Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Lives saved

August 18, 2010

Advertisement

To the editor:

In “Unnecessary attack” (Journal-World, Aug. 12), John A. Bond made four statements about the military situation with Japan in 1945 and why we should not have dropped the atomic bombs. He failed to mention that multitudes of Americans and Japanese (military and civilians) would have been killed if the bombs had not been dropped.

I am a survivor of Pearl Harbor. However, I would not be a survivor of WWII if the bomb had not been dropped. At the end of WWII, I was the executive officer of Fighter-Bomber Squadron 16 and led a 16-plane dawn patrol flight over Tokyo on Aug. 15, the last combat flight from the U.S.S. Randolph. I became XO because my predecessor was shot down, as was my roommate, who was in the fighter squadron. Air Group 16 consisted of four squadrons. The total complement of pilots and air crewmen was normally about 150. In two combat cruises, 98 were lost. Obviously, my perspective from the shores of Japan is different than that of Mr. Bond from Detroit.

Incidentally, in Japan (as well as France, England, China, Russia), nuclear power is a primary source of power. Although we began powering Navy ships with nuclear power in the late ’50s and have more than 50 years of experience in nuclear power operation, we have not built any new nuclear plants in more than 30 years. As a French engineer told a group of us about 30 years ago, “I can’t understand why you are so stupid now.”

Vincent U. Muirhead,

Lawrence

Comments

mr_right_wing 4 years, 4 months ago

I'll put this as nicely and delicately as I possibly can.... The guy (John A. Bond) is an idiot, and we all know it.

Strong language was used to warn the Japanese and they ignored it anyway. They made a wager that the allies wouldn't follow through, which they did, and the Japanese people paid the horrible cost. I have no problems on vigils for the innocent victims, but the blood of each of those victims are not on Americas hands, it's on the hands of the (then) Japanese government--they are responsible for that death toll, not us.

cato_the_elder 4 years, 4 months ago

Outstanding letter, Professor Muirhead. Thank you for taking the time to write it, especially in pointing out the absurdity of our failure to exploit nuclear power as has been done in Europe and elsewhere all over the world. Moreover, we all owe you a great deal for your heroism and bravery during the war.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

"Lives saved"

Ironic title, given that it was likely incendiary bombing runs that Mr Muirhead participated in over Tokyo whose targets were primarily civilians, and more than 100 thousand of them died. The targets of the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were also primarily civilians, albeit with a new, improved method of vaporizing the more than 200,000 people who died.

jaywalker 4 years, 4 months ago

Here comes bozo again, having to resort to hyperbole and exaggeration in an attempt to make a point. 200,000 weren't "vaporized,", pal.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

OK, only 100,000 were vaporized, 50,000 were merely cooked alive, and another 50,000 died agonizing deaths over the next several days or weeks. But that doesn't include at least another 100,000 who died of the effects of these bombs over then next several years.

Does that make you feel better?

jaywalker 4 years, 4 months ago

Yeah, bozo, "that" makes me feel better. What a maroon. I already know the numbers, pal, just pointing out your penchant for blatant exaggeration again.....and again........and again..........and again............

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

Are all you pals maroon? Are any of them purple or green?

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Tell ya' what, boohoohoohoohoozo - when you figure out how wars get fought without people dying, let us know. Until then, why don't you give your incessant, revisionist whining a rest?

It's hard to believe mommy and daddy let you start posting to the LJW message boards when you were nine years old, since you appear to be no older than twelve now. But here's a clue, clown - 65 years ago, the weapons of war did not cruise 50 feet off the ground, turn into an alley way, and fly through a particular window in a particular building. Wars were fought dropping thousands of tons of unguided free-fall bombs, lobbing in hundreds of thousands of artillery shells, and rolling through what was left with tanks. It wasn't a healthy place for civilians to be. But then again, and the point you dogmatically choose to remain oblivious to: WE didn't start the war.

Of course, boohoohoohoozo's record makes it clear what the true source of his bitterness is - he clearly wishes more Americans died. He hates America and its people with a deranged passion.

'S matter, Herr Klowne - never forgiven the United States for standing in the way of the realization of your dreams for the Marxist paradise?

kansanbygrace 4 years, 4 months ago

cute doggie....sometimes, notajayhawk, you have a point. Sadly, you hide it in a huge pile of hateful blather so your point is usually secondary to your nasty ranting, when it's even decipherable. Just once, why don't you just try writing your position and leave out the tediously belligerent junk?

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Since you asked politely ...

Pretty sure I've already done so more than "just once", kbg - I don't think I've used any "hateful blather" in my responses to your posts in this thread, for example. As for "why", I respond to people as they deserve. Some people are deserving of respect and engaging with in a civil, rational discussion.

Herr Klowne isn't one of those. You might notice I am far from the only one that treats his posts with a degree of disdain.

Boston_Corbett 4 years, 4 months ago

Once again, Bozo also avoids discussing the morality of the bombing in Germany where the Allies engaged in the wholesale destruction of over 60 medium to large cities.....civilians being the necessarily targeted victims.

1) Bozo, was it moral for the US to participate in WWII-Europe?

2) Please compare the relative morality of using a 1 or 500 plane weapon system when an air raid from each results in identical damage and civilian casualties as the ultimate result?

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

Personally, I believe that targeting civilians is wrong, regardless of which side is doing it or what weapons are used.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

The operable word there being "targeting". The problem is that, especially then, it simply is not possible to attack military targets and the industrial base that makes it possible for a country to fight a war without civilians getting killed.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

That may be, but BC's post sounds a little different.

The "wholesale destruction of over 60 cities" doesn't sound as if we were making much of an attempt to attack military targets.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Do you think that the Japanese could have won the war over America without bombing the bejeezus out of Detroit, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, Los Angeles, San Fransisco, Seattle, Bangor, New London, Hartford, Boston, Charleston, Pascagoula, Saint Louis, San Diego, San Antonio ... ?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

Not avoiding anything. While some "collateral" damage is unavoidable in war, attacks against civilian populations are criminal, no matter the method, and no matter who does it.

1) Sorry, but there is no simple answer to that. There was a mix of immoral, amoral and moral on all sides of the conflict-- a conflict that had its origins well before 1939.

2) I see no moral distinction between the two. Do you?

Lindsey Buscher 4 years, 4 months ago

90,000-166,000 were killed in Hiroshima and 60,000-80,000 in Nagasaki. Source: http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa1.html.

Thus, accusations of hyperbole are themselves quite exaggerated by the conservatards on this board.

While I respect the perspective of Mr. Muirhead, indeed I am sure AMERICAN lives were saved by dropping the bomb, but what you are doing is placing the value of hundreds of American military lives over the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians.

We thank you for the LTE, but when fighters die during combat, well, that is war, folks. The only debatable point, which was brought to bear by Mr. Bond (who is not an idiot and shouldn't be called names by idiots posting anonymously on message boards), is whether or not the use of such force was really necessary at that point during the war. If the war really was drawing to a close at the time the bombs were dropped, then hundreds, perhaps thousands more fighters would die before Japan officially surrendered, but how can you weigh the lives of those fighters (whose job is to kill or be killed by other fighters) against the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians?

Practicality 4 years, 4 months ago

" but what you are doing is placing the value of hundreds of American military lives over the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. "

Puggy,

The official estimated allied casualties for the invasion into Japan was between a few hundred thousand to one million.

Was the use of force necessary?

Japan, given many opportunities to surrender before the atomic bombings and Russian invasion of Manchuria, did not.

After the bombings, they surrendered.

Your logic seems to fault the bombings as an unneccesary measure. You back that up with solely your opinion that it was wrong. I could just as easily counter that it was my opinion that Japan could have developed their own atomic bombs, or invasion force, and decimated the U.S. given enough time to restructure, but that would only be my opinion as well.

Everyone who disputes the necessity of dropping the Atomic bombs all fail to take into account the mindset of Japanese culture during WWII following the Bushido Code that was ingrained in the Japanese for countless generations. For proof of the Japanese unwillingness to surrender, one only has to look at the long list of Japanese holdouts (some even into the 1970s) who continued to wage war because they were not ordered to surrender. There is also countless examples of Japanese soldiers, who were out of ammunition and facing a better armed and numerically superior force, instead of giving up, charging the force with swords and bayonetts. There is also the footage of civilans and military soldiers jumping off of cliffs to their deaths to avoid the shame of being captured or surrendering.

Lindsey Buscher 4 years, 4 months ago

"Everyone who disputes the necessity of dropping the Atomic bombs all fail to take into account the mindset of Japanese culture during WWII"

So what was that mindset like, exactly? I take it you have first or second-hand experience or at least a study to back it up?

Speaking of cultural mindset, what about the mindless following of commands given by the Nazis to do harm to their fellow countrymen? That clearly represents the collective mindset of an entire culture, right?

What you say, Americans are capable of the same mindless obedience in the presence of an authority giving orders??? See Stanley Milgram: http://home.swbell.net/revscat/perilsOfObedience.html

Practicality 4 years, 4 months ago

"So what was that mindset like, exactly"

A collection of ancient principles called the Bushido Code governed the conduct of the ancient Japanese warrior known as the Samurai. These principle emphasized honor, courage, loyally, self-sacrifice, unquestionable reverence for the emperor, and contempt for defeat. This philosophy became inculcated into the Japanese culture and national ideology. The Bushido Code continued to influence the Japanese culture into the twentieth century.

The Bushido ideal of contempt for defeat also influenced how the Japanese viewed combat. They regarded defeat in combat as the ultimate humiliation. The Japanese expected a soldier or sailor to win, die by the hands of his enemy, or commit suicide. Commanders who recognized imminent defeat in battle, therefore, launched hundreds of soldiers in banzai charges into overwhelming enemy machine-gun and artillery fire, knowing that the attack would be suicidal. These commanders believed that such a drive embodied the spirit of the ancient Samurai warrior and would result in a "glorious death."3 Military commanders thought no greater honor could be bestowed upon them than the opportunity to give their lives and the lives of their men for their emperor. Thus, soldiers incapable of participating in these bonsai charges due to injury or sickness were summarily executed.

Toward the end of the war, many in the civilian population adopted the Kamikaze philosophy. Thousands of military and civilians viewed the imminent defeat and the unconditional surrender of Japan as a disgrace. Accordingly, they committed suicide.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/FJA.htm

And yes, I know about the Milgrim experiment, the Stanford Prison experiment, Pavlov's theory on conditioning, etc. etc. How do any of those experiments actually alter a WWII battlefield while it is happening? Even if someone has been programmed (which is what I suspect you are getting at) does that mean you should allow them to kill you?

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

Bonsai is actually the growing and cultivation of small trees.

Practicality 4 years, 4 months ago

Banzai Charge

noun

a mass attack of troops without concern for casualties; originated by Japanese who accompanied it with yells of 'banzai'

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

Yes, but in your post you called them "bonsai" charges.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

It's a silly small point, but you were setting yourself up as some sort of expert in Japanese culture.

Practicality 4 years, 4 months ago

First, I never set up nor intend to give the impression as an expert in Japanese culture. I do have quite a bit of knowledge about WWII. What I know of the Bushido Code I learned from taking a class at KU.

Second, if the word was misspelled, it was a copy and paste mistake in that instance. Not to imply that I don't ever misspell a word on here, because I do that quite often.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

"Bonsai" is a different word - google it.

Practicality 4 years, 4 months ago

"What you say, Americans are capable of the same mindless obedience in the presence of an authority giving orders??? "

This very well may be true, but that is not a good argument to allow anyone to do it to myself or someone else.

Liberty275 4 years, 4 months ago

So what was that mindset like, exactly? I take it you have first or second-hand experience or at least a study to back it up?

Probably quite similar to Americans (most). If we were invaded, Americans would fight to the last man (minus the cowards and traitors) to protect our country. It has happened at least twice. Considering the utter brutality of the civil war (which ended because a second-rate president ordered a terrorist to starve women and children in the south), I think it's safe to assume we would fight to the bitter end and I would expect no less from the Japanese. They are the same humans as us.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

"While I respect the perspective of Mr. Muirhead, indeed I am sure american lives were saved by dropping the bomb, but what you are doing is placing the value of hundreds of American military lives over the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians."

The principle fault with your 'argument' is that millions of Japanese would have died as well if only conventional weapons were used. Or maybe you think they would have kept their bodies out of the way of the free-fall high-explosive bombs, artillery shells, tank ordinance, and bullets during an invasion?

"whose job is to kill or be killed by other fighters"

Really, pug? I'm sure this thought will come as shock to someone as obviously young as you are, and with so little respect for the people who give their lives so you can be free to post your insults to them, but in this country we used to have a little thing called a "draft". Look it up on Google.

Lindsey Buscher 4 years, 4 months ago

Really, NAJ? I'm sure this thought will come as shock to someone as obviously ignorant as you are, and with so little respect for other people's opinions while you are free to post your own, but in this country we used to have a little thing called a "draft" and once drafted, an American citizen ceases to be a civilian. Look it up on Google.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Ooh, good one, pugs, you really got me there, zing zing!

Really, pugs? You mean after they were drafted they became soldiers? No ****. However, your post clearly demonstrated your belief that their deaths didn't count as much as those of the Japanese civilians because their "job is to kill or be killed by other fighters".

Their job, pugs, wasn't to kill or be killed. They were bakers and teachers. They were mechanics and accountants. They were store clerks, street sweepers, and carpenters. Many did volunteer, pugs, not out of the desire to kill people or to be killed, but out of a sense of duty, concepts which I'm equally sure are completely alien to a sniveler like yourself. But many more were forced to go, many people who would have much rather have died of old age in their own homes surrounded by their loved ones, instead of having their dismembered bodies painfully bleeding out on some beach head thousands of miles away from those homes and families.

I do actually try to be civil on these message boards, occasionally. But people like you pugs, who trivialize the deaths of the very people who made it possible for you to spew your revisionist tripe, based solely on your utter ignorance of events that took place decades before your daddy got the hots for your mommy, really do make me sick to my stomach. If you have an "opinion", pugs, more power to you. If that opinion is based on facts you made up yourself, then expect it to be ridiculed.

Lindsey Buscher 4 years, 4 months ago

Their job, NAJ, wasn't to bake or teach during the war. There is only one directive for soldiers in combat, kill or be killed. They were mechanics and accountants when not fighting in the war. They were store clerks, street sweepers, and carpenters when not fighting in the war. Many did volunteer, NAJ, not out of the desire to kill people or to be killed, but out of a sense of duty, concepts which I'm equally sure are completely alien to a sniveler like yourself. But many more were forced to go, many people who would have much rather have died of old age in their own homes surrounded by their loved ones, instead of having their dismembered bodies painfully bleeding out on some beach head thousands of miles away from those homes and families.

I do actually try to be civil on these message boards, occasionally. But people like you NAJ, who trivialize the deaths of the very people who aren't like you so you can spew your revisionist tripe, based solely on your utter ignorance of events that took place decades before your daddy and mommy taught you to be in lockstep with conservatards, really do make me sick to my stomach. If you have an "opinion", NAJ, more power to you. If that opinion is based on facts you made up yourself because you weren't actually there, then expect it to be ridiculed.

The only debatable point, which was brought to bear by Mr. Bond (who is not an idiot and shouldn't be called names by idiots posting anonymously from the NAJ right-wing-nut-perspective), is whether or not the use of such force was really necessary at that point during the war. Was it? Mr. Muirhead thought it was necessary, Mr. Bond did not. Pugs did not actually voice an opinion, but merely asked questions.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

"Thus, accusations of hyperbole are themselves quite exaggerated by the conservatards on this board" wasn't an opinion?

"While I respect the perspective of Mr. Muirhead, indeed I am sure american lives were saved by dropping the bomb, but what you are doing is placing the value of hundreds of American military lives over the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians" was based in fact?

"but how can you weigh the lives of those fighters (whose job is to kill or be killed by other fighters) against the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians?" isn't an opinion, pugs?

The only NONdebatable fact here is that you offered your opinion that saving the lives of American soldiers, many of whom were not there by choice, fighting in a war their country did not start, mattered less than the lives of civilians living in the country that DID start the war, a huge number of whom would have died anyway in an invasion using conventional weapons.

Now, pugs, why don't you stop letting your parrot answer for you (although anything of the avian variety is likely an order of magnitude more intelligent than yourself) and address exactly why you have such disdain for this country and the men and women who give their lives in its service? One can only hope that they someday re-institute a draft, and your own life is reduced to the level of insignificance that you place on theirs.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

This is why war is horrible.

Neither of the options you mention are really acceptable to me.

Practicality 4 years, 4 months ago

Myabe you should go over to Afganistan and tell the Taliban or Al Qaeda that jafs. I am sure they will listen to reason.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

It's one thing to accept that violence and war are sometimes necessary, and to try to minimize those, and quite another to justify various choices which are, really, in the final analysis, not morally justifiable.

How many civilians in another country are equivalent to one American soldier?

Practicality 4 years, 4 months ago

"It's one thing to accept that violence and war are sometimes necessary, and to try to minimize those, and quite another to justify various choices which are, really, in the final analysis, not morally justifiable"

Morally justifiable to who jafs? you? You do not speak for America, so how can you make that claim, and no, neither do I.

The problem with your theory is that sometimes to minimize deaths, bad things have to happen. It is my contention that the atomic bombings minimized deaths, both civilian and military, American and Japanese. So I guess we are in agreement.

I believe this LTE author deserves some respect and an apology from Bozo, who in essence, called him a murderer. This guy clearly credits the atomic bombs for saving his life, which is pretty consistant with many WWII veterans who were getting ready for an invasion into Japan.

And to answer your question about civilian in another country's lives versus the lives of an American soldier? I will be blunt, I support the lives of the American soldier. If that means we bomb a populated area before sending in our neighbors and relatives to help minimize resistance and thus increase their odds of survival, than so be it. Maybe we shouldn't be so careless about going to war, but once committed, I don't believe we should fight with handcuffs on either.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

So how many civilians are you willing to kill to save one American soldier?

Practicality 4 years, 4 months ago

How many American soldiers are you willing to let die to save one enemy civilian, then I will answer your question.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

I have already said I think it's an impossible situation - there are no good answers, none that are morally justified (to me).

I believe the military calls it AOS.

But in general, I do feel that the distinction between combatants and non-combatants is a meaningful one.

Practicality 4 years, 4 months ago

I wonder if you would feel the same way if your son or daughter was in a combat zone being fired at by an enemy in an entrenched position surrounded by civilians? Without anyway of assualting the positon without exposing oneself to fire. (Assuming you don't have a relative in that position right now)

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

Don't know. It might depend on whether they were drafted or volunteered, and/or whether the war seemed necessary or not, and who was the aggressor, etc.

You didn't answer my question, though.

Here's another one:

There's a block near your house - if you kill all of the people on one side, the people on the other will live. If not, they will die.

Which is the morally correct decision?

Practicality 4 years, 4 months ago

That is a completely different scenerio. One involves US citizens, the other does not.

In the first question, about the US soldier lives vs. civilian enemy lives thing. In my opinion, if our country sends our neighbors and relatives off to war, then we need to give our soldiers the best chance at survival. That means if a soldier can save his or her life at the expense of enemy civilian casualties, in my opinion, that is the right thing to do. That is regardless of whether it is a just war or not, what difference does that make to the soldiers who are in harms way regardless?

As I pointed out on the other thread, roughly 30 million non-combatants perished in WWII, which is a higher number than combatants. War is a terrible thing, countries should not go to war for miniscule reasons. But, once engaged in war, I expect the American Military to do what ever it can to prevent Lawrence Kansas from being bombed by the enemy.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

Ok.

You're entitled to your position.

It's not so clear to me - things like whether the war is just or not, whether people are drafted or volunteer, etc. make a difference.

And, the point of my hypothetical is that there are situations in which there is no clearly moral or right choice.

There are simply choices that result in one or another tragic consequence.

To me, that is a good description of the question of American soldiers' lives vs. civilian lives.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

jafs (anonymous) replies…

"So how many civilians are you willing to kill to save one American soldier?"

False choice. It assumes the civilians wouldn't have died anyway. As has been mentioned a bunch of times, an invasion would have killed millions of Japanese civilians in addition to the American and Japanese servicemen who perished. Throw in how many more who would have died from less immediate, but also unpleasant means, such as starvation and disease, when the infrastructure was destroyed. Throw in some more if Japan was not totally defeated, and the war ended with a Korean-style armistice; how many more would have perished at the hands of the Japanese after they had a chance to rebuild? (You can look at more modern history, such as Iraq, for that answer.)

You keep assuming this was an either-or situation. It wasn't - it was bad, or very very bad. Sometimes the lesser of evils is the best we can do.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

That's been my point all along - the lesser of two evils is never a "good" choice.

But the question about civilians of other countries and American soldiers brings to light whether people make more of a distinction between soldiers and civilians, or Americans and people from other countries.

Lindsey Buscher 4 years, 4 months ago

"Thus, accusations of hyperbole are themselves quite exaggerated by the conservatards on this board" response to jaywalker calling bozo out for "hyperbole and exaggeration ", NOT an opinion because bozo's death count was actually pretty accurate...Pugs 1, NAJ 0

"While I respect the perspective of Mr. Muirhead, indeed I am sure american lives were saved by dropping the bomb, but what you are doing is placing the value of hundreds of American military lives over the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians" was based in fact? Never claimed it was; 90,000-166,000 were killed in Hiroshima and 60,000-80,000 in Nagasaki. Source: http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa....These are called estimates since there really was no way to obtain an actual body count....Pugs 2, NAJ 0

"but how can you weigh the lives of those fighters (whose job is to kill or be killed by other fighters) against the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians?" isn't an opinion, pugs? This is a phillisophic question, not an opinion. Perhaps you infer opinion, but that's on you...Pugs 3, NAJ 0

The only NONdebatable fact here is that NAJ inferred Pugs opinion that saving the lives of American soldiers, many of whom were not there by choice, fighting in a war their country did not start, mattered the same than the lives of civilians living in the country that DID NOT start the war, just PROVOKED the previously uninvolved USA into the war. ...Pugs 4, NAJ 0

Now, NAJ, why don't you stop letting your Glenn Beck answer for you (although anything of the raphus cucullatus variety is likely an order of magnitude more intelligent than yourself) and address exactly why you project your disdain for this country and the men and women who give their lives in its service? One can only hope that they someday re-institute a draft because you are a conservatard and you love being at war and reducing the lives of others to the level of insignificance that you place on everyone....Pugs 5, NAJ 0

Wow, Pugs 5 - NAJ 0.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Better luck tomorrow, NAJ.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

What are you, five, pugs? Okay, not that I think you'll get it, but what the heck:

1) I didn't say anything about boohoohoozo's death counts. I was talking about your use of the terms. But since you want to be technical, how many were "vaporized", pugsie? That was the term jaywalker called him out on. He even put the word in quotes, and even boohoozo recanted.

Pugs: Big zero.

2) You said "what you are doing is placing the value of hundreds of American military lives over the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians". This is not based in fact. It is your interpretation of the comments of whoever you referred to by "you". In the first place, little one, we're talking about more than "hundreds of American military lives". In the second place, you have, like so many others here, fallen into the false choice that it was one or the other. The facts speak for themselves, from countless other cities involved in the war that were devastated, civilian casualties outnumbering military deaths; even in Tokyo more people died than in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. All of which is academic, because it's not the numbers we're talking about, it's your characterization of "what you are doing", which by definition is your belief of what they are doing. It is not factual.

Pugs: Big zero.

3) Philosophical questions, by their very nature, rarely have "right" or "wrong" answers, pugs. Your asking the question in itself gave your own position on the question, which, yet again, is an opinion.

Pugs: Big zero.

4) You didn't say they mattered the same. You said it was the soldiers' job to be killed. No weaseling or backpedaling now is going to change your trivialization of their sacrifice, cretin.

Pugs: Less than zero.

5) Sorry, pugsie, don't listen to Beck, I have a job. You seem familiar with what he has to say, though. And I thought I told you not to let your parrot do the talking? You somehow earned a point by repeating my words back to me? Seriously? My daughter's third grade classmates have more intelligent debates. Really, kid, come back when you're ready to talk to adults - but get mommy's permission first.

Grand total: Yep, Pugs is still a big, fat, zero.

Lindsey Buscher 4 years, 4 months ago

hehehe, dude i wasted so much of your time today.

Pugs 1, NAJ 0.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Laughter is good for the soul, pugs. So you didn't waste my time, I always enjoy laughing at stupidity.

Glad to see, however, that you admit your mindless posts were a waste of the readers' time.

Practicality 4 years, 4 months ago

bozo,

You realize you are calling Mr. Muirhead a murderer don't you? Do you feel that way about all our soldiers?

Mr. Muirhead,

Please do not listen to bozo. He is likely very young and naive, and he has yet to figure out that the world is not near as simple and nice as he wants to believe. Thank you for your service during WWII. I imagine even bozo had relatives fighting during WWII, although I am starting to think that they might have been fighting for the Japanese now.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

"You realize you are calling Mr. Muirhead a murderer don't you?"

By the standards used to prosecute Japanese and German war criminals after the war, many of those bombing runs were almost certainly war crimes. But he was also a soldier following orders, and I'm in no position to determine his level of culpability, if there was any, in what was done.

Practicality 4 years, 4 months ago

o.k. bozo, I will challenge you to tell me what those "standards used to prosecute Japanese and German war criminals " were. Or do you just write things as facts without any real idea about what you are writing?

Also, it has always been your contention that Japan was on the verge of surrender without dropping the bombs because they were a defeated nation without the ability to defend itself. If that was true, how were the Japanese able to kill 98 crewman out of 150 in Mr. Muirfield's Group?

Just because you want to believe something is true bozo, dosen't make it so.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

Neither you nor I know who or what the targets of these bombing raids were (and quite possibly, neither did Mr. Muirfield.)

But it's quite evident that the incendiary (and nuclear) bombing raids over Japanese (and German) cities towards the end of war were very minimally attacks on military targets. The goal was quite specifically to cause as much death and destruction as possible in what were clearly civilian areas in an attempt to terrorize the civilian populations into rising up against their militaristic rulers. You may not call that a war crime, but if the victors of the war had been different.....

In the attacks on Tokyo, in particular, there were literally thousands of airplanes involved, and such a quantity of planes ensured that Japanese anti-aircraft fire found quite a few targets.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 4 months ago

bozo, how can you stand to live in a nation you seem to hate so much?

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

" ... and I'm in no position to determine his level of culpability, if there was any, in what was done."

Which doesn't keep you from doing so, I notice.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

"By the standards used to prosecute Japanese and German war criminals after the war, many of those bombing runs were almost certainly war crimes."

Perhaps Herr Klowne could give us the numbers on how many German pilots were tried as war criminals for dropping bombs on civilians in London?

Practicality 4 years, 4 months ago

bozo, you still did not answer the question, like usual.

I also believe you owe Mr. Muirhead an apology for calling him a murderer. That is just low. Did you spit on Vietnam Vets when they returned from the war as well?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

War is murder.

"Did you spit on Vietnam Vets when they returned from the war as well?"

So, you're trying to make me the center of origin for that urban myth.

mr_right_wing 4 years, 4 months ago

Of course the men who worked in Nazi concentration camps were simply following orders too. (They were told to drop capsules into the gas chambers...just orders...they didn't do it because the just 'felt like it'.) Do they also get a 'bozo' pass??

More flawed thinking.....

Practicality 4 years, 4 months ago

"After a year of unbelievable hell in Vietnam, I was at the "repo depo" in Long Binh awaiting my flight out. The last thing I was told by the sergeant in charge as we boarded the aircraft was not to expect any welcome home committees when we got off the plane.

I arrived at Oakland Air Force Base {sic, more likely it was the military terminal of the Oakland airport} on April 14 (my mother's birthday), 1970. As I looked out toward the terminal, I noticed a large crowd, maybe 200 or so people, on the far side of a cyclone wire fence. In front of them, on our side of the fence, were MPs, wearing ponchos. As we started to file out of the plane, the MPs shouted to us to move quickly, and began holding up their ponchos.

As my ears popped, adjusting to the change in pressure, I began to hear for the first time the chant: 'How many babies did you kill today?'

Several of them were leaning against the fence, spitting at us and at the MPs blocking their view. Others were heaving eggs over the fence and into our midst. The MPs were covered with spittle and eggs, which explained the ponchos. They were obviously used to this ritual. The fellow behind me said, 'Jesus, I wish I had brought my M-16!,' and my stomach dropped as I realized for the first time what was going on.

I stopped to ask one of the MPs who these people were, and as I did so a woman about forty years old, not a teenager by any stretch of the imagination, leaned back and spit on me with all her strength. It landed on my shirt pocket, near the ribbons that I was wearing for the first time. 'Bull's-eye!' she yelled. An MP lieutenant took my arm and said, 'Go inside, son, and ignore them.'"

-- David McTamaney, Newburgh, New York

"It happened to me, and it was no joke. In September of 1967, I was called to active duty with the U.S. Army Medical Corps. I was a neurosurgeon then (as I am now), and had recently completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of California at Berkeley. I was fortunate during my military service (two years of active duty) to be stationed at a large hospital facility stateside -- although I did not actually go to Vietnam, I was responsible for the treatment of a large number of wounded Vietnam soldiers.

In any case, when I would come home from the hospital (of course wearing my uniform, which was required), I would receive many negative comments from other residents of Berkeley. One afternoon a youngster literally spat on me as I got out of my car. He shouted, 'How many did you kill today?'

You can imagine how I felt -- especially since I had spent that day trying to reconstruct the skull of a Vietnam soldier who had suffered severe shrapnel wounds, and who had recently been transferred back to the United States for surgery."

-- Dr. Robert A. Fink, Berkeley, California

Plenty more if you care to read it bozo, but I don't expect you do.

Practicality 4 years, 4 months ago

"So, you're trying to make me the center of origin for that urban myth."

Urban myth???? Obviously you have not talked with very many Vietnam Vets or WWII Vets for that matter. But given your crazy ideology, and blame America and American soldiers viewpoints, that is probably a safe course for you.

mr_right_wing 4 years, 4 months ago

For bozo the urban myth is not that people spat on you...it's anyone that mistakenly thought that you didn't diserve to be spat upon (or worse) since as U.S. soldiers you were all unquestionably murders and rapists.

That's my best guess at bozos twisted warped thinking. A psychiatrist would have his hands full!!

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

"War is murder."

Then maybe the Japanese shouldn't have started one, not to mention murdering millions of people in their little half of the world before the United States stopped them.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

"Then maybe the Japanese shouldn't have started one, "

I agree, although I wouldn't qualify it with a "maybe"

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Unfortunately, boohoohoozo, they did.

And your response would have been what: Do nothing?

mr_right_wing 4 years, 4 months ago

So you (bozo) would be a little more content with this country if we were all pacifists? Just stayed neutral in all conflicts. Maybe I've finally got you figured out. Stand up for nothing, believe in nothing. If we'd done that, this wouldn't be the United States of America (litterally and figuratively), and this earth would be a very different place--a place where the freedoms you know wouldn't exist.

Practicality 4 years, 4 months ago

"Yes, I am a Vietnam veteran who was spat upon -- literally and figuratively. By hippies? I don't know. In the airport? Yes. San Francisco International Airport on October 11, 1971 at 3:15 p.m., and yes, I was still in uniform. The person who spat on me was wearing a shirt that said 'Welcome Home Baby-Killer.' ...”

-- Robert E. McClelland, Massillon, Ohio

"I think the date was March 7, 1972. I was in the San Francisco airport. I had just showered and put a fresh uniform (Air Force) on for my first leg home. Walking out to my gate I passed a 'hippie' who spat upon me and continued walking in the opposite direction, without a word.”

-- Chris Ramel, Denver, Colorado

“I am a retired Catholic chaplain who served the Air Force community for twenty years. I had two tours in Vietnam (Phan Rang and Bien Hoa). I left Bien Hoa on November 18, 1968, flew military contract aircraft to Philadelphia, and then on to New York for two weeks' leave.

While I was leaving the JFK airport to catch a bus to the city, a lady (around 43 years old) told me that 'I napalm babies' and she spit on me. I didn't take her for a 'hippie' though.

Needless to say she ruined my two weeks' leave."

-- Father Guy Morgan, Fort Collins, Colorado

"I am a female veteran of the U.S. Air Force -- 1967, 1968, 1969, and 1970. I was in Southeast Asia though not actually in Vietnam. had joined a veteran's group called Vets for Peace. We were active in anti-war protest marches in Milwaukee, Madison, and Chicago. We usually marched with a group of veterans from Chicago called Vietnam Veterans Against the War. It was in Madison, on Veterans Day, 1971, as I was walking to the Capitol building from campus (all alone). I was wearing my Air Force overcoat and my Vets for Peace hat when a man about 19 or 20 years old looked me in the face and spit right into my face. He was a normal looking man, nothing to distinguish him from a thousand other people. But I will never forget what he did to me."

-- Rose Marie McDonough, Green Bay, Wisconsin

"Late at night in mid-August 1969, I was spat upon in the San Francisco airport by a man in his early twenties. I had just returned from my tour of duty in the Republic of Vietnam, processed through the mess at the Oakland Army Depot, and was waiting at the airport for an early morning flight to my Denver home. The man who spat on me ran up to me from my left rear, spat, and turned to face me. The spittle hit me on the left shoulder and on my few military decorations about my left breast pockets. He then shouted at me that I was a 'mother-fing murderer.' I was quite shocked and just stared at him, probably with a stupid look on my face. The spitter then called me a 'mother-fing chicken-sh*t.' He was balling up his fists when he yelled this.”

-- Douglas D. Detmer, Farmington, New Mexico

Practicality 4 years, 4 months ago

"Yes, I am a Vietnam veteran who was spat upon -- literally and figuratively. By hippies? I don't know. In the airport? Yes. San Francisco International Airport on October 11, 1971 at 3:15 p.m., and yes, I was still in uniform. The person who spat on me was wearing a shirt that said 'Welcome Home Baby-Killer.' ...”

-- Robert E. McClelland, Massillon, Ohio

"I think the date was March 7, 1972. I was in the San Francisco airport. I had just showered and put a fresh uniform (Air Force) on for my first leg home. Walking out to my gate I passed a 'hippie' who spat upon me and continued walking in the opposite direction, without a word.”

-- Chris Ramel, Denver, Colorado

“I am a retired Catholic chaplain who served the Air Force community for twenty years. I had two tours in Vietnam (Phan Rang and Bien Hoa). I left Bien Hoa on November 18, 1968, flew military contract aircraft to Philadelphia, and then on to New York for two weeks' leave.

While I was leaving the JFK airport to catch a bus to the city, a lady (around 43 years old) told me that 'I napalm babies' and she spit on me. I didn't take her for a 'hippie' though.

Needless to say she ruined my two weeks' leave."

-- Father Guy Morgan, Fort Collins, Colorado

"I am a female veteran of the U.S. Air Force -- 1967, 1968, 1969, and 1970. I was in Southeast Asia though not actually in Vietnam. had joined a veteran's group called Vets for Peace. We were active in anti-war protest marches in Milwaukee, Madison, and Chicago. We usually marched with a group of veterans from Chicago called Vietnam Veterans Against the War. It was in Madison, on Veterans Day, 1971, as I was walking to the Capitol building from campus (all alone). I was wearing my Air Force overcoat and my Vets for Peace hat when a man about 19 or 20 years old looked me in the face and spit right into my face. He was a normal looking man, nothing to distinguish him from a thousand other people. But I will never forget what he did to me."

-- Rose Marie McDonough, Green Bay, Wisconsin

"Late at night in mid-August 1969, I was spat upon in the San Francisco airport by a man in his early twenties. I had just returned from my tour of duty in the Republic of Vietnam, processed through the mess at the Oakland Army Depot, and was waiting at the airport for an early morning flight to my Denver home. The man who spat on me ran up to me from my left rear, spat, and turned to face me. The spittle hit me on the left shoulder and on my few military decorations about my left breast pockets. He then shouted at me that I was a (nasty curse word).' I was quite shocked and just stared at him, probably with a stupid look on my face. The spitter then called me a (nasty curse word)' He was balling up his fists when he yelled this.”

-- Douglas D. Detmer, Farmington, New Mexico

Jimo 4 years, 4 months ago

I don't know where Bozo finds the time now that North Korea has it's own Twitter-feed.

http://twitter.com/uriminzok

But I just tease.

mr_right_wing 4 years, 4 months ago

bozo, it occurs to me that you cannot possibly be happy in a country that you disrespect and disdain. Life is too short to be miserable my friend. Why not just move? I will help you with the first step; try calling these embassies and check on immigrating to somewhere you might feel more comfortable.

Germany (202) 298-4000 Greenland (202) 234-4300 Iceland (202) 265-6653 Japan (202) 238-6700 Switzerland 800-345-6541

There's a country out there somewhere bozo that you'd fit in better and feel more at home. Good luck.

Jimo 4 years, 4 months ago

haha You seem to have those numbers easily available! I would have thought you were the one looking. There's state religions in Germany, no immigration in Japan, money is hidden from the taxman in Switzerland, racial uniformity in Iceland, and Greenland is literally frozen in time. How will you decide on only one?

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

Actually, in my experience, conservatives seem more unhappy than liberals.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

My post was sarcasm, a form of humor.

I guess you're the one without a sense of humor.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

That logic would also apply to those who are so upset about our current president.

However, they choose to stay and try to improve the country by participating in the political process.

Bozo chooses to stay here and try to improve the country by participating in online discussion and debate.

Practicality 4 years, 4 months ago

jafs,

Just in case you didn't know what it means.

improve:

transitive verb

1 archaic : employ, use 2 a : to enhance in value or quality : make better b : to increase the value of (land or property) by making it more useful for humans (as by cultivation or the erection of buildings) c : to grade and drain (a road) and apply surfacing material other than pavement 3 : to use to good purpose

intransitive verb

1 : to advance or make progress in what is desirable 2 : to make useful additions or amendments

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

What's your point?

That's exactly what he's trying to do.

"make better".

Bozo, and others, believe that our country would be better if we looked honestly at ourselves, and stopped trying to rationalize our mistakes and bad actions.

That would very likely cause us to change those actions, and try to prevent those mistakes, thus "making better" our country.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

The operable word here being "honestly", a term that does not apply to Herr Klowne.

mr_right_wing 4 years, 4 months ago

"Incidentally, in Japan (as well as France, England, China, Russia), nuclear power is a primary source of power. Although we began powering Navy ships with nuclear power in the late ’50s and have more than 50 years of experience in nuclear power operation, we have not built any new nuclear plants in more than 30 years. As a French engineer told a group of us about 30 years ago, “I can’t understand why you are so stupid now.”

Great point there too. Let's consider the handling of the BP disaster though...let's do this under a President who would make it safe. No NRC would probably be safer than an obama NRC.

beaujackson 4 years, 4 months ago

The atomic bomb probably saved my life, and many thousands more, both American and Japanese.

Boston_Corbett 4 years, 4 months ago

I apologize to Bozo. I believe he answered in another post the questions I asked him in my 9:41 post. Bozo states: ".....But it's quite evident that the incendiary (and nuclear) bombing raids over Japanese (and German) cities towards the end of war were very minimally attacks on military targets. The goal was quite specifically to cause as much death and destruction as possible in what were clearly civilian areas in an attempt to terrorize the civilian populations into rising up against their militaristic rulers. You may not call that a war crime, but if the victors of the war had been different....."


Actually I agree with some of Bozo's points here.

Relative to his statements about "knowledge of targets," I do disagree. Considerable written evidence exists from both theaters of the war about mission targets and objectives from original military records, and the measured damage from these raids. Also practices in the two theaters differed somewhat near the end of each campaign. That information is available from public records in the US and England and has been examined in military and academic treatises and increasingly in general audience publications.

But Bozo does admit that he believes that non-atomic generalized bombing in Japan and Germany were both somewhat equivalent.

I am in agreement of that observation. And I believe because of people like Bozo, people do not understand the true extent of area bombing in the European and Japanese campaigns. He just believes that these were all immoral. I personally believe that these were part of the necessary immorality which is an inherit part of war. And I am glad that these aggressive bombing campaigns help bring the Axis powers to their knees much more quickly than would have occurred otherwise.

Where Bozo presumably believes that the war should have been prosecuted without the Allied bomber campaign (as well as the dropping of the atomic bombs), I disagree. It's wishful thinking, it just isn't realistic. Wars against states are prosecuted against the entire state, just not the military. What is a "military" target? The distinction between "civilian" and "military" itself is arbitrary. Rail transportation, road transportation, light and heavy manufacturing, food production, medical, energy, logistics, banking, general economy, are all part of a nation's infrastructure, and directly and indirectly support the military and war aims of a country. They are all also inextricably located where "civilians" live, eat, and sleep.

And the notion of dropping arms to wait for a country to crumble own its own is just a stupid sophomoric concept for WWII. Armistice had been tried before and was a dismal failure. All Allies agreed that the wars needed to be prosecuted quickly, and to an unconditional surrender, in both campaigns. But it is easy to wish otherwise, and hope it would really be like that.

Practicality 4 years, 4 months ago

Great points B_C.

People also fail to realize that during the time frame of WWII, people lived relatively near the place where they worked, not like today, and most people walked to their job. Also, like you and others have pointed out, the bombing of a target was a haphazard affair. The technology did not exist to have pinpoint accuracy, which is why large bomber groups attacked a single target.

I believe that any allied bombing target was considered a success if it hit within a couple miles (Can't remember exact, but it is close) of the desired target. Military advisors believed this was good, because if they missed the factory (for example) they hit the workers who lived nearby.

Also, do not forget all the night bombing raids, which would have made target identification that much more difficult.

Jimo 4 years, 4 months ago

Something is coming but I suspect it's men in white uniforms carrying nets.

IndusRiver 4 years, 4 months ago

Well, it's true, we are stupid; the dumbest people on earth actually. We've squandered all of our resources, put our own country out of work, and caved in to Communism.

That's stupid. Stupid to be anywhere fighting for this country.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 4 months ago

We'll all come down to the bus station to wave good-bye when you move to Cuba.

IndusRiver 4 years, 4 months ago

Democrats AND Republicans, Snodgrass. There is no difference. Nixon was president while they were napalming women and children in Nam.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Ah, yes, that war that Nixon started.

Oh, wait ...

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

Actually, the French started it, and it was taken over by Americans, beginning with Eisenhower, and escalated by every president through Nixon.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Actually, Ho Chi Minh started it, right after the United States defeated Japan (something your communist brethren would have found impossible prior to the use of the atomic bomb) and got rid of the Japanese, who had interred the French colonialists (themselves pawns of the Germans) and taken direct control of Vietnam. The communist government in the north authorized turning the struggle for the south into a war while Eisenhower was president, yes, but it was Kennedy and Johnson who gave them one.

It's good to see your revisionism isn't limited just to WWII, boohoohoohoozo. But I guess, according to your logic, Obama is responsible for every Iraqi and Afghani death since January of last year?

IndusRiver 4 years, 4 months ago

Thanks for bringing clarity to the picture, bozo. Eisenhower didn't trust France, but when China went Communist Eisenhower's admin. took the one-way plunge into the whole mess. Still though they were adamant that France be removed from handling the Indo-Chinese affairs of that time.

IndusRiver 4 years, 4 months ago

You know right_wing, I just ate and you're really startin' to make me sick.

mr_right_wing 4 years, 4 months ago

Maybe it's not me....maybe it's what you're eating. When that bread has some green spots on it, you throw it away.

kansanbygrace 4 years, 4 months ago

Mr. Muirhead's and Mr. Bond's conclusions differ. Both are suppositions of what may have happened had reality been different than what it was. Conjecture. Maybe one is right, maybe the other. The US soldiers who were being prepared in the Pacific were told day and night that the Japanese civilians would fight to the last one standing. Those, however, who occupied Japan at the time of surrender were surprised when they learned that a very large proportion were violently opposed to continuing the war under any circumstances, and had had enough even before the firebombing of Tokyo, much less the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In any case, whether saturation bombing of the cultural city of Dresden in Germany, or of the secondary targets, not military targets, of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the question of the moral acceptability of eradicating civilian populations (which has never been done to the USA) is a pertinent question without a simple answer.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Right. Because the headquarters of the army district for southern Japan - where any invasion was likely to come from - wouldn't be considered a "military target".

Whether we're talking about civilians taking up arms and resisting to the last man, or whether the U.S. forces had to fight nothing other than the Japanese army through the cities of Japan, kbg - how many civilians would have died?

kansanbygrace 4 years, 4 months ago

What Japanese army? There was very, very little of it left. The military had lost the war, lost influence, and lost face.

My information comes from close relatives who were in the Marianas and the Philippines at the end of the war. One was highly placed in occupation command. I'm relating their own accounts from first-hand experience. Your own experience, nota, may have been different.

My guess about "how many civilians?" more than eleven and fewer than two hundred thousand. What's your guess?

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Less than two hundred thousand? Seriously? There were 100,000 deaths in Tokyo and the invasion hadn't even started yet. Another 100,000 died in the Ryukyu Islands of Okinawa (the staging area in any proposed mainland invasion) during that 82-day long battle. That was a full one-quarter of the civilian population.

Between American, Japanese military, and civilian deaths, kbg, the total was over 250,000 lives lost. Does that sound like the Japanese military "had lost the war, lost influence, and lost face."? Maybe someone forgot to tell them that. They did not surrender (the battle lasted 82 days), despite facing monstrously overwhelming odds - even with the nearly 40,000 civilians who were hastily conscripted into military service. If the casualty figures for the mainland were even a small fraction of those for Okinawa, American deaths would have been in the hundreds of thousands and Japanese deaths would have been in the millions.

Do you have a realistic reason to believe that an invasion of Japan would result in fewer civilian deaths than, say, the millions who died in Germany?

I'm not doubting your relatives recollections, although your characterization of their accounts as "from first-hand experience" is blatantly inaccurate. They did not have "first hand experience" invading Japan, since it didn't happen. And if you ask them, I'll bet they'll tell you that the reality in war is quite often very, very different from projections or expectations.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

"casualty figures for the mainland were even a small fraction of those for Okinawa" should read "casualty RATE"

kansanbygrace 4 years, 4 months ago

Okinawa was the last ditch. A huge portion of the Japanese ammunition was wooden bullets and black powder or guncotton. Little to no lead, no smokeless left. This was according to US army who fought there. That's first-hand. The Japanese infantry on Okinawa could use captured US ammunition, their bore was a little larger than ours. There were no stores of US ammunition available on the Japanese mainland. After Okinawa, there was virtually no Japanese navy, very little air force, very few pilots.
The accounts were spot on, one a sergeant preparing infantry and field artillery in the Marianas, who were told the end of the universe was coming, and the other from command preparing the logistics for the invasion, who had planned the re-invasion of the Philippines. From command logistic perspective, they did not anticipate nearly the resistance that the grunts and doggies were anticipating. Read a little more thoroughly, I did not say either one was in an invasion of Japan, I said occupation, after the signing of the treaty. That was when they gained first hand information, not suppositions. You can read the accounts for yourself.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

And yet, they didn't surrender. I already said the Japanese troops on Okinawa were horrendously over-matched - yet they still fought to the point where they lost 100,000 men, about 40,000 of whom were recently drafted civilians. And, incidentally, the belief of the military that "had lost the war, lost influence, and lost face" directly contributed to a large number of the civilian deaths, as the military forced civilians into service, used them as human shields, stole their food, etc.

I apologize for the misreading of your statement about "first-hand experience", but I should point out that there is a big difference being an occupier after the surrender and being in an invasion force. I had an uncle who was part of the occupation of Okinawa, and his account sounds very similar to those of your own relatives: The civilian population was not rushing at them in human waves, there was no military capability to speak of - arriving after the fact, it was equally hard to believe that resistance could have been mustered at all, or that so many would die.

And yet it happened. What rational logic are you using to support your assumptions that it would have been any different on the mainland? In reality, it wouldn't even have had to be the same level of resistance - extrapolating from the Okinawa numbers, millions of casualties would have resulted from even a small fraction of the resistance on that mainland.

What could possibly lead you to conclude that there would have been fewer than 200,000 civilian casualties from an invasion, when that number had already been exceeded just in Tokyo and Okinawa - without a surrender?

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Wrap that tinfoil a little tighter, eddie.

Or do something you've never done before making a post - check your facts.

jaywalker 4 years, 4 months ago

You and bozo should seek help together. Maybe you guys could get a group rate.

bearded_gnome 4 years, 4 months ago

Prof Muirhead, if you're still reading after the totally morally bankrupt ravings of Boozo, Thuggy, and Edjay, I'm giving you a lot of credit.

thank you for your courage and for doing a very hard job.

these crazed leftists don't understand that the Japanese actually lost fewer lives that way than if X-day had happened and the invasion of the japanese islands had happened.

they keep maundering about civilian and military persons and targetts.
in case of invasion, the military leaders of 1945 Japan had massive plans to convert huge numbers of civilians into combatants!
easily millions of japanese (of whatever affiliation at the time) would have died.


and as to the question: how many enemy civilians should die to spare the life of one american soldier/sailor/airman/marine/coas guards?
if the enemy believes that my answer is a massive number or infinite or at least * extremely disproportionate, guess what, that has a great chance of preventing one heckuva lot of destruction and thus saves lives. that's because my enemy is likely to quit. the USSR's leaders kinda thought that of Ronald Reagan, and look what happened.
Clausewitz said that the use of overwhelming force actually saved lives in the long run. it ended conflicts much faster. besides the direct harm of killing and maiming, wars have many other harmful effects on civilian populations. it is better to end a war quickly.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

Actually, the way we "defeated" the Soviets was by allowing the Afghan people to fight and die, while supplying them with arms.

Ok - if the best thing to do is end the war quickly - if we could simply kill all of the people in the other country immediately, would you do that?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

"if we could simply kill all of the people in the other country immediately,"

That's precisely what Devobrun advocated for Afghanistan on another thread.

Sadly, a significant percentage of this country are similarly genocidal cheerleaders (and lots of them post on this forum.)

kansanbygrace 4 years, 4 months ago

Really, bozo, the big majority of people I know who've had their face in the dirt while the bullets were zinging around them are not as one-sided, prejudiced, and advocating murder and mayhem of "them" as these armchair heroes, whose knowledge of war usually is limited to old movies on tv and video games.

And those with real experience do not agree that there are only two sides. Most everyone who's been there sits somewhere across a very wide spectrum. Case in point, Muirhead and Bond. Different people, same command, same Joint Chiefs, two different but respectable opinions.

jaywalker 4 years, 4 months ago

And with each post your dementia becomes more pronounced, bozo.

greenlid79 4 years, 4 months ago

What about a naval blockade? Could that have been a viable option? Once Japan was on its knees, was there enough of an Allied navy to be effective in choking off supplies to the nation? Would've taken time, of course, but could it have been effective and less costly (in lives lost)?

Chime in. I don't know much about the conditions then.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

Sorry, orthodoxy prohibits entertaining any such possibilities.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Why, what a good idea - it would have been so much better to have them dropping like flies from starvation, cold, and disease.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Cute, Herr Klowne. But you're the one advocating it, not me. You even call it an 'orthodox' solution. But then, for all your bluster, you really don't give two * about anyone that died in that war, or anyone else.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

That's a true double whammy post-- a further demonstration of your poor reading comprehension, with a straw-man tag.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Really, Herr Klowne? greenlid asked why a naval blockade wouldn't have worked, and you said it couldn't be considered because it was too orthodox. Backpedaling again?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

I said no such thing. As I already noted, your reading comprehension is deficient.

Boston_Corbett 4 years, 4 months ago

Why all this continuing discussion of the "imposition of a Naval Blockade" by Bozo and others. It was already been in existence before the dropping of the atomic bombs for some time.... It was called "unrestricted warfare" on any ship found coming or going.

You can't have any more aggressive blockade than that. And guess what, some Japanese supply ships still were getting through. The Japanese still had guns, planes, and ships....and they were still shooting with them. I am at a loss of how a greater blockade could have been imposed.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

So the logical next step because of a bit of leakage in the blockade is to nuke women and babies. I get it.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

How many sides of your mouth are you capable of talking out of, boohoohoohoozo? You claimed I had poor reading skills for saying you were in favor of a blockade, now you're saying we should have done it instead of using nukes. Or are you just being your usual troll-self and changing your answers just to be contrary to whoever spoke last?

Boston_Corbett 4 years, 4 months ago

Bullets were still flying. Planes were still being shot down, crews killed. Submarines were still being attacked. Artillery was still being fired at ships. Kamikaze attacks were still occurring. And yes, supply ships were still sailing. "Imposing a blockade" is a meaningless notion in a war where unrestricted naval warfare is already being prosecuted.

And we were prosecuting the war aggressively. Before and after the atomic bombs, we were engaging in the more traditional bomber raids (also directed at wide-scale city destruction) and sinking the ships we could catch with our subs, etc. (no so easy actually) And the Japanese were shooting back.

So yes, you throw anything and everything you have at them, including anything the Russians have, in an attempt to stop the invasion and save lives.

The invasion machinery was in full scale preparation for a November 1 D-day.

Practicality 4 years, 4 months ago

bozo,

Everytime someone gives you factual evidence to support their argument and refute yours, you completely refuse to accept it. No one is making up the evidence. It is right there in black and white. Instead, you just want to support your argument with some emotionally charged, unsupported statement.

Just admit that you don't like American soldiers (like the way you inferred that this author was a murdered) and that you think they all deserve to die. Then admit that you think the Japanese during WWII were the equivalent to the citizens of India who were followers of Ghandi. Because that is pretty much all you have said.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

Where did I refuse to accept anything?

Was the blockade sufficient (however that is determined?)

Clearly, you and many others believe that the answer to that question is "no."

And what happened as a result of that determination?

Two cities were nuked, killing hundreds of thousands of people, mostly civilians, and most of those were women and children.

So clearly you all believe that the logical next step was to nuke women and babies.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

"(like the way you inferred that this author was a murdered)"

That was your inference, not mine. I merely said war is murder, and I'm certainly not the first to assert that.

Practicality 4 years, 4 months ago

"You realize you are calling Mr. Muirhead a murderer don't you?" (Me)

“By the standards used to prosecute Japanese and German war criminals after the war, many of those bombing runs were almost certainly war crimes.” (bozo)

“I also believe you owe Mr. Muirhead an apology for calling him a murderer.” (Me)

“War is murder.” (bozo)

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

The devil is in the details, practicality, and neither you nor I knows those details.

But if it makes you feel better to take offense at something I didn't say, knock yourself out.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.