It was a glorious Sunday afternoon when i got thinking, what defines excessive force in war? Technology has come a long way since the trusty bow and arrow used in the middle ages and times before that, but how does one kill another human humanely without the use of excessive force? and what defines humanely aswell?

By now we're all used to seeing on the media, fictional and non fictional images of death and mayhem caused by war, vivid images of men being shot, vapourised or simply exploded (excuse ofcourse the bad grammar). One image in my mind is the use of an Apaches 30mm gun to shoot and kill suspected insurgents in Iraq. In a grainy black and white film you can easily see the destruction of man at its worse. Was the use of this gun at a distance of 2km necessary or excessive force?

As a member of the Australian Defence Force it is doctrine to never use Artillery, CAS (Close Air Support) or Naval Gunfire when a rifle will suffice, a Machine Gun will do or a simple Grenade will get the job done. Do we have to put ourselves into a situation where by the possibility of harm grows exponentially when we could be sitting back having a brew and a smoko while bombs are raining in on the enemy?

Ultimately my question, and i would like historical examples aswell as hypothetical ones, What defines the use of excessive force and how does one kill another humanely?

I believe that dead is dead. hence there is no such of a thing as excessive force. There is brutal, graphic, etc. But not excessive.
As far as killing humanely? I guess as long as the killing is over quickly that would be as close to "humanely" as possible. I would note that the human animal is not known for being "humane".

what defines excessive force in war?

my best guess about excessive force would on how you treat POWs and civilian survivors of an attack.

i think it really accounts to unnecessary force ie, you have the chance to take a group of people out with a rocket, but just be sure use a missile which not only takes that group of people out but also a group of innocents

It isn't so much "excessive force" that is the issue, it's actually rather a poor use of words. It's excessive cruelty.

Killing soldiers unnecessarily, when they could be captured, disarmed, or otherwise rendered incapable of effective fighting, for example by being cut off from supplies and reinforcements. Killing prisoners of war. Attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure with little or no military value. Torture. Leaving wounded enemy soldiers without medical care when such care is reasonably available.

Almost every army in history has had its dishonorable moments and done a few of these things, including ours. But they are the standard techniques of terrorists, who do not often even attack truly military targets because they're too well defended.

If the force used keeps your people alive it isn't excessive, and you use the force that is available that you have when you have the enemy in your sights, and how do you use just the right amount of force, in war you use the force you have at the moment.

I would have to say that calling in an airstrike on an insurgent holed up in his home when you've got fifteen or twenty of your fellow soldiers sitting next to you ready to fight might be considered overkill. Then again, who will be debating "overkill" when it's "kill over"? Either way, in the end, one of you must be dead, and if I was placed in that position, I would use what weapons I had at my disposal to ensure my safety, my teammates safety, and my country's safety.

On humanity, whatever kills at least one civilian per two enemy soldiers is too much. If you have to fire a missile at four enemy fighters, but you know that there are two large families huddled in a building that would undoubtably be engulfed in flames, would it be humane to fire the missile or to seek other means?

AmishRakeFight

Why risk the lives/safety of the 15-20 fellow soldiers to assault a fortified posistion?

Personally i've never been in a combat situation, although i expect to find myself in one in the near future. I'm not infantry but i've trained in their tactics... i'll be one of the fly boys :p But if i was on the ground i know personally i would prefer Bombs, Artillery and anything else that would get the job done, hey a tactical nuke wouldn't be too bad :p

But ultimately it is doctrine in the Aussie army to inflict the maximum amount of damage on an enemy, using means that aren't excessive. Should this be the case? its debatable, because "overkill" can be a waste of resources that could be emplyed else where on the battlefield.

I heard an amusing story of a British Platoon in the Iraq war. They were patrolling along in the first few days when Bang! had contact with an Iraqi equivalent of a company in a well fortified position. They were denied any help but were told to take the position (incase you don't know the military works on a 3:1 ratio, 3 friendly forces vs 1 enemy force, in this case the poms were outnumbered 3:1, complete opposite). So the platoon commander works out a grand battle plan, and while conducting the attack, realises that his platoon is starting to get bogged down. To inspire his men, he grabs one of his grenades, chucks it into a trench and dives in after. The men were inspired and went on to win the battle with no casualties. The platoon commander would have been awarded a Victoria Cross (highest decoration for a soldier) if the trench he jumped into, wasn't the Latrine. Enjoy

Well anything's got to be better than waiting for your opponent (who is blind and in a wheelchair) to go to sleep and then shooting him in the back with a missile from a helicopter, which is pretty much how they're doing it these days.

If the force used keeps your people alive it isn't excessive, and you use the force that is available that you have when you have the enemy in your sights, and how do you use just the right amount of force, in war you use the force you have at the moment.

Oh you mean like nuking 300,000 (unwilling, unpaid) women and children to save MAYBE that amount of (willing, paid) soldiers?

Oh you mean like nuking 300,000 (unwilling, unpaid) women and children to save MAYBE that amount of (willing, paid) soldiers?

Do a little research on Operation Olympic and Coronet, which was the planned invasion of Japan in WWII. (I'm assuming your referring to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Based on the intelligence at the time, i would say that Nuking a city would be better than fighting civilians (including women and children) armed with pitch forks and outdated rifles. The japanese were preparing for an invasion and their plans for that invasion were to use the regular army as the fighting force, and the civilians as a "human shield". Looking back at how the japanese thought, with the emperor practically being worshiped as a god, its easy to see how this would be the case.

In this case 300,000 were sacrificed so that 1 million US marines, and countless more Japanese soldiers and civilians could live. Ultimately, but hard to accept and swallow, a fair trade. The world would be a much different place if the US had gone ahead with Operation Olympic and Coronet.

And Hiroshima and Nagasaki both had military industrial complexes and comunication centers, wich made them legitamate targets, and weather you hit them with one bomber and one bomb, or a 1,000 plane raid dropping 100,000 fire bombs the casualities would have been similar, but the effect of one plane and one bomb per city finally forced the Emperor to act and over ride the Military/Industrial Complex that had lead Japan into WWII and to the situation of being willing to commit national suicide, when we demonstrated the ability to take out a city at a time with minum loss and that there was no more glory in dieing for the Emperor killing his foe's the war was over and millions of Allies, and Japanese were spared the maiming and death of the final battle for Japan.


WW2: America Warned Hiroshima and Nagasaki Citizens
Posted by Alan Bellows on September 22nd, 2005 at 3:03 pm

FlyerShortly before the US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, the United Stated showered the Japanese cities of Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and 33 other potential targets with over 5 million leaflets warning civilians of the impending attack. In Japanese, the back of the pictured leaflet read:
"Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately."


An American-controlled radio station on Saipan was broadcasting a similar message to the Japanese people every 15 minutes. Five days after the fliers were distributed, Hiroshima was destroyed by the "Little Boy" atomic device. Following the first attack, the U.S. air force dropped even more leaflets:
America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet.

We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.

We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city.

Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better and peace-loving Japan.

You should take steps now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.

Three days after Hiroshima, the "Fat Man" bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

The distribution of these leaflets, along with the radio broadcasts, does put a dent in the argument that America was unconcerned about the potential civilian deaths as a result of an atomic attack, but the debate over the bombs' necessity in ending the war will never be truly resolved. Also interestingly, one of the original potential bomb sites was the Japanese Emperor's Palace, but it was scratched from the list due to its cultural significance.

Details on the leaflet, and other information about the Information War of 1945, can be found on the United States CIA website.

See also the Wikipedia Article.

Related Articles:
Eyewitnesses to Hiroshima and Nagasaki

A good explanation of Hiroshima as a military target,

Hiroshima, Pacific War [New Window]
Hiroshima military installations and heavy industries were rapidly developed ... Hiroshima bomb were unexpected ; radiation deaths from Nagasaki a few days ...
http://www.ww2pacific.com/hiroshima.html


Nagasaki was a major port with shipbuilding and marine repair facilities.

Even after the second atomic bomb attack, disagreement raged within the Japanese government between peace advocates and those who urged continued resistance. Shortly after the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan’s Emperor Hirohito was convinced that further resistance was futile and took an unprecedented step in modern Japanese history by intervening to bring about the surrender of his nation to save the lives of his people from additional attacks and the bloody land invasion that was sure to come.

An attempted coup by militant extremists failed and on 14 August 1945 Japan surrendered unconditionally. In a break with tradition, Emperor Hirohito announced the surrender in a recorded radio message. Japan accepted the terms of the July 26th Potsdam Declaration calling for unconditional surrender, terms which the Japanese had rejected previously. This was the first time the Japanese people had ever heard their emperor's voice, and some Japanese officers committed suicide upon hearing his decision.

This site has a good article on the end of the war and the Emperor's part in the decission to surrender.

The Information War in the Pacific, 1945 [New Window]
These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which ... Not only Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but all of Japan’s major cities had been ...
Verified by a Netscape Security Partner: Netscape Security Center, VeriSign http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol46no3/article07.html

You can make all the excuses you want, you can say it was a military target all you want, but it was still home to 200,000 civilians, and then what about Nagasaki? Another 200,000 civilians living there.

You also took part in Dresden and the other firebombings of German civilians. Those were completely and utterly unecessary and the British even apologised for those....I didn't hear any yank apology....for that or the A-Bombings.

Pearl Harbour was a military target and you still take great offense when anyone mentions that. Go watch the film Pearl Harbour (They even put in a happy ending for you!) and it shows "Japs" mercilessly gunning down civilians. The difference between the way you yanks view Pearl Harbour (a sneaky underhanded attack on a civilian target, there weren't even any battleships there, hell they just machine-gunned a bunch of nurses or something) versus the way you view Hiroshima and Nagasaki (we heroically nuked 300,000 civilians in their sleep, we had absolutely no choice, they were going to attack us with pointy sticks) is a fucking joke.

Pearl Harbour was a military target and you still take great offense when anyone mentions that. Go watch the film Pearl Harbour (They even put in a happy ending for you!) and it shows "Japs" mercilessly gunning down civilians. The difference between the way you yanks view Pearl Harbour (a sneaky underhanded attack on a civilian target, there weren't even any battleships there, hell they just machine-gunned a bunch of nurses or something) versus the way you view Hiroshima and Nagasaki (we heroically nuked 300,000 civilians in their sleep, we had absolutely no choice, they were going to attack us with pointy sticks) is a fucking joke.
the japanese did sneakily attack pearl harbor.

the truth about the civilian casualties is that most was from misdirected friendly fire.

we did not bomb hiroshima and nagasaki unannounced. american forces dropped 10's of thousands of leaflets on japan that said we were about to unleash a new weapon if japan did not surrender.

Well that makes it OK then!

Now that we've established that all those women, children and babies KNEW they were going to be nuked, everything is forgiven!

Don't be stupid.

Don't be stupid.
i might be unedgecated on some things, ww2 isn't one of them.

G. F. Schleebenhorst:

You don't grasp the psyche of the japanese at the time and your trying to condem an action that killed 300,000 civilians when doing the opposite action would have resulted in much larger casualties.

I believe the saying was, "A million will die so the emperor may live", I might have that a little wrong but the general gist of the comment is still valid. So all of a sudden killing 300,000 with the use of one bomb is alot worse than sending armed soldiers up against the same men, women and children armed with pitchforks and outdated rifles?

Its not like the US didn't give them warning either, especially with Nagasaki who were able to witness the effect of a Nuke, but they still decided to stay when they knew its devastating power.

The question of Orphans has appeared, with i believe the figure quoted was about 50,000... as opposed to the ammount of Orphans that would have been around after the US invaded Japan?

Killing of innocents is always hard to justify, and this seems to be one of the few examples in history where you can justify it. The A-Bomb saved many more American and Japanese lives than it killed, so which is the greater evil?

You don't grasp the psyche of the japanese

indeed he doesn't.
the way the japanese fought on the outlying islands is a testament to the japanese psyche. the japanese did not surrender. less than 1% surrendered on the outlying islands and most of those were native inhabitants, not japanese. the rest had to be killed, or when the situation was hopeless they killed themselves rather than surrender. in the last days of the war the fanatical japanese was flying airplanes into our ships. and all of that was over the outlying islands. i shudder to think what would have happened if we invaded to home islands. if we hadn't used the bomb it is very likely that 10's of thousands would have died on the first 1 or 2 days.

and why all the hoopla about 'the bomb' anyway? more people lost their lives in the firebombings of tokyo than at hiroshima or nagasaki.

G. F. Schleebenhorst:

You don't grasp the psyche of the japanese at the time and your trying to condem an action that killed 300,000 civilians when doing the opposite action would have resulted in much larger casualties.

No. YOU don't grasp that you don't "make up" for POSSIBLY having to shoot some civilians armed with pointy sticks by DELIBERATELY targetting and killing 300,000 civilians.

I believe the saying was, "A million will die so the emperor may live", I might have that a little wrong but the general gist of the comment is still valid. So all of a sudden killing 300,000 with the use of one bomb is alot worse than sending armed soldiers up against the same men, women and children armed with pitchforks and outdated rifles?

If they want to fight, what's wrong with that? The moment they take up arms, they are combatants, and no longer civilians. It's a different world from just deliberately killing civilians who have no chance to defend themselves. Women, children and babies.

Its not like the US didn't give them warning either, especially with Nagasaki who were able to witness the effect of a Nuke, but they still decided to stay when they knew its devastating power.

What difference does it make if they were given warning? It's still an act of terrorism. State terrorism is still terrorism.

The question of Orphans has appeared, with i believe the figure quoted was about 50,000... as opposed to the ammount of Orphans that would have been around after the US invaded Japan?

5,000 I said, unless I typed it wrong....and your point doesn't really make much sense. All you're still saying is "we killed women and children to save our paid, armed soldiers"

Killing of innocents is always hard to justify, and this seems to be one of the few examples in history where you can justify it. The A-Bomb saved many more American and Japanese lives than it killed, so which is the greater evil?

You can never justify it. The casualty estimate BEFORE the A-Bombs was something like 20,000 US soldiers, and then afterwards it suddenly became 500,000. Eisenhower and Admiral Leahy both admitted they didn't agree with dropping the A-Bombs.

When will you admit that it was a war crime?

I guess 1945 was when the world learned there was no good guy.

American Democide (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP13.HTM)


In domestic democide, such as lynchings, the American government was probably indirectly responsible for around 2,000 killed since 1900. But in foreign wars, the American military may have killed hundreds of thousands of foreigners in cold blood, virtually all civilians, and the greater majority of these by bombing.
Putting together all the subtotals (lines 333 to 350), in this century the United States probably murdered about 583,000 people (line 350), conceivable even as many as 1,641,000 all told. Virtually all of these were foreigners killed during foreign wars. Domestically, throughout this century the American Federal or state governments were responsible for the murder of about 1 out of every 1,111,000 Americans per year. 

yeah you are right sleebenhorst we sould've killed every last japanese on the planet to give you and your ilk something to really scream and howl about.

BTW.

How many nukes would AQ have to plant before America surrendered and converted en masse to islam?

an excessive amount or not?
Dee Cee

The United States committed its greatest democide during the Second World War. This was in the indiscriminate area bombing of German and Japanese cities, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

this quote is inaccurate. as a matter of fact it makes your source highly suspect.
hiroshima and nagasaki was not carpet or area bombed.
hiroshima prior to the 'a bomb' was untouched by the allies.
it's one of the reasons it was chosen as a target, to ascertain the blast and other effects of the 'abomb'

this quote is inaccurate. as a matter of fact it makes your source highly suspect.
hiroshima and nagasaki was not carpet or area bombed.
hiroshima prior to the 'a bomb' was untouched by the allies.
it's one of the reasons it was chosen as a target, to ascertain the blast and other effects of the 'abomb'

I took it from the Hawaii University website; its taken from

STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE:
Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900
By R.J. Rummel

Charlottesville, Virginia:
Center for National Security Law,
School of Law, University of Virginia, 1997;
and Transaction Publishers, Rutgers University

BTW.

How many nukes would AQ have to plant before America surrendered and converted en masse to islam?

an excessive amount or not?
Dee Cee

What do you think?

I took it from the Hawaii University website; its taken from

STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE:
Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900
By R.J. Rummel

Charlottesville, Virginia:
Center for National Security Law,
School of Law, University of Virginia, 1997;
and Transaction Publishers, Rutgers University

Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

It was also an "assembly area" for schoolgirls and a "storage point" for women, children and babies.

Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

So does that change the figures for the number of people who died?

So does that change the figures for the number of people who died?
i have no idea.
but i do know that hiroshima was not carpet or area bombed

it could be just an honest mistake on their part.

Or maybe it just wasn't worth strategically bombing?

It was also an "assembly area" for schoolgirls and a "storage point" for women, children and babies.
okay, let's hear your story on what america should have done about the unprovoked attack at pearl harbor with the attendant loss of 3000 men?

Putting an oil embargo in effect against someone isn't provocation?

What exactly do you mean "What I think america should have done?" I think they didn't really have a choice but go to war with them, that's hardly something that's up for debate here, but that doesn't mean

1) They should demand from their enemy completely unreasonable terms of surrender

or

2) They should deliberately target that enemy's innocent civilians

or

3) They should resort to terrorism in order to coerce their enemy into accepting those completely unreasonable terms of surrender

1) They should demand from their enemy completely unreasonable terms of surrender

or

2) They should deliberately target that enemy's innocent civilians

or

3) They should resort to terrorism in order to coerce their enemy into accepting those completely unreasonable terms of surrender
1. how is 'unconditional' unreasonable?
2. name some examples of america deliberately targeting civilians.
2a. the japanese never attacked the american homeland. if she had i am sure that untold numbers of civilians would have died.
3. terrorizing the enemy is a common theme in any military strategy.

1) Do some reading up. They only had one condition, and it was fairly simple, and was eventually agreed to anyway - after the nukes were dropped.
2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Dresden.
2) (a) They did. With bombs tied to balloons. I think one person died....but that doesn't matter. I didn't say the Japanese were saints, did I? I didn't defend their government or military either.
3) So you think that state terrorism is different from terrorism? You talk about "terrorizing(sic) the enemy"....do you include the enemy's women and children as enemies too?

So you think that state terrorism is different from terrorism?Yes, "state terrorism," if there is such a term, is different from "normal" terrorism.

1. Terrorists are either stateless people or people operating at a much lower hierarchical level than a nation, without the resources, organization, or alliances of a nation.

2. Terrorists attack civilian infrastructure and other targets because military targets are too well defended to be successfully attacked with their resources.

3. Terrorists avoid military dress and encampments, so as to blend in with their civilian population, using their enemy's reluctance to target civilians as a cowardly shield.You talk about "terrorizing(sic) the enemy"....do you include the enemy's women and children as enemies too?4. Terrorists attack civilians, particularly women and children, hoping their enemies will stop fighting simply to save their own civilians.

"State terrorism" only satisfies the fourth part of this definition. It's nasty but it merits its own classification for clarity of discussion.

1) Do some reading up. They only had one condition, and it was fairly simple, and was eventually agreed to anyway - after the nukes were dropped.
2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Dresden.
2) (a) They did. With bombs tied to balloons. I think one person died....but that doesn't matter. I didn't say the Japanese were saints, did I? I didn't defend their government or military either.
3) So you think that state terrorism is different from terrorism? You talk about "terrorizing(sic) the enemy"....do you include the enemy's women and children as enemies too?
the facts of the matter are these:
japan chose to attack pearl harbor

the japanese fought to practically to the last man on every island we engaged them on. the ones we didn't kill killed themselves by hari kari rather than surrender.

after losing her aircraft carriers at midway she still chose to fight.

in the latter stages of the war she was sending her pilots on suicide kamikaze missions but yet she did not surrender.

it would be clear to any thinking person that japan, if invaded, would fight to the last man, woman, and child

G. F. Schleebenhorst ,Ketsu-Go read it, it is avalable on line.

G. F. Schleebenhorst ,Ketsu-Go read it, it is avalable on line.

OPERATION KETSU-GO [New Window]
1) These two Armies would be responsible for the ground defense of the Japanese home islands. Also, on 8 April 1945, IGHQ issued an order activating the Air ...
Verified by a Netscape Security Partner: VeriSign http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap4.htm

Pearl Harbour was a military target and you still take great offense when anyone mentions that. Go watch the film Pearl Harbour (They even put in a happy ending for you!) and it shows "Japs" mercilessly gunning down civilians. The difference between the way you yanks view Pearl Harbour (a sneaky underhanded attack on a civilian target, there weren't even any battleships there, hell they just machine-gunned a bunch of nurses or something) versus the way you view Hiroshima and Nagasaki (we heroically nuked 300,000 civilians in their sleep, we had absolutely no choice, they were going to attack us with pointy sticks) is a fucking joke.

Of course we had a choice! I wholeheartedly agree with you. Our choices, in the minds of America's leaders, were as follows:

a) Commence Operation Downfall (with it's sub-operations Coronet and Olympic) and bring the fight to the enemy with an "Asian D-Day".

-The estimated American deaths for the first 90 days of Operation Olympic (the planned invasion of Kyushu) as projected by several different staff studies were 456,000 casualties, with 109,000 or more dead or missing. A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley produced results that a complete invasion of Japan would result in 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities.

-In the same study conducted for Secretary of War Henry Stimson, it was concluded that conquering mainland Japan would result in 5-10 million Japanese casualties. This figure is a sum of both military and civilians; militarily, including air force, army, and navy. "The key assumption was a large-scale participation of civilians in the defense of Japan." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties_for_Downfa ll) As several members here have shown, the Japanese fought to the death, not allowing themselves to surrender or to be captured. This mentality derived from the reigning mindset of the Japanese people as a whole that their emperor was divine. Therefore, the assumption made by Allied strategists was not one of faulty logic or fuzzy reasoning: the Japanese, as shown by several island battles, would not surrender easily, nor give up any inch of soil unless it is first saturated liberally in blood (and what nationalities blood it is does not concern them.)

b) Pull out of the war, which was no option at all, in all honesty.

c) Kill several birds with one stone by dropping a new futuristic weapon on a Japanese city. This would allow America and the world to witness and test the destructive power of the almighty weapon straight from the Manhatten cradle. Also, this would put the bite back into America's constant bark by launching a crushing attack on an enemy whose "Japanese military officials", unless convinced otherwise, "were unanimously opposed to any negotiations." (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki).

When compared to options A and B, C doesn't seem like too bad of a choice. It was relatively assured that, if Option A was pursued, the civilians that would be bombed would become active enemies against the invaders, for the reasons stated earlier by myself and several other members. Therefore, yes, women, children, and babies (I honestly laughed out loud when I read you trying to play a sympathetic card by adding "babies" in there) were killed. But are women and children so superior to men in terms of human rights and worth that 400,000 civilians being killed are a better option than over 14 million people, both American and Japanese, being killed? Sure, American men would be dying, but in light of the evidence, it was more humane to launch the A-Bombs than to launch a full scale invasion that would not only wipe out the 400,000 civilians who died in Nagasaki and Hiroshima but also kill twentyfold that number of military soldiers and civilians alike! And keep in mind, minor military posts are still military posts the same as minor criminals are still criminals. Military posts are military posts are military posts.

AmishRakeFight

Buffalo Roam:
I've been trying to find info on Ketso-Go for quite some time now, thanks for the link, Its a pretty good read

G. F. Schleebenhorst:
You seem to be getting quite worked up about this. So clearly no matter what we say is going to change your opinion. However it is an opinion made in recent times, not realising the full situation during 1945. It is an opinion typical of Anti Military types who want to believe that man is capable of peacefull living when it clearly is not. We are all territorial just like most animals are, we all experience jealousy, anger and other such feelings. Peace is something the world unfortunately will never see.

I will never say that the thought of dropping a bomb on unarmed civilians gives me warm fuzzies all over, and i begin to sweat with excitement. But when it comes to choosing the lesser evil, it is easily justified.

I think the US is justified in this argument so i'm going to make a request that all references/discussions/debates about the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki cease. People can argue over and over about the justification of this strike but i want to move onto different examples.

I was just remembering the bombing of Al Zarqarwi in Iraq recently (Glad to be rid of him). The USAF used 2 x 1000lb bombs (i think it was 1000, correct me if i'm wrong). Would sending troops have been better? I'll keep my opinion on this quiet until i've seen discussion on this

I was just remembering the bombing of Al Zarqarwi in Iraq recently (Glad to be rid of him). The USAF used 2 x 1000lb bombs (i think it was 1000, correct me if i'm wrong). Would sending troops have been better? I'll keep my opinion on this quiet until i've seen discussion on this
it seems to me that if the military can achieve an objective by mechanized forces only without the loss of our men then it would be advantageous to do so.

edit
paraphrasing patton:
the idea in war is not for you to die for your country but to make the other poor dumb bastard die for his.

Hay Steve it was a pair of lazer guided 500lb gp's.

Therefore, yes, women, children, and babies (I honestly laughed out loud when I read you trying to play a sympathetic card by adding "babies" in there) were killed.

Were there no babies there? Did they evacuate them all or something? Since when is the truth "playing a sympathetic card"?



But are women and children so superior to men in terms of human rights and worth that 400,000 civilians being killed are a better option than over 14 million people, both American and Japanese, being killed?

You are basing this on ESTIMATES. Estimates that as far as a lot of people agree were vastly inflated after the bomb was dropped. Did those women and children attack pearl harbour? No, the nationalist militarist ruling government of Japan did. The figure of 14 million is a joke. In any case, even if it WAS 14 million, that's absolutely no justification to DELIBERATELY kill women and children, or carry out an act of terrorism.


Sure, American men would be dying, but in light of the evidence

What evidence? In light of a bunch of guesses is more like it.

Military posts are military posts are military posts.

You seem to forget the hundreds of thousands of women and children who lived in those cities. Do you know why those two cities were as of yet untouched? Because they were of no military significance.

By that rationale the World Trade Centre was a military target. I am sure there were some aircraft carriers or a soldier in New York Somewhere on that day. So if I am to concede that the A-Bombings were a military operation against a military target, you concede that the WTC attacks were in fact nothing more than the same. Deal?

It is an opinion typical of Anti Military types who want to believe that man is capable of peacefull living when it clearly is not. We are all territorial just like most animals are, we all experience jealousy, anger and other such feelings. Peace is something the world unfortunately will never see.

I totally agree with you. I don't see why you think based on my arguments that I am an "anti military type", because I am not. In fact I am a realist and someone who thinks that it is more important to think for yourself than simply to accept what your government/your history books tell you and rather look at things logically based on facts and not estimates or "facts" that sprung up at convenient moments.

I was just remembering the bombing of Al Zarqarwi in Iraq recently (Glad to be rid of him). The USAF used 2 x 1000lb bombs (i think it was 1000, correct me if i'm wrong). Would sending troops have been better? I'll keep my opinion on this quiet until i've seen discussion on this

I remember hearing that several civilians were killed in the attack.

The fact that the US won't even keep a civilian death toll is probably the thing that worries me the most about the whole Iraq thing.

You are basing this on ESTIMATES. Estimates that as far as a lot of people agree were vastly inflated after the bomb was dropped. Did those women and children attack pearl harbour? No, the nationalist militarist ruling government of Japan did. The figure of 14 million is a joke. In any case, even if it WAS 14 million, that's absolutely no justification to DELIBERATELY kill women and children, or carry out an act of terrorism.


I completely agree with you in that the stats I posted are estimates. But then again, since we never carried out Operation Downfall, we will never have anything but estimates about the casualties. I'm sure that if we went forward with Operation Downfall, we would be sitting here debating estimates over how many people would have died had we just ended it with the two nukes. All I'm saying is are the lives of 300,000 people are worth so much more than fourteen million, or ten million, or five million, or 300,001 people? I agree with you that the civilians were innocent, but had Operation Downfall been conducted, it was fairly common knowledge that the civilians would become active fighters against the Allied invaders.

Also, keep in mind that the Japanese people were taught to regard their emperor as a God. Let's take a look at what history says about people fighting for their god: The Crusades. The Christians blowing up abortion clinics because they're "immoral". The Muslims destroying the infidels. The Japanese kamakazi'ing into battleships. The Persians warring with Alexander the Great. If history has taught us anything, it's that people motivated by belief in a higher being to do work will beg, borrow, steal, kill, and utterly vanquish to complete that task.

By that rationale the World Trade Centre was a military target. I am sure there were some aircraft carriers or a soldier in New York Somewhere on that day. So if I am to concede that the A-Bombings were a military operation against a military target, you concede that the WTC attacks were in fact nothing more than the same. Deal?

Having a few soldiers in an area does not make it a military base! Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. "The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb." Wikipedia did my work for me. The World Trade Centers had nothing to do with American military logistics, supply, or communications, and they certainly weren't a storage point or an assembly area for troops.

By the way, have you ever heard the saying "Pride comes before the fall"? The Americans dropped leaflets by the hundreds of thousands all over Nagasaki and Hiroshima telling the Japanese to get the hell out of Dodge if they know what's good for them.

Darwin 1 Japanese 0

AmishRakeFight

I agree with you that the civilians were innocent, but had Operation Downfall been conducted, it was fairly common knowledge that the civilians would become active fighters against the Allied invaders.

That has been my point all along, though. The moment they take up arms against your armed forces they are no longer innocent civilians. There is a difference, as I have said before, between a 6 year old girl walking to school, and that same 6 year old girl charging you with a knife in her teeth with a bomb strapped to her. That doesn't mean you can kill her JUST IN CASE she takes up arms, does it?

Also, keep in mind that the Japanese people were taught to regard their emperor as a God. Let's take a look at what history says about people fighting for their god: The Crusades. The Christians blowing up abortion clinics because they're "immoral". The Muslims destroying the infidels. The Japanese kamakazi'ing into battleships. The Persians warring with Alexander the Great. If history has taught us anything, it's that people motivated by belief in a higher being to do work will beg, borrow, steal, kill, and utterly vanquish to complete that task.

Well, if, without "fighting for their god", they are prepared to kill 300,000 unarmed and completely innocent civilians for no reason other than to flex some military might and show the commies what we can do, and then lie about it afterwards, your point isn't really as valid as you think it was.



Having a few soldiers in an area does not make it a military base! Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. "The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb." Wikipedia did my work for me. The World Trade Centers had nothing to do with American military logistics, supply, or communications, and they certainly weren't a storage point or an assembly area for troops.

If Hiroshima or Nagasaki had been of any real military significance they would have been bombed to nothing long before August 1945.

By the way, have you ever heard the saying "Pride comes before the fall"? The Americans dropped leaflets by the hundreds of thousands all over Nagasaki and Hiroshima telling the Japanese to get the hell out of Dodge if they know what's good for them.

If I ring your doorbell and tell you "get out of your house and move somewhere else or I'll come back tomorrow and shoot you because I don't agree with the war in Iraq" does that then absolve me of murder when I come back the next day and machinegun your family? Would you think it acceptable if I shot an old woman because I wanted Bush out of the whitehouse?

Darwin 1 Japanese 0

AmishRakeFight

More like terrorism: 1 honour: 0.

If you have the ability to take a large enemy reasource out of the fight before it begins do you do it, or do you wait untill you are engauged and are taking multiple tens of thousands of casualities, and then try to explain to the people back home that you are taking unnessary cassulties because you were splitting hairs over when these people were legal targets for destruction as a combat force, If you were in charge back then and I found out that you had gotten any of my family killed because of your overly developed sence of fair play, I would hunt you down and kill you my self, these people were a threat to our troops and I'm sorry in some situations you can't seperate the goats from the sheep if there are any sheep.

ps: when it comes to war and dieing, honor be damed, survival and winning comes first, and Patton was right, you make the other poor bastard die for his country!

That has been my point all along, though. The moment they take up arms against your armed forces they are no longer innocent civilians. There is a difference, as I have said before, between a 6 year old girl walking to school, and that same 6 year old girl charging you with a knife in her teeth with a bomb strapped to her. That doesn't mean you can kill her JUST IN CASE she takes up arms, does it?

There was no JUST IN CASE here. That six year old was being trained to do this and in such case immediately becomes a soldier. Smae with the women. If we thought we could have taken the Island without civillian losses we would have done it.

Well, if, without "fighting for their god", they are prepared to kill 300,000 unarmed and completely innocent civilians for no reason other than to flex some military might and show the commies what we can do, and then lie about it afterwards, your point isn't really as valid as you think it was.

If Hiroshima or Nagasaki had been of any real military significance they would have been bombed to nothing long before August 1945.

Why do you say that? Is it becuase we left a staging point alone when we had other targets to bomb. The we realized hey we got two targets here that are viable and largely untouched. They are also less heavily popolated that the other areas we could bomb.

If I ring your doorbell and tell you "get out of your house and move somewhere else or I'll come back tomorrow and shoot you because I don't agree with the war in Iraq" does that then absolve me of murder when I come back the next day and machinegun your family? Would you think it acceptable if I shot an old woman because I wanted Bush out of the whitehouse?

Huge strawman.

Actually if we were at war and you were kind enough to warn me before bombing my house I would run.

More like terrorism: 1 honour: 0.

More like US 1 Japan -1

If you have the ability to take a large enemy reasource out of the fight before it begins do you do it, or do you wait untill you are engauged and are taking multiple tens of thousands of casualities, and then try to explain to the people back home that you are taking unnessary cassulties because you were splitting hairs over when these people were legal targets for destruction as a combat force, If you were in charge back then and I found out that you had gotten any of my family killed because of your overly developed sence of fair play, I would hunt you down and kill you my self, these people were a threat to our troops and I'm sorry in some situations you can't seperate the goats from the sheep if there are any sheep.

ps: when it comes to war and dieing, honor be damed, survival and winning comes first, and Patton was right, you make the other poor bastard die for his country!

So you are basically saying that in your opinion women and children are fair game in a war and that the military should target and kill them at will?

What if the enemy starts killing your women and children for the reasons you have given above? Wouldn't you call them terrorists?

Are you really that slow, yes if the women and children are going to become active participant in the active war they become ligament target, and the Japanese were training the civilians to become a active element in the defence of the home Island, I have seen the films of the training that was being conducted with the civilians, men, women, and children, part of the idea was to tangel up the U.S. military with the civilians taking the brunt of the casulties and then the Imperal Forces would attack the americans with the hope of then defeating the landings and throwing them back into the sea, the belief that to die and take a enemy with you for the Emporer was the greatest act of self sacrifice that you could do. was well engraned in the population at the time, And it took the Emporer to tell them to stop, and it took the bombs to convince the Emporer.

Are you really that slow,

Was that really a question?

Well, you've seen my argument. There's no point in going around in circles so I will just say this once more.

It doesn't matter whether you have seen films detailing what training they have been given, that's still no excuse for anyone to exterminate those civilians "just in case" they decide to oppose the invasion.

Once again:

There is no excuse for deliberately exterminating innocent, non-combatant women and children in a war.

It doesn't matter whether you have seen films detailing what training they have been given, that's still no excuse for anyone to exterminate those civilians "just in case" they decide to oppose the invasion.

Once again, I'll agree with you 'til I'm blue in the face but your missing the point. There is no "just in case" here! I am 100% in agreement with you in that if the civilians had been exterminated because there is a chance that they might fight against an invasion then it was wrong. But the fact of the matter is that the Japanese civilians were in a basic training of sorts. They were being taught how, why, where, and when they should die for their Emperor. Saying that killing the Japanese civilians because they haven't fought yet is tantamount to saying that Japanese men in basic training shouldn't be killed because they haven't shot you yet.

part of the idea was to tangel up the U.S. military with the civilians taking the brunt of the casulties and then the Imperal Forces would attack the americans with the hope of then defeating the landings and throwing them back into the sea

Check wikipedia, it verifies this 100% from several reputable sources.

AmishRakeFight

Well, I'd consider Eisenhower a "reputable source", and I'd consider Admiral Leahy a "reputable source". They both considered, at the time and in biographies, the A-Bombings to have been completely unnecessary, as a surrender could have been negotiated a number of other ways. If you want reputable sources I don't think you can do better than that. I think Gen. Douglas MacArthur is another one who shares their opinion.

The thing that it comes down to is that they never intended to invade mainland Japan (and neither did they have to), it was all just the perfect excuse for some muscle-flexing and an extremely sick experiment.

The thing that it comes down to is that they never intended to invade mainland Japan
i beg to differ:
http://www.ww2pacific.com/downfall.html

So you are basically saying that in your opinion women and children are fair game in a war and that the military should target and kill them at will?

What if the enemy starts killing your women and children for the reasons you have given above? Wouldn't you call them terrorists?
you are arguing just for the sake of it.

lets take a scenario
you own a farm that produces chickens
there is also in the area a colony of killer bees that like nothing more than chicken soup.
by your reasoning you would only kill the bees that killed your chickens.
in such a case you will NEVER STOP killing bees.
the most reasonable course of action would be to take out the entire colony and be done with it. then put measures in place that will prevent such a thing from happening again.

as you know the americans followed the second option.

Thanks Leopold99 for trying to move the debate into more constructive area's, and thanks Buffalo for correcting me, i knew my original guess was wrong but wasn't buggered at the time to research it hehe

Now i'm going to ask this ONE MORE TIME!

NO MORE ARGUING ABOUT THE HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI BOMBINGS! WE'LL ALL TURN BLUE OVER THIS DIVIDE. AGREE TO DISAGREE!! LETS MOVE TO MORE INTERESTING AND CONSTRUCTIVE AREA'S LIKE THE ONE MENTIONED ABOVE. 2 x 500LB BOMBS ON AL ZARQAWI

NEXT PERSON WHO DISOBEYS THIS WITHIN THE NEXT HOUR I WILL STRIVE TO PUNISH FOR NOT BEING INTERESTING! hehe

THAT MEANS YOU G. F. SCHLEENBENHORST

OK then, on a slightly different subject....to all the "A-bombing defenders", here's a scenario for you: You are a captain on a battleship in WWII and you have just sank an enemy battleship quite close (a few hundred miles) to the coast of a neutral country. However, it sank slowly and as a result there are boatloads of sailors who managed to get away in lifeboats and are now floating in the water. The rest of the enemy fleet has evaded you.

Would you:

a) Pick up the survivors and take them prisoner....
b) Machine gun/kill the survivors....
c) Leave them behind in their lifeboats?

Pick up the survivoors if I have room, if not leave them in their lifeboats.

Already been done:Bismarck went under the waves at 10.39 hours that morning. Unaware of the fate of the ship, Group West, the German command base, continued to issue signals to Bismarck for some hours, until Reuters reported news from Britain that the ship had been sunk. In Britain, the House of Commons was informed of the sinking early that afternoon.

Dorsetshire and Maori stopped to rescue survivors but a U-boat alarm caused them to leave the scene after rescuing only 110 Bismarck sailors, abandoning the surviving crew in the water. The next morning U-74, dispatched to try and rescue Bismarck's log-book (and which heard sinking noises from a distance), and the German weather ship Sachsenwald picked up 5 survivors. In all, almost 2,100 German sailors had lost their lives.

I asked what YOU would do, hypothetically, if you were the captain.

I didn't want an example from history.

Same, my first responsability is the survival my crew and ship, and then only in passing the enemy survivors. No hypothetical about it.

Good hypothetical.

And like Buffalo said, The safety of my ship and crew is parramount, If at any time i thought there was a danger i would mark the area somehow so that the enemy could figure out the rest for themselves. I mean what good is a sailor if they don't have a ship to serve on? You sink their ship and they get rescued by their own kind, what good are they going to be after?

Rescue what i can without compromising safety and security of my own men

OK then, on a slightly different subject....to all the "A-bombing defenders", here's a scenario for you: You are a captain on a battleship in WWII and you have just sank an enemy battleship quite close (a few hundred miles) to the coast of a neutral country. However, it sank slowly and as a result there are boatloads of sailors who managed to get away in lifeboats and are now floating in the water. The rest of the enemy fleet has evaded you.

Would you:

a) Pick up the survivors and take them prisoner....
b) Machine gun/kill the survivors....
c) Leave them behind in their lifeboats?
my choice would be a)
provided i had the room and wasn't on an extended voyage

if i didn't have the room then my choice would be c)

i would never exercise option b)

According to published United Nations reports, the USA-led trade "sanctions" against Iraq directly led to the deaths (over ten years) of 500 000 women, old people, and children.

But that wasn't a declared war. So I suppose it is not included in this discussion.

Paul thats not what this thread is about, but if your going to make silly comments like that then stop the USA bashing. The so called "USA-led sanctions" that "killed" 500,000 people was an international decision made in the UN security council. There are more than enough countries there that can veto Sanctions, which they didn't. So following that logic, all countries on the security council who voted, or did not veto the sanction are ALL responsible.

But back to topic now. Here's another hypothetical. You as a commander of a large formation is experiencing difficulties in your operation (lets say its secure a particular Area). Your intel has determined that the source of all your problems are local civilians who have taken up arms and in an attempt to thwaught your efforts. Intel has also placed the location of the Head of this militia in a residential building that is in a largely populated area (which is friendly to the enemy). You have a large number of troops at your disposal along with aircraft, both fixed and rotary wing. Your course of action, and Rules of Engagement:

Personally i would round up the "civilians" (who by coincidence are now called combatants under the Geneva Convention), by ordering agressive patrolling techniques by my troops. I would use the helicopters as Aerial Surveilance of the area, reporting enemy movements to the men on the ground. I would launch a massive shock attack in the area where the Militia headquarters were, and hopefully take the commander. If that were not achieved i would continue rounding up the militia until the enemy commander fled, was found or killed.

My rules of engagement would be: Any person who openly shows arms, is now a combatant, however do not fire unless fired upon. Anyone suspect of carrying weapons must be detained and searched, once certain that no weapons are on the person, they may be released.

what are we trying to do here? make war civilized?

the primary purpose of the military in war is to completely eliminate the enemies will to fight. another purpose i find important is to eliminate the enemies ability to fight. if the military can acheive either of those objectives then they can win. the first objective is the most desirable.

Well that makes it OK then!

Now that we've established that all those women, children and babies KNEW they were going to be nuked, everything is forgiven!

Don't be stupid.
ya know, don't be arrogant. War is war; haven't you ever heard the phrase "all is fair in love and war"?
That is what makes fighting and wars so pointless. It isn't that the smartest, or the best win, but the toughest and ruthless. If we were to forgive the japanese for attacking pearl harbor, or simply to not win our chances for survival would lower immensely. When Going against an oponent who will do ANYTHING (everyone knows of the kamakazee planes) to win, we must take extra precautions.
That is why I do not argue with what has been done in the past, but only suggest that in the future we (as a whole on Earth) find other ways to fight. We don't need a weapon capable of destroying an entire country (which is the current ploy). Instead, perhaps try to find a way to make war unnecessary?
Life is too simple. Everyone wishes to complicate it would violence and hate.

what are we trying to do here? make war civilized?

the primary purpose of the military in war is to completely eliminate the enemies will to fight. another purpose i find important is to eliminate the enemies ability to fight. if the military can acheive either of those objectives then they can win. the first objective is the most desirable.

So....given the chance to nuke 300,000 women and children who are "potential" combatants you'd take it, but given the chance to kill 1,000 enemy sailors (actual combatants), you wouldn't take it, and would in fact, feed them and care for them or failing that let them return to their country to come back on another ship?

ya know, don't be arrogant. War is war; haven't you ever heard the phrase "all is fair in love and war"?
That is what makes fighting and wars so pointless. It isn't that the smartest, or the best win, but the toughest and ruthless. If we were to forgive the japanese for attacking pearl harbor, or simply to not win our chances for survival would lower immensely. When Going against an oponent who will do ANYTHING (everyone knows of the kamakazee planes) to win, we must take extra precautions.
That is why I do not argue with what has been done in the past, but only suggest that in the future we (as a whole on Earth) find other ways to fight. We don't need a weapon capable of destroying an entire country (which is the current ploy). Instead, perhaps try to find a way to make war unnecessary?
Life is too simple. Everyone wishes to complicate it would violence and hate.

What's the difference between a guided missile in modern warfare hitting your ship, and a pilot guiding his plane into your ship?

Fuck all, but you don't hear anyone crying these days about guided missiles. I never understood why you all paint kamikaze pilots as so evil and somehow use it as an excuse to kill innocent civilians. How can you say it's fine to use a 30mm cannon on an Apache from 3 miles away to shoot some unarmed terrorists but it's not OK for a man to fly his plane into your ship? It's OK to use cruise missiles to take out civilian infrastructure but it's not OK for a man to take his own life flying his plane into a well-armed ship?

Human beings will always fight. We will always form tribes, and we will always need an enemy. Without an enemy, civilisations fall apart. It's human nature. However, that does not mean that war shouldn't (or can't) still have honour.

When that's the case, that's when the trouble starts.

If we were to forgive the japanese for attacking pearl harbor,
i don't know about you but i HAVE forgiven the japanese for one very good reason, we must let go of the anger and move forward.

another good reason is that the japanese of today are innocent of the crimes of their forfathers.

So....given the chance to nuke 300,000 women and children who are "potential" combatants you'd take it,
and hope like hell that you are among them.

According to published United Nations reports, the USA-led trade "sanctions" against Iraq directly led to the deaths (over ten years) of 500 000 women, old people, and children.

But that wasn't a declared war. So I suppose it is not included in this discussion.
who was booby trapping wounded people so that when the US medical corps helped them they got blown to bits?
then parade it around the world that america doesn't help the wounded?
whose frikken side are you on?

And Paul H, what about all the money in the oil for food program, that was supose to buy food and medical supplies for the people of Iraq, that Saddam used for building new palaces, buying new weapons, bribing UN, Middle Eastern and Europen diginitaries to try and get around the sanctions, dose Saddam or any of these people and countries bear any responsability for these deaths? I would have to say their bear all the responsabilities, if not provide proof why not.

Well no one said Saddam was a great guy.

Just like no one said the Japanese militarist government of WWII were great guys.

It's just the typical yank argument to go "well the other guy isn't perfect, so that absolves us of all wrongdoing" rather than say, "well, we did something bad" so you can forget about it. That is how children reason.

Mistakes happen in war, if you havn't served in the armed forces then you just wouldn't understand this. War isn't pretty, it never has been, and occasionally there is "Collatoral Damage". Doesn't make it acceptable but it happens. But that pales in comparison to a dictator killing hundreds of thousands of his people, just for a few measely perks in the form of a palace, underground bunkers and bribes.So comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges

"Collateral damage" is a phrase made up by the american military which simply means "We missed and blew up another school. Who gives a fuck?".

There is "collateral damage" and there is "reasonable civilian casualties".

I don't call Collateral Damage acceptable, any civilian death in todays wars is unacceptable (depending ofcourse the situation) but like i said, it pales in comparison to a dictator killing his own population.

Yes, collateral damage is supposed to be inadvertent. We missed, or the civilians showed up where we didn't expect them. If you deliberately shoot into an area with civilians because it's the only way to get your target, that's not collateral damage.

I don't call Collateral Damage acceptable, any civilian death in todays wars is unacceptable (depending ofcourse the situation) but like i said, it pales in comparison to a dictator killing his own population.


I would think that any civilian death in wars today was unavoidable, but taking up where the dictator left off makes absolutely no sense to me.

How many Iraqis do you think are counting their blessings right now at having been "saved" by the US? There is something terribly wrong with a war that kills so many of the people it was supposed to save. And are they keeping civilian death tallies yet?

I think ultimately the increased media presence in wars has turned alot of opinion.

Ignore for one second the justification of any war for the sake of this argument...

WWI and II, The only media presence in those wars were by journalists who nine times out of ten stood behind the front lines and watched the troops go over the trenches. Stories of huge battles taking place, Brilliant victories etc etc.. without the actual images being seen by the general public. Many veterans have turned around and said that war was horrible but the public have never seen this. The whole idea of war being a grand affair where two (or more) countries settle their problems honourably.

Vietnam through to present. The introduction of Television has seen increased covering of conflict. However the difference between now and previous wars is that images are broadcast to the public. People now see the horrific scenes that the soldiers endure and war no longer seems as honourable. Take for example the video of US forces bombing a village in Vietnam with napalm, shortly after a little girl who was completely naked (Clothes burnt off) was seen running down the road towards US troops. Images like that hurt anyone with a heart. Soldiers too... That (among with other images) make people realise war is horrible and should be avoided at all cost.

I know there are many other factors involved, but it is possible the reason we debate war these days is because we see what the effects are... Its no longer a grand affair in civilian eyes.

Yes, collateral damage is supposed to be inadvertent. We missed, or the civilians showed up where we didn't expect them. If you deliberately shoot into an area with civilians because it's the only way to get your target, that's not collateral damage.

Despite what people think, this is nothing new to war (i'm not justifying it, i still think its wrong), its happened since man put sharp bits of rock on the end of sticks to hurt one another. I just think ultimately if people weren't to see images like this then the world wouldn't have a problem. Like i mentioned, the media has influenced alot of people when it comes to military conflict

Yes, collateral damage is supposed to be inadvertent. We missed, or the civilians showed up where we didn't expect them. If you deliberately shoot into an area with civilians because it's the only way to get your target, that's not collateral damage.
If a man is holding someone hostage, there occasionally comes a time when the proper thing to do is shoot through the hostage.

And are they keeping civilian death tallies yet?

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

G. F. Schleebenhorst: Thanks i was trying to find that website but gave up cause i had to finish some admin work for my troops. I guess the fact that iraqbodycount is a dead give away, lol.. I've just bookmarked it

It is intresting that I find the civilian causalities that cannot be directly attributed to the military are still added to the casualties numbers of the military, even though they were caused by terrorist action, so it becomes impossable to get a clear picture of who is causing the casualty.


2005 Parliamentary Answers concerning the issue of Iraqi casualties
"Casualties of car bombs and other clearly identifiable terrorist attacks are recorded as being caused. by terrorist incidents. All other casualties are ...
http://www.countthecasualties.org.uk/docs/PQs.pdf


Mr. Mullin: The Iraqi Ministry of Health released a statement on 28 January. It stated that records from some
180 hospitals show that:
"The numbers of casualties for the six months to the end of December are as follows:
Terrorist incidents: 1,233 killed; 4,115 injured
Military action: 2,041 killed; 8,542 injured
Casualties of car bombs and other clearly identifiable terrorist attacks are recorded as being caused by
terrorist incidents. All other casualties are recorded as military action. The casualties may include insurgents,
civilians, and Iraqi police, who are treated in Ministry of Health hospitals. The casualties may have been killed
or injured by terrorist or coalition forces. Coalition forces include Iraqi police, Iraqi security forces, and the
multi-national forces".

Thanks Buffalo for clearing that up.

I'm going to stop using Yahoo search and start using whatever your using cause i can't find jack shit with it :p

Its very true that a large proportion of the Civilian deaths in Iraq occur due to terrorist activity. Now i know the typical argument back to this would be along the lines of "Oh but if the US weren't there then there won't be any casualties". This could be true, However as opposed to 500,000 civilian deaths due to saddamn starving his people? I think its a lesser of two evils for those people. For me, glad to be rid of the bastard.

Its interesting to note a large amount of the terrorist bombings that recently have occurred in Iraq, aren't towards Coalition forces. They are a direct attack on the nations people and its government (This government mind you was democratically elected by the people so don't give me the whole puppet regime thing). Therefore following that logic, one can conclude that a large amount of civilian deaths in Iraq are due to people (mainly Sunni's and Al Qaida) not happy with the government.

I think civilian deaths are unavoidable, tragic but unavoidable...

I'm going to stop using Yahoo search and start using whatever your using cause i can't find jack shit with it :p

bookmark this link:
http://www.google.com/firefox?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

msn search:
http://search.msn.com/?FORM=HPRE

(This government mind you was democratically elected by the people so don't give me the whole puppet regime thing).

IIRC they were given the choice between one US-friendly party and another US-friendly party.

IIRC they were given the choice between one US-friendly party and another US-friendly party.

As opposed to a non US friendly party? In a country that peacekeeping operations are being conducted the last thing you would want is a non-US friendly party in charge.

But actually the people of Iraq were given a choice between Sunni's and Shia's, Shia's won, not surprisingly. Sunni's are pissed off because they've lost their power. Like i said, the terrorist attacks are more aimed at the government and iraqi people not US forces. When will people realise this?

IIRC they were given the choice between one US-friendly party and another US-friendly party.

Bullshit like any democaracy there were several parties, sure the dominant ones were both US friendly but this is a reflection of the current Iraqi state of mind. Most of them support what we did and are doing. They just aren't as much fun to put on the news becuase they aren't bitching.

Bullshit like any democaracy there were several parties, sure the dominant ones were both US friendly but this is a reflection of the current Iraqi state of mind.

The current Iraqi state of mind? Are you kidding?

As opposed to a non US friendly party? In a country that peacekeeping operations are being conducted the last thing you would want is a non-US friendly party in charge.

That's reasonable, but bearing that in mind you can't then go on and call them free elections.

I never said that they weren't free elections

I was simply stating that thank god it is a US friendly party...

Bullshit like any democaracy there were several parties, sure the dominant ones were both US friendly but this is a reflection of the current Iraqi state of mind. Most of them support what we did and are doing. They just aren't as much fun to put on the news becuase they aren't bitching.

TW Scott: This is true, i mean if any democracy works then the public vote for what they want. In this case the two major parties were Shia, or Sunni, both who approve of the US. I've argued this about the current US administration being a reflection of the majority of the US (when it was voted in). Therefore you can't claim anything other than the current Iraqi administration is a reflection of the majority of Iraqi's (once again when it was voted in). Sure things might change between now and then, but a majority of Iraqi's believe in their US friendly parties.

Mind you though the US is a good ally to have when you live next door to Iran. But thats another pot of tea

If a man is holding someone hostage, there occasionally comes a time when the proper thing to do is shoot through the hostage.Absolutely. Sometimes you have to make a sacrifice. And that is not collateral damage because it is calculated and deliberate.

How do you split that hair? both situations are the same, and with one your OK and the other not?

Is torturing someone excessive force? If in theory if the use of torture until death in public displays to fight crime was proven to lower crime rates would that constitute as sufficient use of force?

I was simply stating that thank god it is a US friendly party...
there is NO chance in hell that a non-friendly party was going to be allowed.
this is one reason why i am so cynical on the situation there...aside from the fact that the u.s. shouldnt be there in the first place.

there is NO chance in hell that a non-friendly party was going to be allowed.
this is one reason why i am so cynical on the situation there...aside from the fact that the u.s. shouldnt be there in the first place.


What about Canada? They're peacekeepers, not peacemakers like the U.S. Bastards.

Bullshit like any democaracy there were several parties, sure the dominant ones were both US friendly but this is a reflection of the current Iraqi state of mind. Most of them support what we did and are doing. They just aren't as much fun to put on the news becuase they aren't bitching.

Any data to confirm this notion?

You also took part in Dresden and the other firebombings of German civilians.

No we didn't. US bombers targeted the railyards at Dresden, and similar targets in other German cities.

The actual burning of German cities was a UK affair.



Those were completely and utterly unecessary and the British even apologised for those....I didn't hear any yank apology....

Why would we apologize for British acts? We aren't British.

No. YOU don't grasp that you don't "make up" for POSSIBLY having to shoot some civilians armed with pointy sticks by DELIBERATELY targetting and killing 300,000 civilians.

Civilians were not the target, and the bombs didn't kill anywhere near 300,000 people



What difference does it make if they were given warning? It's still an act of terrorism.

Nope. Overt military acts are not terrorism.



The casualty estimate BEFORE the A-Bombs was something like 20,000 US soldiers,

The figures from the Joint Chiefs of Staff projected 1,200,000 American casualties from Operation Downfall, including 267,000 American dead.

The Secretary of War's office commissioned a study by William Shockley that estimated American casualties from invading and conquering Japan would be 1,700,000 to 4,000,000 (American fatalities would be 400,000 to 800,000).



Eisenhower and Admiral Leahy both admitted they didn't agree with dropping the A-Bombs.

Leahy said he didn't agree with it in hindsight. He wasn't objecting when the war was still raging.

Ike claims to have opposed it, but his story of opposition is so full of inaccuracies that it is clear that he was making it up to bolster his image for posterity.

Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Hiroshima also held the military headquarters in charge of the defense of the southern half of Japan.

The "assembly area for troops" thing should be expanded on to note that tens of thousands of troops were assembled in Hiroshima when it was nuked.

Or maybe it just wasn't worth strategically bombing?

Why would the military headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion be worth bombing?

Why would tens of thousands of enemy soldiers be worth bombing?

Sheesh!

Putting an oil embargo in effect against someone isn't provocation?

If that was adequate provocation for Pearl Harbor, then Hiroshima and Nagasaki were more than adequately provoked.



that doesn't mean

1) They should demand from their enemy completely unreasonable terms of surrender

or

2) They should deliberately target that enemy's innocent civilians

or

3) They should resort to terrorism in order to coerce their enemy into accepting those completely unreasonable terms of surrender

Our terms were in no way unreasonable, and we did not target civilians or engage in terrorism.

Do some reading up. They only had one condition, and it was fairly simple, and was eventually agreed to anyway - after the nukes were dropped.

Japan did not have "one condition" until AFTER Nagasaki was nuked.

And we did not agree to that condition, and forced Japan to surrender without it.



name some examples of america deliberately targeting civilians.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Dresden.

The target at Hiroshima was the tens of thousands of soldiers in Hiroshima's large military districts, as well as the military headquarters in charge of the defense of the southern half of Japan.

The target at Nagasaki was the large armament factories on the outskirts of the city.

America's target at Dresden was the railyards outside of town.

You are basing this on ESTIMATES. Estimates that as far as a lot of people agree were vastly inflated after the bomb was dropped.

Um, no. The estimate from the Joint Chiefs of Staff of 267,000 American dead was from before the bomb was dropped, as was the estimate of 400,000 - 800,000 American dead from the study that the War Department commissioned.



Do you know why those two cities were as of yet untouched? Because they were of no military significance.

You know, every single thing you say is completely factually incorrect.

The reason Hiroshima was untouched was because it was off limits once it was chosen as the primary target of for the bomb.

Hiroshima held tens of thousands of troops, and held the military headquarters in charge of the defense of the southern half of Japan.

Nagasaki was untouched because it could not be easily found by radar, and it had large arms-production factories in the outskirts of the city.



By that rationale the World Trade Centre was a military target. I am sure there were some aircraft carriers or a soldier in New York Somewhere on that day. So if I am to concede that the A-Bombings were a military operation against a military target, you concede that the WTC attacks were in fact nothing more than the same. Deal?

The World Trade center was not the military headquarters in charge of the defense of this country, did not hold tens of thousands of soldiers, and did not contain any arms manufacturing.

No we didn't. US bombers targeted the railyards at Dresden, and similar targets in other German cities.

The actual burning of German cities was a UK affair.





Why would we apologize for British acts? We aren't British.

Later on the 14th from 12:17 until 12:30 311 American B-17s dropped 771 tons of bombs on Dresden, with the railway yards as their aiming point. "Part of the American Mustang-fighter escort was ordered to strafe traffic on the roads around Dresden to increase the chaos"[15]. There are reports that civilians fleeing the firestorm engulfing Dresden in February 1945 were strafed by American aircraft, but these claims have been refuted by recent work by the historian Götz Bergander[16][17]. During this raid there was a brief, but possibly intense dogfight between American and German fighters around Dresden, some rounds may have struck the ground and been mistaken for strafing fire[18]. The Americans continued the bombing on February 15 dropping 466 tons of bombs. During these four raids a total of around 3,900 tons of bombs were dropped.

The firebombing consisted of by-then standard methods; dropping large amounts of high-explosive to blow off the roofs to expose the timbers within buildings, followed by incendiary devices (fire-sticks) to ignite them and then more high-explosives to hamper the efforts of the fire services. The consequences of these standard methods were particularly effective in Dresden: the bombings eventually created a self-sustaining firestorm with temperatures peaking at over 1500 °C. After a wide area caught fire, the air above the bombed area became extremely hot and rose rapidly. Cold air then rushed in at ground level from outside, and people were sucked into the fire.

After the main firebombing campaign between 13th and 15th, there were two further raids on the Dresden railway yards by the USAAF. The first was on March 2 by 406 B-17s which dropped 940 tons of high-explosive bombs and 141 tons of incendiaries. The second was on April 17 when 580 B-17s dropped 1,554 tons of high-explosive bombs and 165 tons of incendiaries.[19]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

The railway yards were right in the centre of Dresden. Look at the tonnage of high explosives and incendiary bombs. That's like saying "We dropped our A-Bombs on the military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not the civilians": it's just a bullshit excuse. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were still killed in both cases.

The railway yards were right in the centre of Dresden. Look at the tonnage of high explosives and incendiary bombs. That's like saying "We dropped our A-Bombs on the military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not the civilians": it's just a bullshit excuse. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were still killed in both cases.
as if the germans and the japanese didn't kill hundreds of thousands civilians.

OK, leopold, here we are again with your playground logic. Here is the question you will never answer:

Just because the enemy kills hundreds and thousands of women and children, does that make it OK to kill hundreds of thousands of women and children too?

OK, leopold, here we are again with your playground logic. Here is the question you will never answer:

Just because the enemy kills hundreds and thousands of women and children, does that make it OK to kill hundreds of thousands of women and children too?
why are you so intent on putting the americans on unequal footing?

I don't think americans ever fought a war on equal footing.

why are you so intent on putting the americans on unequal footing?

Answer the question in my previous post.

Answer the question in my previous post.
i already did.

When and where?

right after the post in question.

No, you asked a question. The only possible answers are yes and no. Once you answer my question, I will answer yours. It's only polite.

It's only polite.
HAHAHAHA jesus christ G.F. you talk about 'polite'? what a joke.
remember the question i asked you? hmmm?

the fact of the matter is japan attacked pearl harbor, sank practically every ship there and killed thousands of our men.
so we went over there and stomped their shit out.

Stop squirming and answer yes or no to the question I asked you. With every evasion, you just look like more and more of a worm. Shit, leopold, you squirm so much you should become a politician.

your question is too vague.

You didn't understand it then?

G. F. Schleebenhorst, how do you defeat a fanatical enemy, you have to destroy his base of supply, that means everything from material to the people that supply him with the equipment to continue the war, and that mean the children to, so yes it is ok to kill thousands of women and children in the endeavor, the difference in the 2nd world war was that on both sides the women and children were employed to provide the supplies to continue the fight at the front.

What if the Japanese used that argument you just presented me with to "justify" The Rape of Nanking? Would you forgive them? They could even, for example, say that they were simply taking care of future insurgents and partisans. Cutting their supply lines, getting rid of their support, etc....is it only bullshit when someone else is saying it?

"fanatical" enemy. Such propaganda.

"fanatical" enemy. Such propaganda.

Yup. "Fanatical" is a term the USA has used many times to dehumanise their enemy.

Just because the enemy kills hundreds and thousands of women and children, does that make it OK to kill hundreds of thousands of women and children too?
i suppose this is the question.

if an enemy practically wipes out your fleet without provocation and kills thousands of men, some being civilian women and children, then yes, we have every right to bring that country to it's knees.

if you are talking about the firebombings of dresden and rotterdam i wonder how many thousands of civilian deaths was on the british peoples heads?

concise enough for you?

You and I are not discussing the British. Using playground logic in an attempt to deflect the blame is what your average, well....playground-goer would do.

So, let me just confirm this. You believe that in war it is perfectly acceptable to target your enemy's civilians?

You and I are not discussing the British.
no, it's you that doesn't want to discuss the british.

Stop squirming, leopold.

So, let me just confirm this. You believe that in war it is perfectly acceptable to target your enemy's civilians?
i never said any such thing G.F. and you know it.

i never said any such thing G.F. and you know it.

i suppose this is the question.

if an enemy practically wipes out your fleet without provocation and kills thousands of men, some being civilian women and children, then yes, we have every right to bring that country to it's knees.


Are you telling me that's not what you just said in response to this question?

does that make it OK to kill hundreds of thousands of women and children too?

you know perfectly well what i said.

Yeah, I just quoted it back to you. Are you still denying that you just told me that it's fine to kill as many women and children as you want during warfare?

read my posts G.F.

How many american women and children were killed by the Japanese?

How many american women and children were killed by the Japanese?
haven't a clue.

Do you think it's more or less than 300,000?

The Rape of Nanking, took place after the city was occupied and not a battle zone, it had surrendered, so no comparison in your argument, the bombings took place on a city of a country that had not surrendered, or appeared to be surrendering.

Now here is excerpts from the Magic Decodes and what was known at the time:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

Document 33: "Magic" – Diplomatic Summary, War Department, Office of Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, No. 1210 – July 17, 1945, Top Secret Ultra
Source: Record Group 457, Records of the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, "Magic" Diplomatic Summaries 1942-1945, box 18.

Another intercept of a cable from Togo to Sato shows that the Foreign Minister rejected unconditional surrender and that the emperor was not “asking the Russian’s mediation in anything like unconditional surrender.” Incidentally, this “Magic’ Diplomatic Summary” indicates the broad scope and capabilities of the program; for example, it includes translations of intercepted French messages (see pages 8-9). [Page 14 missing from original]


Document 37: Diary Entry for July 20, 1945:
Source: Takashi Itoh, ed., Sokichi Takagi: Nikki to Joho [Sokichi Takagi: Diary and Documents] (Tokyo, Japan: Misuzu-Shobo, 2000), 916-917 [Translation by Hikaru Tajima]

In 1944 Navy minister Mitsumasa Yonai put rear admiral Sokichi Takagi on sick leave so that he could undertake a secret mission to find a way to end the war. Takaki was soon at the center of a cabal of Japanese defense officials, civil servants, and academics, which concluded that, in the end, the emperor would have to “impose his decision on the military and the government.” Takagi kept a detailed account of his activities, part of which was in diary form, the other part of which he kept on index cards. The material that follows gives a sense of the state of play for Foreign Minister Togo’s attempt to secure Soviet mediation. Hasegawa cites it and other documents to make a larger point about the inability of the Japanese government to agree on “concrete” proposals to negotiate an end to the war.[27] The last item discusses Japanese contacts with representatives of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in Switzerland. The reference to “our contact” may refer to Bank of International Settlements economist Pers Jacobbson who was in contact with Japanese representatives to the Bank as well as Gero von Gävernitz, then on the staff, but with non-official cover, of OSS station chief Allen Dulles. The contacts never went far and Dulles never received encouragement to pursue them.[28]


Document 40: "Magic" – Diplomatic Summary, War Department, Office of Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, No. 1214 – July 22, 1945, Top Secret Ultra
Source: Record Group 457, Records of the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, "Magic" Diplomatic Summaries 1942-1945, box 18.

This “Magic” summary includes messages from both Togo and Sato. In a long and impassioned message, the latter argued why Japan must accept defeat: “it is meaningless to prove one’s devotion [to the emperor] by wrecking the State.” Togo rejected Sato’s advice that Japan accept unconditional surrender except for one provision: the “preservation of the Imperial House.” Probably unable or unwilling to take a soft position in an official cable, Togo declared that “the whole country … will pit itself against the enemy in accordance with the Imperial Will as long as the enemy demands unconditional surrender.”


Document 42: Diary Entry, July 24, 1945, "Japanese Peace Feelers"
Source: Naval Historical Center, Operational Archives, James Forrestal Diaries

Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal was a regular recipient of “Magic” intercept reports; this substantial entry reviews the dramatic Sato-Togo exchanges covered in the 22 July “Magic” summary (although Forrestal misdated Sato’s cable as “first of July” instead of the 21st). In contrast to Alperovitz’s argument that Forrestal tried to modify the terms of unconditional surrender to give the Japanese an out, Frank sees Forrestal’s account of the Sato-Togo exchange as additional evidence that senior U.S. officials understood that Tokyo was not on the “cusp of surrender.” [34]

Document 44: "Magic" – Diplomatic Summary, War Department, Office of Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, No. 1221- July 29, 1945, Top Secret Ultra
Source: Record Group 457, Records of the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, "Magic" Diplomatic Summaries 1942-1945, box 18.

The day before the governments of China, Great Britain, and the United States had issued the Potsdam Declaration demanding the “unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces. “The alternative is prompt and utter destruction.” In response to questions from journalists about the government’s reaction to the ultimatum, apparently Prime Minister Suzuki said that “We can only ignore [mokusatsu] it. We will do our utmost to complete the war to the bitter end.” That, Bix argues, represents a “missed opportunity” to end the war and spare the Japanese from continued U.S. aerial attacks.[36] Togo’s private position was more nuanced than Suzuki’s; he told Sato that “we are adopting a policy of careful study.” That Stalin had not signed the declaration (Truman and Churchill did not ask him to) led to questions about the Soviet attitude. Togo asked Sato to try to meet with Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov as soon as possible to “sound out the Russian attitude” on the declaration as well as Japan’s end-the-war initiative. Sato cabled Togo earlier that he saw no point in approaching the Soviets on ending the war until Tokyo had “concrete proposals.” “Any aid from the Soviets has now become extremely doubtful.”


Document 46: "Magic" – Diplomatic Summary, War Department, Office of Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, No. 1222 – July 30, 1945, Top Secret Ultra
Source: Record Group 457, Records of the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, "Magic" Diplomatic Summaries 1942-1945, box 18.

This report included an intercept of a message from Sato who reported that it was impossible to see Molotov and that unless Togo had a “concrete and definite plan for terminating the war” he saw no point in attempting to meet with the Soviet Foreign Minister.



Document 47: "Magic" – Diplomatic Summary, War Department, Office of Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, No. 1225 – August 2, 1945, Top Secret Ultra
Source: Record Group 457, Records of the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, "Magic" Diplomatic Summaries 1942-1945, box 18.

An intercepted message from Togo to Sato showed that Tokyo remained interested in securing Moscow’s good office but that it “is difficult to decide on concrete peace conditions here at home all at once.” “[W]e are exerting ourselves to collect the views of all quarters on the matter of concrete terms.” Barton Bernstein, Richard Frank, and Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, among others, have argued that the “Magic” intercepts from the end of July and early August show that the Japanese were far from ready to surrender. According to Herbert Bix, for months Hirohito had believed that the “outlook for a negotiated peace could be improved if Japan fought and won one last decisive battle,” thus, Hirohito delayed surrender, continuing to “procrastinate until the bomb was dropped and the Soviets attacked.”[38]



Document 51: "Magic" – Far East Summary, War Department, Office of Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, no. 502, 4 August 1945
Source: RG 457, Summaries of Intercepted Japanese Messages ("Magic" Far East Summary, March 20, 1942 – October 2, 1945), box 7, SRS 491-547

This “Far East Summary” included reports on the Japanese army’s plans to disperse fuel stocks to reduce vulnerability to bombing attacks, the text of a directive by the commander of naval forces on “Operation Homeland,” the preparations and planning to repel a U.S. invasion of Honshu, and the specific identification of army divisions located in, or moving into, Kyushu. Both Richard Frank and Barton Bernstein have used intelligence reporting and analysis of the major buildup of Japanese forces on southern Kyushu to argue that U.S. military planners were so concerned about that development that by early August 1945 they were reconsidering their invasion plans.[40]



Document 52: "Magic" – Diplomatic Summary, War Department, Office of Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, No. 1228 – August 5, 1945, Top Secret Ultra
Source: Record Group 457, Records of the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, "Magic" Diplomatic Summaries 1942-1945, box 18.

This summary included several intercepted messages from Sato, who conveyed his despair and exasperation over what he saw as Tokyo’s inability to develop terms for ending the war: “[I]f the Government and the Military dilly-dally in bringing this resolution to fruition, then all Japan will be reduced to ashes.” Sato remained skeptical that the Soviets would have any interest in discussions with Tokyo: “it is absolutely unthinkable that Russia would ignore the Three Power Proclamation and then engage in conversations with our special envoy.”

Document 55: Diary Entry for Wednesday, August 8 [, 1945]:
Source: Takashi Itoh, ed., Sokichi Takagi: Nikki to Joho [Sokichi Takagi: Diary and Documents] (Tokyo, Japan: Misuzu-Shobo, 2000), 923-924 [Translation by Hikaru Tajima]

This entry from Admiral Tagaki’s diary conveys the mood in elite Japanese circles after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima but before the Soviet declaration of war and the bombing of Nagasaki. Seeing the bombing of Hiroshima as a sign of a worsening situation at home, Tagaki worried about further deterioration. Nevertheless, his diary suggests that military hard liners were very much in charge and that prime minister Suzuki was then talking tough against surrender by evoking last ditch moments in Japanese history and warning of the danger that subordinate commanders might not obey surrender orders. That last remark aggravated Navy Minister Yonai who saw it as irresponsible. That the Soviets had made no responses to Sato’s request for a meeting was understood as a bad sign; Admiral Yonai realized that the government had to prepare for the possibility th