Ok, not a bad comeback. You still need to work on your pith though. You need to figure out how you're going to carry that. Right now, it doesn't come natural - you're following a script.
What the heck are you talking about, pith, script, what?
Thing is, you made your position clear here:
.
Bit of a task to get through the special characters. I'll make concessions for responding on mobiles though, while making a mental note of your propensity to do so.
So, one can only assume that your position had changed somewhat between that post and your responses to me.
My position did not change: Japan would have surrendered with or without nukes. Richard argues that the death toll would have been greater, even if direct military invasion did not occur. These are different arguments and not mutually exclusive: Japan would have surrendered by starvation and collapse of its economy by 1946, this would have certainly brought about a much higher deathtoll. The atomics were not required to surrender, you might argue that they were inevitable, but that besides the point. If the atomics were not necessary for surrender, what good were they? Well for one and this is a surprise for most but back to Richard's arguments: the Atomics actually
reduced the total deathtoll, even without a direct invasion! So the idea that the atomics were immoral because they killed so many is illogical: continued fire bombing, destruction of Japan transportation, mass starvation, long before even invasion by the USA would have killed more in the short and long term and thus had been more immoral. And then there is invasion by the Russians and the creation of North and South Japan as a hypothetical that would have caused mass suffering for generations. The idea that the atomics prevented a direct military invasion though is also questionable as Richard cites was starting to become an argumentative question amongst the allied military leaders by the final days of the war even before the first atomic, and likely would not have happened even if the atomics were not used, but again the deathtoll from invasion was not necessary for the humanitarian argument FOR the atomic bomb, as the firebombing and starvation and all the rest is more than enough to justify the atomics.
Is my position clear to you now?
Which brings into question that position in its entirety. Impression I'm getting, is you took a stance, had it shot to hell, read a book and made a tangential case based on what some author said about it all.
I read the book BEFORE I took the stance so your theory makes no chronological sense. A better theory is this is all due to a misinterpretation on your part. Another is that this is an attempt to be spiteful and argumentative to anything I post, but I doubt this as you said you were not going to follow me around or such.
There is a logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority" which applies here... the only thing questionable is that authority itself. Lot of people recommend a lot of books to me. I'll take some of those recommendations and not others. Man's only got so many hours in a day, and at the end of that day it comes down to respect for the one doing the recommending.
See if you can figure out where you stand on that list. And then tell me you don't care.
This is not an appeal to authority as I cited specifics evidence that Richard cites. I'm not saying to trust in Richard, I'm saying Richard is right because for example the brewing argument between Nimiz, King and MacArthur on the viability of invasion, of which Richard cites, quotes and references multiple messages, reports and dairies at the time, show the invasion was starting to become questionable in the final days even without reference to the atomic bomb but from knowledge of the Japanese preparations for invasion alone. Richard is inconsequential, I'm citing evidence that he collected, not mearly citing him. Now if you don't want to read the book that fine, your just going to have to trust me on presenting the evidence, which I seriously doubt you will, hence why I recommend reading it for your self. Now if you still don't want to believe me, the evidence I cite, and not read the books I don't know what to say... remain in your ignorance I guess?
You state that one author made some painstaking research into the subject, which gave him (your assertion) an insight into the mindset of the time, yet you still refuse to provide any direct quotes from said author.
Let me get his straight, you argue about not having the time yet demand I take the time to quote word for word and page by page this guy? How can you live with such hypocrisy?
So I'm left in the position of wondering exactly which "leaders from both sides" he was quoting
How about this: you pay me to scan pages or transcribe them from the book in front of me word for word... or you read it your self? I'll give you a teaser for free:
"Noting the alarming fresh intelligence estimates of Japanese preparations on Kyushu, the committee observed that "the possible effect upon OLYMPIC operations of this build-up and concentration is such that it is considered commanders in the the field should review their estimates of the situation, re-examine objectives in Japan as possible alternatives to OLYMPIC, and prepare plans for operations against such alternate objectives" Richard quoting "The possible effect upon OLYMPIC operations": Joint War Plans Committee, JWPC 397 4 august 1945 (with attached copy of "Defensive Preparations in Japan," JIC), RG 218, NARA."
what those quotes were, what context those quotes from said author may or may not have included, and what else this author might have ignored while writing his admittedly rather thin book on the subject.
I would not call a 484 page book "thin", its just 124 pages are Appendices, References, biographical notes oh and a 24 page index, so really its only 360 pages of reading, which is kind of thin for me with a book like "And the band Played on" being what I would call "thick".
There is a well known quote from someone about that, you know. One book. You know how it goes, I'm sure. Nice to see you're on a first name basis with the author though.
What you want me to provide his full name all the time, I already gave his full name many replies ago, what more do you want? If you have specific contention with something I said - he said or what ever, then bring it up specifically, and I'll go over it... when I have "the time".
It might have been more clear had you stated at the outset you were speaking of the nation rather than the individuals.
But you have to realise that none of this matters. The USA had the Pacific war won. They knew that. It was just a matter of consideration as to how to administer the coup de grace.
They weren't thinking about how long it would be before Japan surrendered; they were thinking about what the Russian position was, and when Russia might invade, thereby denying American supremacy in the Pacific though the ownership of Japan. I did notice you ignored all of that, and that is a mistake.
To give you your own argument in reverse: how do you know that? where you there? How do you know what they were thinking? Present citations and sources for this claimed thinking of theirs, in mass, for if you do not then you are implied to be fallacious lier by your own standards.
Beside that the mind set of the coming cold war is irrelevant, it has no value in the arguments against the atomic bombings, the only thing of value is the argument that the weapons were immoral on a humanitarian bases (the premise in the arguments against the bomb), which they were not as I showed. I don't see anyone arguing the not using the atomic bombs would have improve the cold war... well except for Leo Szilard but no one that mattered took his claim that this would lead to an atomic weapons build up between the Soviet Union and the USA seriously at the time.
If you want to argue about whether or not dropping the bomb resulted in more or less causalities than sitting back and blockading was, or for how long that might have been necessary, go ahead. You and I will be done.
It's just a bit play.
Well thank you for your concession, that all I was arguing about and you have been trying to make it into an argument about something else with your strawmen and red herrings, thank you for admitting that, yes we are done, thank you.