Impeachment

[Duck Dodgers]

Again, there is no evidence that the Japanese were ready to unconditionally surrender prior to dropping the A-bombs. It was difficult to do so afterwards, and the US was ramping up production of more plutonium based bombs for a further bombing campaign.

It took the personnel intervention of the Emperor, and the collapse of an Army coup, for an unconditional surrender.

It doesn't matter what various US military leaders thought - what mattered was what the Japanese thought - I mean Ike wasn't going to surrender for the Japanese. And there was no desire on their part to unconditionally surrender.

Why would they? They felt that they were in the position to make an invasion difficult enough to bog the war down for years, and with the war won in Europe, the US public would lose the will to keep fighting.

Yes the war was destroying Japan, but much less so in their mind that surrendering and having US troops in Japan, which they felt would be the end of Japan as a nation. The continued deaths of Japaneses citizens was a price the leadership was more than willing to pay.

The Japanese wanted a cease fire, with no placement of US troops in Japan.

 

[Horn6721]

Mona
I am not often in agreement with Will but he was quoting Curtis Lemay. Not advocating carpet bombing as a over all wining tactic himself

 

[Mr. Deez]

I am sure there is a way to subdue these them but I don't want to be guilty of the gross amount of sin it would take to do it.

Well, isn't that always an issue? I'm not saying war is always sinful, but I think the nuances of the war and why you're waging it certainly makes a difference.

Nukes absolutely were not required to get unconditional surrender from Japan. They had nothing to do with it.

Required to get it? No. Nothing to do with it? Far more dubious of a claim. Truman tacitly warned them. Why do that if surrender had nothing to do with it? Why warn them again after Hiroshima? And if they were willing to surrender, why not do so? And suppose Japan had surrendered before the bomb was dropped. Would we have nuked them anyway just to show off for the USSR?

But I agree that it wasn't required. We had Operation Downfall ready. It probably would have succeeded. It just would have cost a hell of a lot more lives and would likely have meant a joint US-Soviet occupation of Japan.

I have never read Zinn by the way.

You pretty much spout his talking points and assumptions on foreign policy.

The actions you describe are appropriate in a very, very limited set of circumstances. I don't think the US relationship with any country in the Middle East is anywhere close to that set of circumstances. You are talking about basically killing everyone military or civilian, women and children, loyalist and dissident. That is scary stuff.

I'm not suggesting we do this to anyone in the Middle East right now. However, you wouldn't have to kill everyone anymore than we had to kill every Japanese person. Again, when there's no water and nothing to eat, people tend to get very reasonable very fast.

In my opinion that country isn't worth the effort.

Well, clearly not.

LeMays' theory on air power.......carpet bomb everything in sight and its over.

He didn't say he thought was determinative on its own. In fact, his agreement with me strongly suggests that he doesn't think so. And of course, LeMay didn't think so either. He was a big believer in strategic bombing, but I've never read anything that he thought it was sufficient all by itself - no ground troops, no naval action, etc.

 

[Monahorns]

Again, there is no evidence that the Japanese were ready to unconditionally surrender prior to dropping the A-bombs.

Yes there is Duck. Literal government documentation has been released showing that Japan was ready to unconditionally surrender prior to the nukes.

 

[Monahorns]

Well, isn't that always an issue? I'm not saying war is always sinful, but I think the nuances of the war and why you're waging it certainly makes a difference.

War isn't always sinful. You are right. In the context of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, etc there isn't a justifiable reason to use total war on them. A war would have to be at least defensive in nature and proportional in some way. For example, a real existential threat.

Required to get it? No. Nothing to do with it? Far more dubious of a claim. Truman tacitly warned them. Why do that if surrender had nothing to do with it? Why warn them again after Hiroshima? And if they were willing to surrender, why not do so? And suppose Japan had surrendered before the bomb was dropped. Would we have nuked them anyway just to show off for the USSR?

Why warn them after Hiroshima indeed? They would have surrendered before. So yes. Nukes didn't have anything to do with Japan's surrender. If, if, if. Who knows? Who cares?

But I agree that it wasn't required. We had Operation Downfall ready. It probably would have succeeded. It just would have cost a hell of a lot more lives and would likely have meant a joint US-Soviet occupation of Japan.

No it wouldn't have. That is the whole point. Japan was ready to surrender. The US waited for the negotiation until the nukes could be dropped and before the USSR got involved. I will repeat MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Nimitz all disagreed with dropping the nukes, and they weren't afraid of killing Japanese either. That wasn't their problem with it.

You pretty much spout his talking points and assumptions on foreign policy.

I wouldn't know. You sound like more of an expert on Zinn. I am just commenting on the government documentation.

I'm not suggesting we do this to anyone in the Middle East right now. However, you wouldn't have to kill everyone anymore than we had to kill every Japanese person. Again, when there's no water and nothing to eat, people tend to get very reasonable very fast.

Please reflect on what you wrote above.

He didn't say he thought was determinative on its own. In fact, his agreement with me strongly suggests that he doesn't think so. And of course, LeMay didn't think so either. He was a big believer in strategic bombing, but I've never read anything that he thought it was sufficient all by itself - no ground troops, no naval action, etc.

carpet bomb everything in sight and its over

Are you trying to misunderstand me? I am responding to WillUSAF not LeMay! "Carpet bomb everything in sight and it is over."
Just admit the comment is wrong. It is unequivocal.

 

[Joe Fan]

Your tax dollars back at work
The CIA readies itself for another coup attempt

 

[Clean]

Your tax dollars back at work
The CIA readies itself for another coup attempt

I think the Ruskies would be overjoyed that an addled-brained old man that Obama kept hidden from sight, lest he embarrass the administration, got elected President. If anything, they're working to get Biden elected.

 

[Joe Fan]

I think the Ruskies would be overjoyed that an addled-brained old man that Obama kept hidden from sight, lest he embarrass the administration, got elected President. If anything, they're working to get Biden elected.

He is clearly China's choice

 

[horninchicago]

Yet, CNN continue the narrative.

 

[nashhorn]

Love it when they say ‘probably’.

 

[Horn in Corpus]

Love it when they say ‘probably’.

I've never heard an intelligence officer give, or seen written in an intelligence report, an unequivocal conclusion about anything. If you asked if the Earth is round, they would say, "the information we have indicates that it is highly likely"...

The media has learned this CYA vocabulary and uses it frequently to spin the narrative in whatever direction they wish. I wonder if that industry gets a lot of former intel types in their ranks?

 

[Mr. Deez]

War isn't always sinful. You are right. In the context of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, etc there isn't a justifiable reason to use total war on them. A war would have to be at least defensive in nature and proportional in some way. For example, a real existential threat.

My point is that you don't half-*** a war. If you're not willing to use total war, then you shouldn't go. That doesn't mean you have to use total war, but if you go, you should be willing to do whatever it takes.

Why warn them after Hiroshima indeed? They would have surrendered before. So yes.

Why warn them after Hiroshima indeed? They would have surrendered before. So yes. Nukes didn't have anything to do with Japan's surrender. If, if, if. Who knows? Who cares?

No it wouldn't have. That is the whole point. Japan was ready to surrender. The US waited for the negotiation until the nukes could be dropped and before the USSR got involved.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. They didn't surrender, and really that's the bottom line. The Allied demand was for an unconditional surrender. It's a Yes or No proposition, and anything other than a Yes is a No. On that particular point, there was no negotiation to wait for. They rejected the Potsdam Declaration, and they blew off Truman's warnings both before and after Hiroshima. I'm not sure how that's consistent with "they were going to surrender." If they were actually trying to surrender, that's about the worst diplomatic blunder in the history of mankind. They confused "**** off" (their reaction to the Potsdam Declaration) with "we unconditionally surrender."

Suppose they had surrendered (which would have taken nothing more than a 30-second phone call), would we have dropped the bombs anyway? Under your rationale, we would have.

I will repeat MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Nimitz all disagreed with dropping the nukes, and they weren't afraid of killing Japanese either. That wasn't their problem with it.

Honestly, it doesn't really matter. Japan didn't surrender. By not doing so, it was fair for Truman to assume that it was either a land invasion or the bomb or both. He chose the bomb first. He chose right.

Please reflect on what you wrote above.

OK, I've reflected. What's your point?

Are you trying to misunderstand me? I am responding to WillUSAF not LeMay! "Carpet bomb everything in sight and it is over."
Just admit the comment is wrong. It is unequivocal.

It's wrong like "I'm hungry enough to eat a horse" is usually wrong. Perhaps you've said that before, but if someone actually slaughtered a horse and put its dead carcass in front of you, would you eat it? Probably not. You were probably exaggerating when you made the comment.

Will didn't say carpet bombing alone won wars just as LeMay didn't say that. I can see how you might infer that if you don't understand hyperbole. I understand hyperbole. He didn't mean that, just as you were probably never willing to actually eat a horse.

 

[Monahorns]

My point is that you don't half-*** a war. If you're not willing to use total war, then you shouldn't go. That doesn't mean you have to use total war, but if you go, you should be willing to do whatever it takes.

Depends on what the specific objective is. It isn't binary. I prefer some version of just war theory. Total war kills women and children and old men.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. They didn't surrender, and really that's the bottom line. The Allied demand was for an unconditional surrender. It's a Yes or No proposition, and anything other than a Yes is a No. On that particular point, there was no negotiation to wait for. They rejected the Potsdam Declaration, and they blew off Truman's warnings both before and after Hiroshima. I'm not sure how that's consistent with "they were going to surrender." If they were actually trying to surrender, that's about the worst diplomatic blunder in the history of mankind. They confused "**** off" (their reaction to the Potsdam Declaration) with "we unconditionally surrender."

Suppose they had surrendered (which would have taken nothing more than a 30-second phone call), would we have dropped the bombs anyway? Under your rationale, we would have.

You misrepresent Japan's response. They actually didn't respond because the Declaration was very ambiguous in some key areas. The US interpreted that it the way they wanted to. The main issue for Japan was whether the Emperor could stay. In the end, the US let the Emperor to stay. So all it would have taken was clarification.

My rationale doesn't apply to an alternate reality where Japan surrendered.

OK, I've reflected. What's your point?

The Holy Spirit didn't nudge you in any direction? Starving a whole population to death that is of no real threat to you is quite a stretch of acceptable morality.

Will didn't say carpet bombing alone won wars just as LeMay didn't say that. I can see how you might infer that if you don't understand hyperbole. I understand hyperbole. He didn't mean that, just as you were probably never willing to actually eat a horse.

How do you know he didn't mean that? What precisely did he mean? That carpet bombing provided some advantage in war? What a meaningless statement and not reflected in Will's context at all.

 

[OUBubba]

So when I take a break you guys start eating your own? This WWII discussion is impressive. Malcolm Gladwell did a 4 episode think on LeMay. Interesting stuff.

 

[Horn2RunAgain]

Welcome back

 

[horninchicago]

Welcome back

Haha just kidding on the Poop. Yes, welcome back...I guess.

 

[huisache]

The week the invasion of Japan was scheduled to start a monster typhoon came along that would have wrecked us

 

[Mr. Deez]

The week the invasion of Japan was scheduled to start a monster typhoon came along that would have wrecked us

Yep. In September 1945, Typhoon Ida hit the Hiroshima area and killed about 2,400. Link. That's a *****. If the atomic bomb didn't kill you, the typhoon did.

 

[Horn6721]

Prolly put out some fires though.

 

[OUBubba]

The week the invasion of Japan was scheduled to start a monster typhoon came along that would have wrecked us

The thing of interest to me was that the bombers required to do bombing runs to Tokyo flew higher than anything had routinely gone yet. They didn't know about the jet stream. That was the reason their precision bombing runs were unsuccessful. When their calculations indicated 145 knot tail wind they were way off. At one point they were flying into the jet stream and were going -3 knots. That's when they migrated to Dresden style bombing. Gladwell said that more people died in the 6 hours of the Tokyo bombing and fires that at any other time in history.

 

[theiioftx]

Holy moly - welcome back Bubba!

 

[OUBubba]

Holy moly - welcome back Bubba!

I was getting too immersed. It was becoming unhealthy. I will stick with football and an occasional smart arse remark here.

 

[nashhorn]

Stick to football,,,,,but welcome back.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The thing of interest to me was that the bombers required to do bombing runs to Tokyo flew higher than anything had routinely gone yet. They didn't know about the jet stream. That was the reason their precision bombing runs were unsuccessful. When their calculations indicated 145 knot tail wind they were way off. At one point they were flying into the jet stream and were going -3 knots. That's when they migrated to Dresden style bombing. Gladwell said that more people died in the 6 hours of the Tokyo bombing and fires that at any other time in history.

That was because of the B-29. It was the first plane we had that had the range to reliably hit mainland Japan, and it was built to fly at high altitude. In fact, I think it was the first plane to have a pressurized cabin.

Prior to that, we did the Doolittle Raids. Those dudes basically had a pair of basketballs swinging in their pants, but that wasn't a viable option for serious bombing. It mostly just boosted American confidence and showed the Japanese that we could hit them if we really needed to. We couldn't really kick the **** out of them until the B-29 went into service. That was the game changer, but the high altitude wasn't ideal for fire bombing. Once they went lower, they brought fire from hell.

 

[humahuma]

If Trump nominates a Supreme Court Justice does Nancy gets one of Dems to start an impeachment investigation? I say no it was just a threat, it would cost them too much in political capital, but they been doing crazy chit lately.

 

[horninchicago]

If Trump nominates a Supreme Court Justice does Nancy gets one of Dems to start an impeachment investigation? I say no it was just a threat, it would cost them too much in political capital, but they been doing crazy chit lately.

They had the smallest of possible grounds in January. What do they say is the crime he will have committed? Last I saw, a president is duly within his purview to nominate a SCOTUS Justice at any time when in office.

To the James Woods tweet or statement, if they want to do it, they will, no matter what. RINOs just go on Fox News and talk about what ought to be done. Spineless and useless. Dems have spine but are useless, anyway.

 

[mchammer]

If Trump nominates a Supreme Court Justice does Nancy gets one of Dems to start an impeachment investigation? I say no it was just a threat, it would cost them too much in political capital, but they been doing crazy chit lately.

I read somewhere that she was ridiculed for that comment from the media (who actually runs the Dem party), so no it ain’t going to happen.

 

[mchammer]

In retrospect, Trump must have known that the FBI had Hunter’s laptop when he made the call to Ukraine.

 

[horninchicago]

In retrospect, Trump must have known that the FBI had Hunter’s laptop when he made the call to Ukraine.

Go on...

 

[mchammer]

Again, why wasn’t this disclosed during impeachment? Some say FBI is corrupt. I say Trump wanted to save it for Biden.