japanese press, to whom he reiterated his government's commitment to ignore the Allies' demands and fight on.[5]
The extent of the Allies' demands brought home the extent of the success Japan's enemies had achieved in the war.[6]” – Wikipedia
The first nuclear bomb was dropped on August 6, 1945. The next nuclear bomb was dropped three days later on August 9, 1945. And after suffering a failed coup d’état the Emperor of Japan announced surrender on August 15, 1945 in a radio broadcast.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-leaflets/
Last edited:
As I said: no negotiations, no mention of any bombs, even just ten days before Hiroshima with working bombs in transit. No warning at all, no chance that Japan would surrender early before the bombs could be dropped ( a possibility that had been carefully avoided since the news of success in bomb development first reached the White House).joe said:
Not even advising that major cities be evacuated, in the propaganda leaflets. Nothing. The atrocity was planned to be committed just as it was, planned to kill the people it killed (deliberate detonation in the air above schools and hospitals), planned to have the consequences it had - except for not recognizing Soviet capabilities in response, of course.
One reason the bombs were dropped was to terrorize, coerce through fear, frighten into submission, by using what we now call WMDs on whole populations of civilians - to demonstrate consequences too terrible to be risked. They succeeded in that.
So did Saddam, with his chemical weapons to put down Islamic insurgency in Iraq.
Side point: the ratio of civilian to targeted combatant killed by Saddam with his gas was apparently in the neighborhood of seven or eight to one, at most (only adult healthy males included as combatants). That compares rather favorably with the current US drone strike ratio (estimates run to 100/1, none solid below 20 that I've seen), betters the effects of the blockade, and even seems to outclass, in its care for the innocent, the initial US invasion.
You quoted and then contradicted my assertion that he was not.spidergoat said:
You are thinking like a post nuclear person. No one would have believed mere threats about a bomb that could destroy a whole city.
Then no harm in making them, eh?spidergoat said:
But in fact the principles of the atom bomb would have been completely familiar to several Japanese physicists with military connections, and of course demonstration explosions would have been easy to arrange, and we might also note that having the Japanese ambassador and any invited representatives Japan might care to supply to witness Trinity was available as a tactic. Trinity was very impressive, to those who saw it.
If the fastest possible surrender had been the goal, rather than several weeks of delay to set up a message for Stalin.
WWII is not the equivalent of The Gulf of Tonkin incident. And the very reason we know the truth behind the Gulf of Tonkin incident is because the victor doesn’t get to rewrite history in an open society. The truth about the Gulf of Tonkin came out just as George Bush and Dick Cheney didn’t get to conceal their reasons for Iraq II. The truth came out. It is difficult if not impossible to conceal events of such magnitude in an open society. And as I previously pointed out, it would be difficult if not impossible to rewrite the history of WWII when you have millions of eye witnesses on both sides.
That fact is the US did not drop nuclear weapons on Japan to commit genocide. It dropped the bombs on Japan to save lives and end a war it did not create. If the US was intent on genocide, why didn’t it do it? It had the resources and ability to do it. But instead, the US rebuilt Japan and through the Marshall Plan and helped it to become a democracy and an economic and technical giant.
No that is not what I said. The use of nuclear weapons by the US against Japan in WWII is in no way comparable to Saddam’s bombing of the Kurds. WWII was not a civil war. The US was never part of the Japanese Empire. Americans were not Japanese citizens. Japan made several unprovoked attacks on The United States and declared war on The United States long before the US declared war on Japan. Japanese forces were attacking US forces before, during and after the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan. Hundreds of thousand had died and millions more could have died if the US launched a land invasion of Japan to end the war. Japan was warned of the destruction that would follow if Japan failed to surrender. None of this applies to Saddam and his decision to use WMD on his own people, the Kurds.
If the US wanted to commit genocide as you have claimed, why didn’t it? It had the resources and ability to do so. But it didn’t. Instead, the US offered Japan an honorable surrender. The US worked with the Japanese people to create a democracy for them which respected individual rights and restored the state to the people of Japan. And The United States spent millions rebuilding Japan in the years that followed and has been on peaceful terms with Japan ever since. That doesn’t sound like genocide to me. So your notion about genocide is just not borne out by the facts.
Demonstrate to whom? If only to Japanese leaders, then they could still get away with lying about it to the public.
No, you are trying to weasel out. This began when you challenged the fact that Japan was warned prior to the detonation of the nuclear bombs. Japan was warned per the previously mentioned Potsdam Declaration and the radio broadcasts and the leaflets. And Japan got the warnings as they rejected the Potsdam Declaration on July 29, 1945. So if they didn’t have time to respond as you claim, then why did they have time to reject the Potsdam Declaration? A rejection is certainly a response to most people.
You obviously didn’t read. I suggest again that you do some reading on the subject. You can start with the previously provided information.
Did Saddam use WMD’s on the Kurds to prevent the loss of millions of lives? NO. Were the Kurds killing Saddam’s troops in kamikaze attacks? No. Were the Kurds fighting to the last man, woman and child like Japan? No. Did the Kurds declare war on Iraq? No. Did the Kurds invade Iraqi territory? No. Did the Kurds invade Sunni territory? No. Did the Kurds invade any territory? No. Did the Kurds have an Army, Navy and Air Force? No. Did the Kurds have any uniformed military? No. The Kurds were civilians. Did the Kurds have a structured government? No. Did Saddam use WMDs to save lives of folks other than himself and those necessary to continue his lifestyle? No. Did Saddam rebuild the Kurdish towns he destroyed? No. Are you starting to get the point? Can you discern the many differences between the Kurds and WWII Japan?
The United States dropped the nuclear bombs on Japan to get them to surrender (i.e. accept the Potsdam Declarations) which they did within days of detonation of the last bomb and after suffering a failed coup d’état. The bombs worked and they demonstrated the intransigence of Japan's government to surrender. A coup almost prevented the surrender even after the two nuclear bombs had been detonated. Were it not for those bombs, millions more would have died. The bombs stopped the killing and destruction and saved the lives of millions who would have died in a land invasion of Japan.
Assuming this to be correct, and that is a big assumption given your track record Ice, it is totally irrelevant.
Good instincts. It isn't correct.
That's a worst case ratio of 34% civilians to 66% militants and it is notable that that ratio has improved over time. And that's from an article critical of drone policy. http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes
No warning of any bomb to anyone, no negotiations after the word of success from Los Alamos. The US kept the bomb a secret from the Japanese until after it detonated over Hiroshima - period. From the word of success at Los Alamos until the detonation of the bomb over the main hospital in Hiroshima, the Japanese had no chance of an informed unconditional surrender, and were given no opportunity to negotiate conditions. That is simple, historical, timeline fact.joe said:
Those same considerations apply to Saddam's gassing of the Kurds - the Kurds had declared war on him (an Islamic insurgency, with all that entails), gassing them brought an end to it which saved many lives, and if he was intent on genocide why didn't he do it? He had the opportunity, after all.joe said:
I'm not all that fond of the word "genocide" - good oldfashioned massacre and slaughter and atrocity and so forth seem more accurate in most cases of its use - but you seem to want to apply it to Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, so a little consistency is in order.
So? We have some evidence bearing on this - as soon as the Japanese leadership knew about the bomb, figured out what had happened to Hiroshima and what the situation was, they surrendered (on terms quite similar to those the Japanese envoys had proposed months earlier, btw). They did not wait for the Japanese people to pressure them, the Japanese people had barely heard bout the bomb when the surrender had already happened.spidergoat said:
As soon as the Japanese leadership understood that the US had developed atomic weapons, they surrendered.
The chance that they might have done that months earlier, if the US had provided the opportunity, is obviously not zero. And there was no obvious downside - the US had little or nothing to lose by informing the Japanese about the bomb that everyone who knew about knew was the end of the war, except the opportunity to nuke a couple of cities full of people without warning.
The presumption that "militants" are the target is flawed - the drone strikes are supposed to be aimed at specific people, not part of a military campaign against a side in a war. The "targeted combatants" are not anyone in the vicinity with the wrong buddies.russ said:
The link does provide information bearing on that:
That would support my 1 - 5% range, and be the accurate comparison with Saddam's efforts.russ's link said:
What don’t you get about devastation? Apparently a lot, did you read the fliers? Apparently not…Japan was warned in no uncertain terms of the devastation that would follow should the not surrender. Japan had many opportunities to surrender. But they didn’t . . . something to do with the Bushido Code.
Oh, then where is the declaration of war from the Kurds? There was no declaration of war from the Kurds. You are taking liberties with the truth yet again. And how about rereading my last post? There is no valid comparison between the Kurds and WWII Japan.
Oh yes you are. You use it all the time to describe the actions of those you don’t like.
You really need to learn something; you really need to read my previous posts and references. Japan knew about nuclear bombs. Germany had informed Japan and shipped them their nuclear materials for nuclear bomb production. So the Japanese government knew full well what a nuclear weapon could do.
And the Japanese government didn’t surrender after one bomb had been dropped. And Japan almost didn’t surrender after the second nuclear device had been detonated. The emperor made the decision to surrender and a military coup d’état nearly prevented him from surrendering. So your notion that the Japanese government was always reasonable and peaceable just does not hold up to the light of reality.
Japan was warned. Just because the US government didn’t give them the date and time of the attack and the technical specs for the weapons of destruction, it doesn’t mean they were not warned, because they were warned. They declined the opportunity to surrender. Japan’s military strategy was to bleed the Americans as much as possible. When it became apparent to the emperor that the only people who were going to bleed was the Japanese people the emperor wisely surrendered. But it took two nuclear bombs falling on two cities to get him to that point and even then, it almost didn’t work.
When you are losing a war and the opposing force tells you it is going to decimate your country if you don’t surrender and you know it has the capability to do so, you would be a fool or a fanatic (e.g. Bushido Code) to ignore the warning. Do you really think the Japanese didn't know they wouldnt' be bombed? It's not like they hadn't been bombed before.
Last edited:
The bomb was kept secret. When the Japanese found out about the bomb, they surrendered immediately - as fast as they could.joe said:
No, I don't. Why not try limiting your ignorance, innuendo, and slander to the thread topics?joe said:
The 1991 uprising was launched by the Kurds against the Iraqi State. This was armed rebellion and violent insurgency, some of it organized and incorporating trained military or militia, instigated partly by the US, and involving not only Kurdish Islamic independence fighters but Shia jihadists from the DAWA Party (some terrorism associated with them, in other countries) and others backed by Iran. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraqjoe said:
As I noted above, Japan's leadership was perfectly capable of comprehending what the existence of actual atomic bombs meant - there was probably no need to drop them: if Japan had known the US had built them, there was at least a good chance they would have surrendered. So why do you think the US carefully kept that knowledge from anyone in Japan?joe said:
Yes they did - it took them only ten days to figure it out and step on the hardcore generals, half of that time was spent getting reliable reports on what the hell had happened to Hiroshima. The US had to hustle to get the second bomb dropped before the Japanese had time to react, and the Soviets had to have their invasion poised and ready to launch to get it going in that small a window (a clue that security had been compromised at Los Alamos).joe said:
The Japanese were looking at the same situation the Americans who knew nothing about the bomb were looking at - Iwo Jima to the nth power, with the US running out of money and motivation. They had hope of defense, and great fear of the consequences of capitulation (they knew what had happened to Nanking and other places).joe said:
.Nevertheless, as soon as they knew about the real situation, they surrendered. That is the physical event, the historical record - when they found out about the bomb, they surrendered. So why did they not know about the bomb already, across the negotiating table or eyewitness from their ambassadors and envoys?
The ratio of targeted combatants to what the Vietnam apologists called "collateral damage" in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of course much larger than in Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, if we are comparing atrocities, but WWII in the Pacific in general seems to have been easier on the civilian populations of the countries involved (including Japan, even China) than the Iraq invasion and its aftermath - both on the Japanese and the American parts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio