| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Daniel Kolle" |
| Date: |
06 Aug 2005 08:48:52 PM |
| Object: |
OT: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
My grandfather, despite his deteriorating state of mind, knew fully
well what today was.
"Atoms were split that day," he recalled. I asked him what he
thought about the bombing. My grandfather, tactful as ever, replied
"perhaps the bastards should have not bombed us in the first place."
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 17 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
07 Aug 2005 08:52:48 AM |
|
|
"Daniel Kolle" <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rtpaf1don6t19pp7vrf4hi08ahodba4q5q@4ax.com...
My grandfather, despite his deteriorating state of mind, knew fully
well what today was.
"Atoms were split that day," he recalled. I asked him what he
thought about the bombing. My grandfather, tactful as ever, replied
"perhaps the bastards should have not bombed us in the first place."
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 17 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr
Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
and 2 wrongs don't make a right
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
08 Aug 2005 06:59:47 PM |
|
|
"kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote in news:dd53nf$rl3$1
@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:
"Daniel Kolle" <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rtpaf1don6t19pp7vrf4hi08ahodba4q5q@4ax.com...
My grandfather, despite his deteriorating state of mind, knew fully
well what today was.
"Atoms were split that day," he recalled. I asked him what he
thought about the bombing. My grandfather, tactful as ever, replied
"perhaps the bastards should have not bombed us in the first place."
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 17 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr
Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
and 2 wrongs don't make a right
But two Wrights made an airplane. It's bad, I know. Just wait, you will
likely use that line one day yourself.
You know the funny thing about being right is that while you might feel
great about being right, the consequences may not be so pleasant.
Here lies Dar.
had the right of way while driving his car
the other guy was wrong and Dar dead right.
But now Dar is dead, right?.
The other intresting part is that it took two bombs before the Japanese
Imperial Army surrendered. Might, in this case, made right as it is in
nearly every war ever fought. People say the Japs were going to surrender
anyway, but the surrender the Japs were considereing was one that would
save face and save their political structure. The US wanted unconditional
surrender. We were really tired of having people attack us. First the
Germans and now the Japs. The public was tired of it and wanted it ended
and ended so that Japan would never attack the US or it's allies ever
again. To do that they had to destroy the political structure and install
a democratic form of government as opposed to a dictatorship.
We can criticize and play "monday morning quarterback" and while we know
more than we did, but it was the decision made at the time and it was the
right one. No matter what else has been discovered, no matter who did
what, no matter who's fault it was, the facts known at the time had only
one logical conclusion. Drop the bomb. You can regret it all you want,
grieve over the victims, cry, and protest and feel bad too but that isn't
going to change a thing about the past.
Nuclear bombs still have their place as far as I am concerned. It is just
another tool like a screwdriver, putty knife, or a saw. How you use it
determines if it is good or bad.
The very difficult part for those that never lived during that time is to
know what life was like back then. Until you really explore what life was
like back then, you don't understand why the USA acted the way they did.
One can explain the grief and sorrow and desperation of losing a loved one
to death, but you don't know what it REALLY feels like until you have. The
same principle applies here. Talk to someone that lived during that time
here in the US. Maybe you will then understand.
rj
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
07 Aug 2005 09:20:33 AM |
|
|
"kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote in news:dd53nf$rl3$1
@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:
"Daniel Kolle" <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rtpaf1don6t19pp7vrf4hi08ahodba4q5q@4ax.com...
My grandfather, despite his deteriorating state of mind, knew fully
well what today was.
"Atoms were split that day," he recalled. I asked him what he
thought about the bombing. My grandfather, tactful as ever, replied
"perhaps the bastards should have not bombed us in the first place."
and 2 wrongs don't make a right
Ending the war with Japan was not a wrong.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals
to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals
to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper
that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from
the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing
to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best
for the cause by editing a newspaper."
Robert E. Lee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
08 Aug 2005 09:19:49 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote in news:dd53nf$rl3$1
@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:
"Daniel Kolle" <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rtpaf1don6t19pp7vrf4hi08ahodba4q5q@4ax.com...
My grandfather, despite his deteriorating state of mind, knew fully
well what today was.
"Atoms were split that day," he recalled. I asked him what he
thought about the bombing. My grandfather, tactful as ever, replied
"perhaps the bastards should have not bombed us in the first place."
and 2 wrongs don't make a right
Ending the war with Japan was not a wrong.
The Japanese were keen to surrender *before* the dropping of the
nuclear bombs.
Their cities were 60% or more destroyed by conventional bombing
already.
What was stopping them was the idea of "unconditional" surrender that
would result in the Emperor being put on trial, and possibly executed,
for war crimes.
What finally ended the war was the fact that the Soviets were joining
the war on Japan and the Japanese faced the very real prospect of
having to surrender to the Soviets - they had seen that Germany had
been divided and couldnt allow that to accur (and they knew Stalin
would not hesitate to put on trial and execute the Emperor if he got
the chance) so that made it necessary to surrender to the Americans.
The "it ended the war" story has no basis in historical fact.
And the deliberate slaughter of tens of thousands of civilian non
combatants is not justified by such a post-hoc rationalisation - even
if it were true.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
09 Aug 2005 07:44:32 AM |
|
|
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in
news:1123553989.730041.278110@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote in news:dd53nf$rl3$1
@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:
"Daniel Kolle" <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rtpaf1don6t19pp7vrf4hi08ahodba4q5q@4ax.com...
My grandfather, despite his deteriorating state of mind, knew
fully
well what today was.
"Atoms were split that day," he recalled. I asked him what he
thought about the bombing. My grandfather, tactful as ever,
replied
"perhaps the bastards should have not bombed us in the first
place."
and 2 wrongs don't make a right
Ending the war with Japan was not a wrong.
The Japanese were keen to surrender *before* the dropping of the
nuclear bombs.
No, they weren't. They were prepared to defend the home islands.
Their cities were 60% or more destroyed by conventional bombing
already.
Their military leaders were willing to go to 100%.
What was stopping them was the idea of "unconditional" surrender that
would result in the Emperor being put on trial, and possibly executed,
for war crimes.
It would have been entirely appropriate to charge Hirohito with war
crimes and to hang him.
What finally ended the war was the fact that the Soviets were joining
the war on Japan and the Japanese faced the very real prospect of
having to surrender to the Soviets - they had seen that Germany had
been divided and couldnt allow that to accur (and they knew Stalin
would not hesitate to put on trial and execute the Emperor if he got
the chance) so that made it necessary to surrender to the Americans.
The "it ended the war" story has no basis in historical fact.
Quite the contrary, the notion that Japan would have surrendered without
the loss of millions more people has no basis in fact. Intercepted
communications indicated that they were preparing to fight against any
invasion of the islands. Estimates were in the millions of casualties.
This is confirmed by captured Japanese archives.
And the deliberate slaughter of tens of thousands of civilian non
combatants is not justified by such a post-hoc rationalisation - even
if it were true.
The valid and legitimate pre-existing justificiation will not go away
because of your post-hoc rationalizations.
It can be argued that the Bomb saved millions of lives.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals
to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals
to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper
that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from
the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing
to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best
for the cause by editing a newspaper."
Robert E. Lee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
09 Aug 2005 08:10:49 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in
news:1123553989.730041.278110@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote in news:dd53nf$rl3$1
@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:
"Daniel Kolle" <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rtpaf1don6t19pp7vrf4hi08ahodba4q5q@4ax.com...
My grandfather, despite his deteriorating state of mind, knew
fully
well what today was.
"Atoms were split that day," he recalled. I asked him what he
thought about the bombing. My grandfather, tactful as ever,
replied
"perhaps the bastards should have not bombed us in the first
place."
and 2 wrongs don't make a right
Ending the war with Japan was not a wrong.
The Japanese were keen to surrender *before* the dropping of the
nuclear bombs.
No, they weren't. They were prepared to defend the home islands.
Some certainly were - particularly the heads of the army.
It was a matter of some disagreement in the Japanese High Command.
Their navy was gone, their air force was gone, and their cities
destroyed - and they were prepared to die fighting a lost war.
Some, however, were looking for a way to surrender.
The thing that tipped the balance away from the "fight to the death"
side to the surrender and save whats left of Japan - was the entry of
the Soviet Union into the war on Japan.
Their cities were 60% or more destroyed by conventional bombing
already.
Their military leaders were willing to go to 100%.
Yes - and there were others that were urging a peace settlement - the
thing which tipped the balance in favour of surrender was the entry
into the war on Japan of the Soviet Union.
What was stopping them was the idea of "unconditional" surrender that
would result in the Emperor being put on trial, and possibly executed,
for war crimes.
It would have been entirely appropriate to charge Hirohito with war
crimes and to hang him.
Yes.
That was, however, a strong motivation for the "fight to the death"
faction.
That was why an unconditional surrender was so difficult even after it
was obvious that they were a defeated nation.
What finally ended the war was the fact that the Soviets were joining
the war on Japan and the Japanese faced the very real prospect of
having to surrender to the Soviets - they had seen that Germany had
been divided and couldnt allow that to accur (and they knew Stalin
would not hesitate to put on trial and execute the Emperor if he got
the chance) so that made it necessary to surrender to the Americans.
The "it ended the war" story has no basis in historical fact.
Quite the contrary, the notion that Japan would have surrendered without
the loss of millions more people has no basis in fact. Intercepted
communications indicated that they were preparing to fight against any
invasion of the islands. Estimates were in the millions of casualties.
This is confirmed by captured Japanese archives.
It is indeed confirmed history that a faction - including the heads of
the army were planning a fight to the very last man women and child.
The dropping of the "A bombs" did nothing to quench their willingness
to die.
They already knew that the war was lost.
Only when the Emperor himself ordered them to surrender to save what
was left of the nation did they do so - although many committed suicide
in shame.
And the deliberate slaughter of tens of thousands of civilian non
combatants is not justified by such a post-hoc rationalisation - even
if it were true.
The valid and legitimate pre-existing justificiation will not go away
because of your post-hoc rationalizations.
Of course not, if it fact existed.
It can be argued that the Bomb saved millions of lives.
Yes I know of that argument.
It's the "standard" majority opinion.
I don't follow the crowd
8-)
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
09 Aug 2005 10:18:40 PM |
|
|
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in
news:1123636248.991257.7780@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in
news:1123553989.730041.278110@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote in news:dd53nf$rl3$1
@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:
"Daniel Kolle" <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rtpaf1don6t19pp7vrf4hi08ahodba4q5q@4ax.com...
My grandfather, despite his deteriorating state of mind, knew
fully
well what today was.
"Atoms were split that day," he recalled. I asked him what he
thought about the bombing. My grandfather, tactful as ever,
replied
"perhaps the bastards should have not bombed us in the first
place."
and 2 wrongs don't make a right
Ending the war with Japan was not a wrong.
The Japanese were keen to surrender *before* the dropping of the
nuclear bombs.
No, they weren't. They were prepared to defend the home islands.
Some certainly were - particularly the heads of the army.
It was a matter of some disagreement in the Japanese High Command.
Their navy was gone, their air force was gone, and their cities
destroyed - and they were prepared to die fighting a lost war.
Some, however, were looking for a way to surrender.
The thing that tipped the balance away from the "fight to the death"
side to the surrender and save whats left of Japan - was the entry of
the Soviet Union into the war on Japan.
You can't just ignore the effect of the Bomb. They would have fought the
Soviets as hard as they intended to fight us.
Their cities were 60% or more destroyed by conventional bombing
already.
Their military leaders were willing to go to 100%.
Yes - and there were others that were urging a peace settlement - the
thing which tipped the balance in favour of surrender was the entry
into the war on Japan of the Soviet Union.
That's not what Hirohito said after the war.
What was stopping them was the idea of "unconditional" surrender
that would result in the Emperor being put on trial, and possibly
executed, for war crimes.
It would have been entirely appropriate to charge Hirohito with war
crimes and to hang him.
Yes.
That was, however, a strong motivation for the "fight to the death"
faction.
That was why an unconditional surrender was so difficult even after it
was obvious that they were a defeated nation.
Of course the whole point of the unconditional surrender was that we
intended to completely destroy the old regime and replace it with a
democratic government. That would have been difficult if we had allowed
the old regime to negotiate.
What finally ended the war was the fact that the Soviets were
joining the war on Japan and the Japanese faced the very real
prospect of having to surrender to the Soviets - they had seen that
Germany had been divided and couldnt allow that to accur (and they
knew Stalin would not hesitate to put on trial and execute the
Emperor if he got the chance) so that made it necessary to
surrender to the Americans.
The "it ended the war" story has no basis in historical fact.
Quite the contrary, the notion that Japan would have surrendered
without the loss of millions more people has no basis in fact.
Intercepted communications indicated that they were preparing to
fight against any invasion of the islands. Estimates were in the
millions of casualties. This is confirmed by captured Japanese
archives.
It is indeed confirmed history that a faction - including the heads of
the army were planning a fight to the very last man women and child.
The dropping of the "A bombs" did nothing to quench their willingness
to die.
They already knew that the war was lost.
The point was that Hirohito was finally convinced that he had to
capitulate to save what was left.
Only when the Emperor himself ordered them to surrender to save what
was left of the nation did they do so - although many committed
suicide in shame.
And the deliberate slaughter of tens of thousands of civilian non
combatants is not justified by such a post-hoc rationalisation -
even if it were true.
The valid and legitimate pre-existing justificiation will not go away
because of your post-hoc rationalizations.
Of course not, if it fact existed.
It did, of course, exist. Our own military planners believed that
millions of lives would be lost in the taking of the Japanese home
islands by force.
It can be argued that the Bomb saved millions of lives.
Yes I know of that argument.
It's the "standard" majority opinion.
I don't follow the crowd
Crowds aren't always wrong. :-)
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals
to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals
to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper
that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from
the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing
to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best
for the cause by editing a newspaper."
Robert E. Lee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
10 Aug 2005 12:01:39 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in
news:1123636248.991257.7780@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
<snip>
It can be argued that the Bomb saved millions of lives.
Yes I know of that argument.
It's the "standard" majority opinion.
I don't follow the crowd
Crowds aren't always wrong. :-)
Touche'
Here is an interesting article:
http://www.bcasnet.org/articlesandresources/article10_10.htm
For what its worth - I am not 100% certain of "my" position - I would
think the A bomb had at least a part in convincing the Emperor to
surrender - as he himself said to the nation.
Politicians (and that's what an emperor is) dont always tell the truth
about their motivations.
I just like exploring alternative theories now and again. I heard this
guy on the radio who has just published a new book - and he was pushing
the theory that the A-bombs were NOT the primary reason for surrender -
and backing it up quite convincingly.
Maybe it was 70% "bomb" 30% "Fear of being carved up between the US and
the Soviet union".
See ya Fred.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick J." |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
07 Aug 2005 04:03:11 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote in news:dd53nf$rl3$1
@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:
"Daniel Kolle" <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rtpaf1don6t19pp7vrf4hi08ahodba4q5q@4ax.com...
My grandfather, despite his deteriorating state of mind, knew fully
well what today was.
"Atoms were split that day," he recalled. I asked him what he
thought about the bombing. My grandfather, tactful as ever, replied
"perhaps the bastards should have not bombed us in the first place."
and 2 wrongs don't make a right
Ending the war with Japan was not a wrong.
Killing civilians is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
07 Aug 2005 04:56:56 PM |
|
|
"Nick J." <NICK0094@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1123448591.101681.16740@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote in news:dd53nf$rl3$1
@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:
"Daniel Kolle" <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rtpaf1don6t19pp7vrf4hi08ahodba4q5q@4ax.com...
My grandfather, despite his deteriorating state of mind, knew
fully well what today was.
"Atoms were split that day," he recalled. I asked him what he
thought about the bombing. My grandfather, tactful as ever,
replied "perhaps the bastards should have not bombed us in the
first place."
and 2 wrongs don't make a right
Ending the war with Japan was not a wrong.
Killing civilians is.
War is hell.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals
to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals
to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper
that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from
the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing
to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best
for the cause by editing a newspaper."
Robert E. Lee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick J." |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
07 Aug 2005 05:51:47 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Nick J." <NICK0094@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1123448591.101681.16740@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote in news:dd53nf$rl3$1
@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:
"Daniel Kolle" <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rtpaf1don6t19pp7vrf4hi08ahodba4q5q@4ax.com...
My grandfather, despite his deteriorating state of mind, knew
fully well what today was.
"Atoms were split that day," he recalled. I asked him what he
thought about the bombing. My grandfather, tactful as ever,
replied "perhaps the bastards should have not bombed us in the
first place."
and 2 wrongs don't make a right
Ending the war with Japan was not a wrong.
Killing civilians is.
War is hell.
Puppies are cute.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
07 Aug 2005 01:23:58 PM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
"Daniel Kolle" <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rtpaf1don6t19pp7vrf4hi08ahodba4q5q@4ax.com...
My grandfather, despite his deteriorating state of mind, knew fully
well what today was.
"Atoms were split that day," he recalled. I asked him what he
thought about the bombing. My grandfather, tactful as ever, replied
"perhaps the bastards should have not bombed us in the first place."
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 17 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr
Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
and 2 wrongs don't make a right
In what way was dropping the atomic bomb wrong?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
07 Aug 2005 03:51:53 PM |
|
|
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:EksJe.7120$CF.48494@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
In what way was dropping the atomic bomb wrong?
In what way would someone's going over this topic again, just so you could
ignore it all again, be a good use of their time?
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
07 Aug 2005 06:06:41 PM |
|
|
Katt wrote:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:EksJe.7120$CF.48494@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
In what way was dropping the atomic bomb wrong?
In what way would someone's going over this topic again, just so you could
ignore it all again, be a good use of their time?
If you think it's a waste of time to discuss the topic
then by all means, don't discuss the topic. Writing
to complain that the topic is a waste of time is an
even bigger waste of time! :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
07 Aug 2005 07:45:53 PM |
|
|
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:EtwJe.7124$CF.48638@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
Katt wrote:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:EksJe.7120$CF.48494@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
In what way was dropping the atomic bomb wrong?
In what way would someone's going over this topic again, just so you
could ignore it all again, be a good use of their time?
If you think it's a waste of time to discuss the topic
then by all means, don't discuss the topic. Writing
to complain that the topic is a waste of time is an
even bigger waste of time! :-)
I was pointing out that *you* are a waste of time, shitwit: the off-topic
'topic' has been 'dealt with' *more than adequately* hereabouts in the last
few days. Anyone who challenges someone to go through it all again is just
*trolling* -- and it ain't gonna fucking work, craphead.
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
08 Aug 2005 03:48:17 AM |
|
|
Katt wrote:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:EtwJe.7124$CF.48638@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
Katt wrote:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:EksJe.7120$CF.48494@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
In what way was dropping the atomic bomb wrong?
In what way would someone's going over this topic again, just so you
could ignore it all again, be a good use of their time?
If you think it's a waste of time to discuss the topic
then by all means, don't discuss the topic. Writing
to complain that the topic is a waste of time is an
even bigger waste of time! :-)
I was pointing out that *you* are a waste of time,
It's not possible for me to waste *your* time.
Only you can do that.
I can waste my time, but it's my time to waste
so you needn't concern yourself with that.
shitwit: the off-topic
'topic' has been 'dealt with' *more than adequately* hereabouts in the last
few days. Anyone who challenges someone to go through it all again is just
*trolling* -- and it ain't gonna fucking work, craphead.
I didn't read or participate in those threads so
that's not an issue for me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
07 Aug 2005 04:16:38 PM |
|
|
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:EksJe.7120$CF.48494@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
kathryn wrote:
"Daniel Kolle" <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rtpaf1don6t19pp7vrf4hi08ahodba4q5q@4ax.com...
My grandfather, despite his deteriorating state of mind, knew fully
well what today was.
"Atoms were split that day," he recalled. I asked him what he
thought about the bombing. My grandfather, tactful as ever, replied
"perhaps the bastards should have not bombed us in the first place."
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 17 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr
Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
and 2 wrongs don't make a right
In what way was dropping the atomic bomb wrong?
You don't think killing 65,000 odd civilians is always wrong? Clearly we
have a different world view.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
07 Aug 2005 06:17:44 PM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
In what way was dropping the atomic bomb wrong?
You don't think killing 65,000 odd civilians is always wrong?
No. I certainly would not agree that killing 65,000
civilians is ALWAYS wrong.
Clearly we
have a different world view.
Clearly.
Is it the numbers that bother you? Are you saying
that it is always wrong to kill people in large
numbers?
Or is it the civilian aspect? That it is always wrong
to target civilians?
Or something else?
For me, I don't like my government to kill people
without a pretty compelling reason - I'm opposed to
the death penalty for instance. But IF the reason
is compelling enough, I am willing to see them kill
people, even large numbers of people, even those
who are innocent civilians.
That's really something that needs to be decided on
a case by case basis. This particular case seems
to be justified to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
08 Aug 2005 03:40:10 AM |
|
|
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:%DwJe.7125$CF.48402@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
kathryn wrote:
In what way was dropping the atomic bomb wrong?
You don't think killing 65,000 odd civilians is always wrong?
No. I certainly would not agree that killing 65,000
civilians is ALWAYS wrong.
Clearly we have a different world view.
Clearly.
Is it the numbers that bother you? Are you saying
that it is always wrong to kill people in large
numbers?
Or is it the civilian aspect? That it is always wrong
to target civilians?
both
Or something else?
For me, I don't like my government to kill people
without a pretty compelling reason - I'm opposed to
the death penalty for instance. But IF the reason
is compelling enough, I am willing to see them kill
people, even large numbers of people, even those
who are innocent civilians.
That's really something that needs to be decided on
a case by case basis. This particular case seems
to be justified to me.
the "other side" can always justify their attacks as well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
08 Aug 2005 04:00:30 AM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:%DwJe.7125$CF.48402@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
kathryn wrote:
In what way was dropping the atomic bomb wrong?
You don't think killing 65,000 odd civilians is always wrong?
No. I certainly would not agree that killing 65,000
civilians is ALWAYS wrong.
Clearly we have a different world view.
Clearly.
Is it the numbers that bother you? Are you saying
that it is always wrong to kill people in large
numbers?
Or is it the civilian aspect? That it is always wrong
to target civilians?
both
I see. Well, I can understand that even if I
don't happen to agree with it.
Seems to me that when you are in a war like WW II
that the only way to fight it is all out. When
you're fighting at a level where the enemy nation,
both government and people, is fully committed to
the war then the nation as a whole has to be regarded
as the target. It's pretty horrific, but war isn't
supposed to be fun and fluffy bunnies.
So how do you feel about something like the cold war,
where each side basically threatened to wipe out a
hundred million or so innocent civilians using nuclear
weapons?
For me, I don't like my government to kill people
without a pretty compelling reason - I'm opposed to
the death penalty for instance. But IF the reason
is compelling enough, I am willing to see them kill
people, even large numbers of people, even those
who are innocent civilians.
That's really something that needs to be decided on
a case by case basis. This particular case seems
to be justified to me.
the "other side" can always justify their attacks as well.
Yes, absolutely they can. From the Japanese point of
view they did the only thing they could do. Their only
misstep was opening things with a surprise attack that
so enraged their enemy, and as I understand it that was
actually an accident; they planned to declare war in
advance but the message didn't get through.
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
08 Aug 2005 07:13:56 PM |
|
|
Graham Kennedy <graham@ditl.org> wrote in news:raFJe.7128$CF.48312@news-
1.opaltelecom.net:
kathryn wrote:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:%DwJe.7125$CF.48402@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
kathryn wrote:
In what way was dropping the atomic bomb wrong?
You don't think killing 65,000 odd civilians is always wrong?
No. I certainly would not agree that killing 65,000
civilians is ALWAYS wrong.
Clearly we have a different world view.
Clearly.
Is it the numbers that bother you? Are you saying
that it is always wrong to kill people in large
numbers?
Or is it the civilian aspect? That it is always wrong
to target civilians?
both
I see. Well, I can understand that even if I
don't happen to agree with it.
Seems to me that when you are in a war like WW II
that the only way to fight it is all out. When
you're fighting at a level where the enemy nation,
both government and people, is fully committed to
the war then the nation as a whole has to be regarded
as the target. It's pretty horrific, but war isn't
supposed to be fun and fluffy bunnies.
So how do you feel about something like the cold war,
where each side basically threatened to wipe out a
hundred million or so innocent civilians using nuclear
weapons?
For me, I don't like my government to kill people
without a pretty compelling reason - I'm opposed to
the death penalty for instance. But IF the reason
is compelling enough, I am willing to see them kill
people, even large numbers of people, even those
who are innocent civilians.
That's really something that needs to be decided on
a case by case basis. This particular case seems
to be justified to me.
the "other side" can always justify their attacks as well.
Yes, absolutely they can. From the Japanese point of
view they did the only thing they could do. Their only
misstep was opening things with a surprise attack that
so enraged their enemy, and as I understand it that was
actually an accident; they planned to declare war in
advance but the message didn't get through.
What is interesting is that people always pull out numbers like 65,000, or
300,000 or ever 850,000. What about the preventable 1,000,000 deaths every
year due to something simple like malaria? This is happening NOW and
something can be done. They will criticize about the decisions that led to
the deaths of thousands, but do absolutely nothing about the million that
will die in the next 12 months not to mention the million that will die the
year after that and the year after that.
Bizarre.
rj
.
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
08 Aug 2005 07:44:49 PM |
|
|
R. Pierce Butler wrote:
What is interesting is that people always pull out numbers like 65,000, or
300,000 or ever 850,000. What about the preventable 1,000,000 deaths every
year due to something simple like malaria? This is happening NOW and
something can be done. They will criticize about the decisions that led to
the deaths of thousands, but do absolutely nothing about the million that
will die in the next 12 months not to mention the million that will die the
year after that and the year after that.
Bizarre.
rj
That's a dangerous game to play, though. I mean,
think of the resources we expend to catch a few
hundred or thousand murderers per year. Put into
healthcare, you could probably save far more
lives with that money.
But it doesn't work that way. You have to work in
every area, you can't just give up on one problem
until you completely solve the others.
Similarly, the fact that people let the government
allow people to die in one area of life doesn't
mean that they can't criticize it for doing the
same in another.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
08 Aug 2005 11:02:05 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 01:44:49 +0100, Graham Kennedy <graham@ditl.org>
wrote:
R. Pierce Butler wrote:
What is interesting is that people always pull out numbers like 65,000, or
300,000 or ever 850,000. What about the preventable 1,000,000 deaths every
year due to something simple like malaria? This is happening NOW and
something can be done. They will criticize about the decisions that led to
the deaths of thousands, but do absolutely nothing about the million that
will die in the next 12 months not to mention the million that will die the
year after that and the year after that.
Bizarre.
rj
That's a dangerous game to play, though. I mean,
think of the resources we expend to catch a few
hundred or thousand murderers per year. Put into
healthcare, you could probably save far more
lives with that money.
But it doesn't work that way. You have to work in
every area, you can't just give up on one problem
until you completely solve the others.
Similarly, the fact that people let the government
allow people to die in one area of life doesn't
mean that they can't criticize it for doing the
same in another.
I agree. There's something, too, that's innately alarming whenever
masses of people die rapidly in close proximity to each other - which
is as it should be. If malaria killed the same number of people, but
within a much more brief timeframe and all within relatively close
proximity to one another, you can bet it would get attention.
Likewise if a nuclear bomb killed the same number of people it already
would, but scattered around the globe instead of all in one place, or
even just over a period of decades rather than seconds, nobody would
notice.
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=
http://surrenderingtothefall.blogspot.com
~=O-o_~=O-o_~=O-o_~=O-o_~=O-o_~=O-o_~=O-o
"I absolutely detest it when people quote
themselves." - Me
.
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
09 Aug 2005 03:31:32 AM |
|
|
Uncle Buck wrote:
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 01:44:49 +0100, Graham Kennedy <graham@ditl.org>
wrote:
R. Pierce Butler wrote:
What is interesting is that people always pull out numbers like 65,000, or
300,000 or ever 850,000. What about the preventable 1,000,000 deaths every
year due to something simple like malaria? This is happening NOW and
something can be done. They will criticize about the decisions that led to
the deaths of thousands, but do absolutely nothing about the million that
will die in the next 12 months not to mention the million that will die the
year after that and the year after that.
Bizarre.
rj
That's a dangerous game to play, though. I mean,
think of the resources we expend to catch a few
hundred or thousand murderers per year. Put into
healthcare, you could probably save far more
lives with that money.
But it doesn't work that way. You have to work in
every area, you can't just give up on one problem
until you completely solve the others.
Similarly, the fact that people let the government
allow people to die in one area of life doesn't
mean that they can't criticize it for doing the
same in another.
I agree. There's something, too, that's innately alarming whenever
masses of people die rapidly in close proximity to each other - which
is as it should be. If malaria killed the same number of people, but
within a much more brief timeframe and all within relatively close
proximity to one another, you can bet it would get attention.
Likewise if a nuclear bomb killed the same number of people it already
would, but scattered around the globe instead of all in one place, or
even just over a period of decades rather than seconds, nobody would
notice.
I worked once at the Health and Safety Executive,
a government department in charge of various safety
related things including prosecuting companies for
violations of safety laws. It was a common saying
there that "nobody cares if you kill a thousand one
at a time, but you can't kill a hundred all at once."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
11 Aug 2005 11:08:11 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:00:30 +0100, Graham Kennedy <graham@ditl.org>
wrote:
kathryn wrote:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:%DwJe.7125$CF.48402@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
kathryn wrote:
In what way was dropping the atomic bomb wrong?
You don't think killing 65,000 odd civilians is always wrong?
No. I certainly would not agree that killing 65,000
civilians is ALWAYS wrong.
Clearly we have a different world view.
Clearly.
Is it the numbers that bother you? Are you saying
that it is always wrong to kill people in large
numbers?
Or is it the civilian aspect? That it is always wrong
to target civilians?
both
I see. Well, I can understand that even if I
don't happen to agree with it.
Seems to me that when you are in a war like WW II
that the only way to fight it is all out. When
you're fighting at a level where the enemy nation,
both government and people, is fully committed to
the war then the nation as a whole has to be regarded
as the target. It's pretty horrific, but war isn't
supposed to be fun and fluffy bunnies.
Especially when the Emperor was a living breathing deity.
So how do you feel about something like the cold war,
where each side basically threatened to wipe out a
hundred million or so innocent civilians using nuclear
weapons?
For me, I don't like my government to kill people
without a pretty compelling reason - I'm opposed to
the death penalty for instance. But IF the reason
is compelling enough, I am willing to see them kill
people, even large numbers of people, even those
who are innocent civilians.
That's really something that needs to be decided on
a case by case basis. This particular case seems
to be justified to me.
the "other side" can always justify their attacks as well.
Yes, absolutely they can. From the Japanese point of
view they did the only thing they could do. Their only
misstep was opening things with a surprise attack that
so enraged their enemy, and as I understand it that was
actually an accident; they planned to declare war in
advance but the message didn't get through.
As I recall, the declaration of war was to be delivered shortly before
the strike on Pearl. The problem was the message took hours longer
than anticipated for the Japanese Embassy to decode the encrypted
message.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
16 Aug 2005 06:54:35 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
As I recall, the declaration of war was to be delivered shortly before
the strike on Pearl. The problem was the message took hours longer
than anticipated for the Japanese Embassy to decode the encrypted
message.
Yes, that's what I heard.
It's interesting to speculate, would the US reaction
have been much different if that message had gotten
through in time? I'm sure the US would have gone to
war anyway, but would they feel quite the same degree
of outrage? Would it still be "a date which will live
in infamy", or would it be seen more as just fortunes
of war. Or even with the blame going more to the US
leadership for not being more prepared given a warning?
Mind you, the US still had plenty of reasons to be
enraged with the Japanese for the way they acted during
the rest of the war.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and author, Daystrom Institute technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
18 Aug 2005 02:34:02 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:54:35 +0100, Graham Kennedy <graham@ditl.org>
wrote:
stoney wrote:
As I recall, the declaration of war was to be delivered shortly before
the strike on Pearl. The problem was the message took hours longer
than anticipated for the Japanese Embassy to decode the encrypted
message.
Yes, that's what I heard.
It's interesting to speculate, would the US reaction
have been much different if that message had gotten
through in time?
I'm sure the US would have gone to
war anyway, but would they feel quite the same degree
of outrage?
The 'sneak attack' factor would have been eliminated.
Would it still be "a date which will live
in infamy", or would it be seen more as just fortunes
of war. Or even with the blame going more to the US
leadership for not being more prepared given a warning?
The US, iirc, had put the squeeze on Japan to begin with. Their
direct response was a reaction to that.
Mind you, the US still had plenty of reasons to be
enraged with the Japanese for the way they acted during
the rest of the war.
Hefty culture clash. The Japanese had reason to be enraged at the
squeezing the US conducted prior to Dec 7, 1941. Firebombing of the
Japanese mainland didn't help any.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
04 Sep 2005 03:27:24 PM |
|
|
In article <4co9g1hhq3vqvdu4knqobhrjfrsl4gt400@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
<snip>
Firebombing of the
Japanese mainland didn't help any.
I was unaware that Japan had a mainland.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
05 Sep 2005 10:15:25 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:27:24 -0400, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com>
wrote:
In article <4co9g1hhq3vqvdu4knqobhrjfrsl4gt400@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
<snip>
Firebombing of the
Japanese mainland didn't help any.
I was unaware that Japan had a mainland.
Habit [shrug] Firebombing of the Japanese cities. Better?
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: My Grandfather and Hiroshima |
07 Aug 2005 07:47:26 PM |
|
|
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:%DwJe.7125$CF.48402@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
kathryn wrote:
In what way was dropping the atomic bomb wrong?
You don't think killing 65,000 odd civilians is always wrong?
No. I certainly would not agree that killing 65,000
civilians is ALWAYS wrong.
Clearly we have a different world view.
Clearly.
Is it the numbers that bother you? Are you saying
that it is always wrong to kill people in large
numbers?
Or is it the civilian aspect? That it is always wrong
to target civilians?
Or something else?
For me, I don't like my government to kill people
without a pretty compelling reason - I'm opposed to
the death penalty for instance. But IF the reason
is compelling enough, I am willing to see them kill
people, even large numbers of people, even those
who are innocent civilians.
That's really something that needs to be decided on
a case by case basis. This particular case seems
to be justified to me.
Do not feed the troll.
Do not feed the troll.
Do not feed the troll.
Katt.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
