August 6, 1945

[2R]

You do not need nuclear weapons to have a nuclear war.Fukushima,Cheynobyl,Three Mile Island,Windscale.......all you need is someone asleep at the switch.
Perhaps that is why the Persians have buried their nuclear programms so deep in the mountains and far away from populations because they know someone will get in and blow them up before they make the weapons of Armageddon.
I would bet their neighbours will be in those tunnels soon.

[Shiny Side Up]

How many times do I have to repeat "it might have worked, or it might not have" before you grasp the full meaning?

Your debate-fu still needs work. In this case your position is advocating a course of action that you even admit possibly won't work? That's not a very good foundation for an arguement. If you wish to use it as a valid possibility then you must argue from the position that you think it would work. Otherwise what are you really advocating? That it would be better for everyone's conscience to always say "well at least we tried"? You're waffling. A direct attack on your opponent is hardly helping either. I challenge you to effectively attack my arguements, or at least make a sporting defense of yours.

En garde!

Since you insist on me providing an example where an actively warring combatant gives up after a warning shot here it is. It is a principle of warfare that when confronted with superior force and certain destruction surrender is usually the best course of action to save lives. I'm getting a little tired of having to explain this amazingly simple concept to you over and over again or having to provide actual examples before you believe it. Some things are just apparent, but if you want to argue for the sake of argument there is probably a good discussion going somewhere on whether or not the US actually landed on the moon in 1969.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Milan_(1805)

[/quote]

The example you give isn't an adequate one. surely you can come up with better if the data of the entire history of Warfare is rife with them. Again in your example the warning shot is used against an effectively defenseless foe. To Quote:

Laurie's engagement with the superior opponent had initially cost him his ship, but had rendered her easy prey to any other Royal Navy frigate in the vicinity. Had he not brought her to battle, the Ville de Milan could have easily outsailed the Leander or even engaged her on fairly equal terms. Instead the damage and losses incurred in breaking down the Cleopatra had left her helpless to resist.

Again, warning shots don't work against foes with the capability to resist. Here's the crux of the arguement to make this issue more clear for you. You're arguing in the situation of deciding to drop a bomb some form of warning should be used because it might work - there after all is no point arguing that it should be used because it might not. I'm saying that it would never have worked. Come on, you can do better!

[Xander]

Xander

I think you have great potential as a CCN announcer. Anyone who asks us to imagine, and emotionalize like you do really is wasting their talents arguing on this thread.

People in 45, the world over, were generally a little less touchy feely than todays coddled, lets just all get along crowd.

That doesn't justify their actions.

This is a quote from J. Robert Oppenheimer (the father of the atom bomb):

"I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

There is a clear difference between conventional warfare and nuclear warfare. The latter has the ability to destroy us as a species.

This was taken from the ''The Fog of War'' a documentary about Robert S McNamara, quoting LeMay:

"'If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.' And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"

Japan was under total naval blockade at the time. Its importations reduced to zero. The Soviets were entering the war against Japan. Under such circumstances, it was just a question of time before capitulation.

If the very top brass agreed that the bombings were not useful from a military standpoint, what do we have then?

We have a political statement and a scientific experiment with women and children as subjects.

That, I don't stand for.

[azimuthaviation]

People in 45, the world over, were generally a little less touchy feely than todays coddled, lets just all get along crowd.

How well did that work out for them?

Going by the fact that we're carrying out this conversation in English instead of German, I would say pretty good.

Touche

[Shiny Side Up]

Japan was under total naval blockade at the time. Its importations reduced to zero. The Soviets were entering the war against Japan. Under such circumstances, it was just a question of time before capitulation.

This is where its important to take a good look at the actual timeline of events up to this point. Before August 6th, While Japan's imports were dwindling, they still had access (though the Americans were working to interdict them) to the resources of occupied Manchuria and Korea. They were of course cut off from their other prizes, most notably the oil resources of the Dutch East Indies, but up to the point of the August 6th bombing still felt they could exact concessions from the Allies - which also remember they still were counting on a favorable reception from the Sovs. The Soviets didn't declare war until the 8th of August and invade Manchuria until the 9th. The start of which was discussed by the Allies with the Sovs at Tehran and Yalta. It should be pointed out that at this point the Americans still placed a lot of trust in the good faith of the Russians (but the British already were rightfully mistrustful of Stalin's intentions).

Back on point, at the moment the approval was given to drop the bomb on Hiroshima, Japan was far from capitulation, though possibly some could see the possibility of how close they could be brought there. Given that reference point I'm not sure how anyone could really come to any other conclusion at the time, especially given the American goal of expending as few as possible American lives in the process.

[Rockie]

Are you kidding me?I was never a member of the Canadian Armed Forces and cannot comment on what they teach. I can only speculate that they don't advocate surrender.It is no secret that I have served in the military, and one of the many things I've memorized during time, was this little nugget from our "Code of Conduct"I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

Read this Nark:

Do Marines Surrender? A controversial subject.

Now and then this question comes up, but usually Marines seem to have little in the way of facts for their assumptions, etc. Nor is there a complete summing up of the subject in any one place under one title; but the info is out there, though somewhat piecemeal. George Smith's book, "Carlson's Raid," devotes an entire chapter, for instance, to the surrender note controversy re Carlson's attempted surrender during the Makin Raid of 17-18 August 1942.

Yes, Marines have surrendered. It's just one more aspect of the profession of arms.

Most notably, there have been occurances of such for the Marine Corps, in the opening days of World War Two at Guam, the Phillipines, Wake Island, and China. And then there was the little-known, for many years, surrender attempt during the Makin Island Raid.

Later, in Korea, 1950 there was a surrender that occurred at Hell Fire Valley during the Chosin Reservoir operation.

There were also Marine surrenders that occurred even further back through Marine Corps history during the 1700s and civil wartimes. (See Nofi's Book of Lists.)

Most Marines prefer not to discuss Marine surrenders nor to admit that there has ever been such.

Here is one remark from Evans F. Carlson himself, as found in Gen. Peatross' book, "Bless 'Em All,"

"...While discussing the various aspects of the raid,the only critique of the operation there would ever be Carlson suddenly had paused and, almost self critically and apropos of nothing, interjected: No commander ever expects to fail in an operation, but he should have a plan ready, ...."

Is it dishonorable for a Marine to surrender under such conditions?

In addition, there are various aspects of accepted Marine Corps history that people are either entirely ignorant of, and/or prefer to disregard/deny. For instance, the phony red stripe story regarding Chapultapec; Tun Tavern vs. Conestoga Wagon as the birthplace of the Corps, etc. Gen Simmons goes so far as to write that July 11, 1798 is the true birthday of the Corps.

Marine Corps historians, including BGen Edwin Simmons, have brought examples of these things out in their published writings, yet erroneous teachings continue. Why? As I've now come to mention often, I, not too long ago received an e-mail from a Marine colonel (retired) suggesting he didn't give a rat's ass about facts, tradition was all that counted w/him. People just don't want to hear it.

OK, we all choose our medicine--myself, I have a lousy memory, and I find it easier to believe and pass on the truth.

No non-fanatical military organization rules out surrender when it is appropriate. The US Marines are not a fanatical organization and as such would never throw their marines lives away needlessly in a fight that cannot be won and gains nothing in return.

The example you give isn't an adequate one. surely you can come up with better if the data of the entire history of Warfare is rife with them. Again in your example the warning shot is used against an effectively defenseless foe.

It's a perfectly adequate example and exactly what you asked for. An enemy doesn't have to be defenseless to warrant a warning shot, hopelessly outgunned will do. But if that's the criteria you wish to use in your very narrow argument don't you think the Japanese were defenseless against atomic weapons? It might even have been you that said their air defence was such that a lone B-29 could fly over Japan unmolested. You keep moving the goal posts but you can't escape the argument.

A demonstration of force does not have to kill 200,000 people to be effective. Is that such an impossible concept for you to wrap your mind around?

[Nark]

I'm quite aware that Marines have surrendered. Wake and Bataan immediately come to mind.


I'm also quite aware that during the Korean War many servicemen surrendered, and there was no established "code" in which to follow while under imprisonment. This led to the creation of our (US Armed Forces) Code of Conduct.
By which I refer you back to Article number 2 above:

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

I've been in a number of mission brief's during my military career, and none of them defined what our surrender action would be. In War, there is no "sportsmanship" award like pee-wee hockey.

It's pretty amazing what being outnumbered 8-1, such as the Chosin Reservoir in Korea, can do tho the fighting resolve. Down but not out.

[Rockie]

In your military career Nark it's always been your opponents in the position of surrendering, so why would you have instructions on how to do it in briefings?

Expending lives needlessly is not what either the Canadian or American military is all about and you know it.

[Shiny Side Up]

It's a perfectly adequate example and exactly what you asked for. An enemy doesn't have to be defenseless to warrant a warning shot, hopelessly outgunned will do. But if that's the criteria you wish to use in your very narrow argument don't you think the Japanese were defenseless against atomic weapons? It might even have been you that said their air defence was such that a lone B-29 could fly over Japan unmolested. You keep moving the goal posts but you can't escape the argument.

You're mistaken, they let lone B-29s in past fly over un-molested since their air defense capabilities were limited and concentrated them when they appeared in groups. Should they have known atomic bombs were on the way, they could have attempted a variety of means to defend against them - sinking the ships that were delivering bomb parts for instance was one means, kamikaze attacks on B-29s another. Not to mention prepared to minimize the effect on the populace by dispersing them. So no I don't think the Japanese were defenseless against Atomic weapons - especially if they had warning of their use. The goal posts are in the same place so to speak, but so far you haven't put anything between them, though so far the bit about being defenseless against atomic weapons was a your best try. Keeping score, I countered that they were only defenseless as long as they didn't know they were comming. If they attempted to defend against them it might have meant a more protracted end to the war, and even the deployment of more nuclear bombs - not a desirable outcome if preventing loss of life is your goal.

A demonstration of force does not have to kill 200,000 people to be effective. Is that such an impossible concept for you to wrap your mind around?

Its all a question of scale and circumstance. Who are you trying to scare and how many of them there are. Not impossible, but in this case that we're talking about extremely improbable. Does that help make you less angry anf frustrated? If I didn't know better I'd say you're frothing at the mouth.

[cdnpilot77]

In your military career Nark it's always been your opponents in the position of surrendering, so why would you have instructions on how to do it in briefings?

Expending lives needlessly is not what either the Canadian or American military is all about and you know it.

Do you think Dalton McGuinty will win the election in the fall?

[Rockie]

If I didn't know better I'd say you're frothing at the mouth.

No, but I am wondering why I'm bothering arguing with you. You sound too much like my 10 year old nephew trying 100 different ways to get a bigger ice cream cone.

[Shiny Side Up]

I was wondering too. Clearly the issue gets to you as it seems to cloud your reasoning abilities. Are you able to give your nephew good reasons why he can't have a bigger icecream cone or do you just tell him he doesn't understand, insult him and resort to calling him an icecream-monger?

[2R]

In your military career Nark it's always been your opponents in the position of surrendering, so why would you have instructions on how to do it in briefings?

Expending lives needlessly is not what either the Canadian or American military is all about and you know it.

Do you think Dalton McGuinty will win the election in the fall?

Fish ( a surreal answer, for a surreal question)

[mcrit]

Rockie wrote:
Do you honestly think it was only Russian Air Defense capabilities that prevented the Americans from turning the USSR into a parking lot? Are you actually suggesting that if the USSR had no Air Defense the United States would have attacked with Nuclear weapons?

Well my friend, I hate to break it to you but the position you attacked so vigorously above is actually supported by the ideas you have previously expressed.
1.) The Americans had ambitions of world domination. (On this one, I agree with you Rockie)
2.) The Americans were blood thirsty war mongers who were not at all interested in preserving human life, especially the lives of people who looked/talked/thought differently than they did.
3.) The nuclear weapon in and of itself could wreak absolute destruction on one's enemies.

These are all things that you have said. If all these things are correct, the US should have rolled right over the Soviets.

Rockie wrote:
But this is AvCanada where everybody is an expert and the dominant principle is that if Rockie said it, it must be wrong.

My friend, in a previous thread you took the position that some of the people who didn't see things your way were paranoid. It pains me to point out to you what a perfect example of paranoia the above quote is. I can assure you from the bottom of my heart (and I suspect Foggy's also) that we aren't out to get you. We just want to get you thinking right.

Also, I do apologize for the prolonged pause in our conversation. Work so often gets in the way of Avcanada.

[trey kule]

Work so often gets in the way of Avcanada

Maybe its time to dust off the old resume then, and start looking for a less demanding employer

[The Old Fogducker]

Take this entry to be "Limited Power of Attorney" authorizing mcrit to speak on my behalf for the remainder of these procedings.

Should any statements be made by mcrit with which I strongly disagree, I will intercede, revoke the delegated authority, and resume acting on my own behalf.

Further, it must be noted this authority is specific to the topic of the Soviet Union's activities during the so-called "Cold War" period, and may be extended to include rebuttals of the AvCanada persona identified as "Rockie" and his views concerning the ending of WW2 by the use of atomic weapons by The United States of America.

"Fire when ready Gridley."

The Old Fogducker

[System Message]

Jack Churchill
As the Pacific War was still ongoing Churchill was sent to Burma, where the largest land battles against Japan were still raging, but by the time he reached India, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been bombed, and the war abruptly ended. Churchill was said to be unhappy with the sudden end of the war, saying: "If it wasn't for those damn Yanks, we could have kept the war going another 10 years."

Jack Churchill was the only British soldier known to have killed an enemy in World War 2 with a longbow.

[Rockie]

1.) The Americans had ambitions of world domination. (On this one, I agree with you Rockie)

Never said it. Show me where.

2.) The Americans were blood thirsty war mongers who were not at all interested in preserving human life, especially the lives of people who looked/talked/thought differently than they did.

Never said it. Show me where.

I've said they should have considered a demonstration in the interest of killing as few people as possible, and have argued that point. You are putting your own interpretation on it and attributing it to me. Speak for yourself, not me.

3.) The nuclear weapon in and of itself could wreak absolute destruction on one's enemies.

Not sure what this means. Could you explain please?

Take this entry to be "Limited Power of Attorney" authorizing mcrit to speak on my behalf for the remainder of these procedings.Should any statements be made by mcrit with which I strongly disagree, I will intercede, revoke the delegated authority, and resume acting on my own behalf. Further, it must be noted this authority is specific to the topic of the Soviet Union's activities during the so-called "Cold War" period, and may be extended to include rebuttals of the AvCanada persona identified as "Rockie" and his views concerning the ending of WW2 by the use of atomic weapons by The United States of America. "Fire when ready Gridley."The Old Fogducker

What an utterly pointless post. But you may have the right idea by not participating in this thread any longer.

[mcrit]

Rockie:
If you want to deny that I have captured the essence of your position then so be it. I'll leave it to the reader to decide. I fully concede that my powers of persuasion are not up to the task of making you see reason, so I shan't try any longer.
Your comment about Foggy's post would be spot on, if you were to apply it to your posts vice his.

[Rockie]

Please mcrit, you overstate the level of your understanding. You actually fail to grasp any part of what I'm saying never mind the essence of it.

[mcrit]

Rockie, my friend, I understand every word that you have committed to this thread. I have digested they, contemplated them, and played devil's advocate with them in my own head. Every which way I look at them, they still come up short.

[Rockie]

Rockie, my friend, I understand every word that you have committed to this thread. I have digested they, contemplated them, and played devil's advocate with them in my own head. Every which way I look at them, they still come up short.

Really?

Well my friend, I hate to break it to you but the position you attacked so vigorously above is actually supported by the ideas you have previously expressed.

1.) The Americans had ambitions of world domination. (On this one, I agree with you Rockie)
2.) The Americans were blood thirsty war mongers who were not at all interested in preserving human life, especially the lives of people who looked/talked/thought differently than they did.
3.) The nuclear weapon in and of itself could wreak absolute destruction on one's enemies.These are all things that you have said. If all these things are correct, the US should have rolled right over the Soviets.

This tells me you need to do a lot more digesting and contemplating because you haven't understood a single word I wrote. But if you haven't understood it after this many pages and all the different ways I could state my position it is extremely unlikely you ever will. I guess we'll call this one a wash.

[mcrit]

This tells me you need to do a lot more digesting and contemplating because you haven't understood a single word I wrote.

I understand you quite well. You are tenacious, (to a fault). That is a trait that I normally admire. If you want to continue to insist that you don't have an anti American bias and that ICBMs didn't shift the paradigm of total war, then so be it. I am done with this thread. You can have the last word.

[The Old Fogducker]

Now mcrit .... if this were a tag-team wrestling cage match to determine the World Championship Belt wearer, would this be where we lure Rockie into the corner on the pretext of a tag-off .... as if he were "Gorgeous George" ... only to have me start to climb up the wire and give him a modified drop kick to the cheers of the crowd?

We could follow that up with "The Sleeper" as popularized by "Whipper-Billy Watson" and then use "The Claw" hold .... or maybe the universally feared "Camel Clutch" used to such devilish advantage by "The Shiek." I was unable to find any video of the original "Shiek" of Stampede Wrestling fame. Here is a video demonstrating "The Camel Clutch" by a latter-day wrestler known under the stage name "The Iron Shiek." http://youtu.be/S60PKlhtXw0

Then when he comes to in the dressing room, we could dress him up in a red, white, and blue modified Star Spangled Banner uniform. Then have "Mean Gene Okerlund" do an interview with Rockie.