F-35 continues to be an expensive debacle

[jhmd2000]

oh please, check the edit. you're not telling me anything i didn't already know. I actually studied history.

One of us is a graduate of the United States Air Force's Squadron Officer School. The other of us is pretending (s)he can offer lectures in air power. To be abundantly clear, I'm the first one of us.

But since you don't think the bombs were necessary, I need to know: which American serviceman's who had their lives saved should have been expended for your short-sighted intellectual vanity? I need to know who you are willing to throw on the fire. Clearly you have some people in mind. Who were the expendables? What are their names? You have a B.A. in history after all...

 

[jhmd2000]

And here I thought you knew history. That's just fucking retarded.

BUT HE HAS A B.A. IN HISTORY!!!! Just ask him!!!!

 

[dmcheatw]

Actually, Truman was a soldier, not to mention the fact that he was Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

He was a soldier in his early life, the president is a politician, and that's what we're talking about right now.

An invasion of China is not speculative, because the Soviets invaded Manchuria the same day as the Nagasaki bombing. As for the home islands, any student of the Cold War (or military history in general, as you claim to be) would know that that was the next step. They had already conquered the Japanese half of Sakhalin.

I did not know those details, thanks. it doesn't change the essence of my argument though.

Regardless, none of this is any more speculative (actually, it is less speculative) than saying that Japan would have surrendered if we had just dropped a bomb of the coast. The only thing you have going for your argument is that Eisenhower (whose name you apparently can't spell, ironic given all the personal attacks against jh's credentials) happened to agree with you. And that shouldn't even be all that comforting to you, considering he wasn't even active in the theater in question.

if you follow my posts, i use capitalization whimsically. in informal message boards i don't worry about punctuation and grammer or spelling either for that matter all that much. everyone does this to an extent.

How about nimitz then? He didn't think they should have been dropped on japan and that was his theater. japans surrender was imminent despite their rhetoric, for reasons i've already mentioned. as i said people get tired of eating their pets and boiled leather sooner or later.

 

[dmcheatw]

And here I thought you knew history. That's just fucking retarded.

why is the instaneous death of hundreds of thousands not the worst two moments in human history?

 

[jhmd2000]

why is the instaneous death of hundreds of thousands not the worst two moments in human history?

When it saves the lives of millions. B/c, math.

 

[TR1982]

why is the instaneous death of hundreds of thousands not the worst two moments in human history?

Well, for one, there are countless examples of more evil and barbarous acts in the annals of humanity. And that's before even considering the ethics of this particular decision.

 

[dmcheatw]

One of us is a graduate of the United States Air Force's Squadron Officer School. The other of us is pretending (s)he can offer lectures in air power. To be abundantly clear, I'm the first one of us.

But since you don't think the bombs were necessary, I need to know: which American serviceman's who had their lives saved should have been expended for your short-sighted intellectual vanity? I need to know who you are willing to throw on the fire. Clearly you have some people in mind. Who were the expendables? What are their names? You have a B.A. in history after all...

this is like banging my head against a brick wall.

1) i did think a demonstration was necessary, just not on people.
2) you're operating from the paradigm that an invasion had to happen. no invasion was necessary. what i'm asking of our brave servicemen and women (no sarcasm) is that they simply maintain the blockade until japan capitulated.

 

[dmcheatw]

Well, for one, there are countless examples of more evil and barbarous acts in the annals of humanity. And that's before even considering the ethics of this particular decision.

well let me know when you can find a moment in history that's worse than the instantaneous death of 250,000 civilians, 250,000 people... and those that survived having various, un-treatable, gruesome wounds.

 

[TR1982]

He was a soldier in his early life, the president is a politician, and that's what we're talking about right now.



I did not know those details, thanks. it doesn't change the essence of my argument though.



if you follow my posts, i use capitalization whimsically. in informal message boards i don't worry about punctuation and grammer or spelling either for that matter all that much. everyone does this to an extent.

How about nimitz then? He didn't think they should have been dropped on japan and that was his theater. japans surrender was imminent despite their rhetoric, for reasons i've already mentioned. as i said people get tired of eating their pets and boiled leather sooner or later.

So what? To quote an eminently wise man, "that's just, well, you know, like, his opinion, man". Nimitz was a great man, and a great admiral, but that doesn't make him right. And besides, his primary contention was that dropping the bomb wasn't necessary to achieve a Japanese surrender. No one is disputing that. Like you said, there is a difference between generals and politicians. Generals have only strategy to consider. Politicians have to consider every post-war scenario.

 

[jhmd2000]

this is like banging my head against a brick wall.

1) i did think a demonstration was necessary, just not on people.
2) you're operating from the paradigm that an invasion had to happen. no invasion was necessary. what i'm asking of our brave servicemen and women (no sarcasm) is that they simply maintain the blockade until japan capitulated.

Were you paying attention to what happened at places like Iwo and Saipan? B/c if so, what are we debating?

 

[TR1982]

this is like banging my head against a brick wall.

1) i did think a demonstration was necessary, just not on people.
2) you're operating from the paradigm that an invasion had to happen. no invasion was necessary. what i'm asking of our brave servicemen and women (no sarcasm) is that they simply maintain the blockade until japan capitulated.

Without an invasion (from either the U.S. or Soviets), no unconditional surrender would have been achieved. That would have meant that a fascist regime would have remained in power in Japan, and as I'm sure you are aware, Japan recovered pretty quickly from the war. This is assuming, by the way, that the Soviets would have accepted anything but an unconditional surrender, which is doubtful, to say the least. Anything less than a total capitulation by the Japanese to the U.S. would have invariably resulted in a complete takeover of East Asia by the Soviet Union and its puppets. Not exactly ideal.

 

[dmcheatw]

some opinions are better supported than others. if you re-read the thread, you'll see i referenced experts, and explained how we could have sent a message to russia and forced japan to surrender, without having to kill half a million people.

 

[TR1982]

well let me know when you can find a moment in history that's worse than the instantaneous death of 250,000 civilians, 250,000 people... and those that survived having various, un-treatable, gruesome wounds.

Ha. Talk about moving the goal posts. Sure, I guess it may be the worst single moment in human history. Although that's probably not true, because the exact moment the bomb was detonated, there were no casualties. Those would occur in the succeeding milliseconds.

 

[TR1982]

some opinions are better supported than others. if you re-read the thread, you'll see i referenced experts, and explained how we could have sent a message to russia and forced japan to surrender, without having to kill half a million people.

No, you didn't explain anything. You just said it. That doesn't make you right. What evidence have you provided that supports the conclusion that Japan would have succumbed after a demonstration off their coast? Also, the Japanese high command didn't even realize what had happened in Hiroshima for several hours. Who's to say that they would have even realized a detonation had occurred? Should we have sent them a DVD?

 

[jhmd2000]

No, you didn't explain anything. You just said it. That doesn't make you right. What evidence have you provided that supports the conclusion that Japan would have succumbed after a demonstration off their coast? Also, the Japanese high command didn't even realize what had happened in Hiroshima for several hours. Who's to say that they would have even realized a detonation had occurred off their coast? Should we have sent them a DVD?

These people were willing to fly wooden planes into the sides of metal battleships in the name of their Emperor. Surely we sold diplomacy short, no?

 

[dmcheatw]

Ha. Talk about moving the goal posts. Sure, I guess it may be the worst single moment in human history. Although that's probably not true, because the exact moment the bomb was detonated, there were no casualties. Those would occur in the succeeding milliseconds.

earlier you were attacking my lack of capitalization, now this. real strong arguments you've been making. If it bothers you that much then let's just say "single event" instead of moment.

No, you didn't explain anything. You just said it. That doesn't make you right. What evidence have you provided that supports the conclusion that Japan would have succumbed after a demonstration off their coast? Also, the Japanese high command didn't even realize what had happened in Hiroshima for several hours. Who's to say that they would have even realized a detonation had occurred? Should we have sent them a DVD?

1) if a finite area is fully blockaded and deprived of food and all three branches of their armed forces are literally non-existant, they always end up surrendering. That's your explanation. the evidence that I provided was i cited primary sources who were experts.

2) Nah, you send them a message under a white flag and ask them to send a number of ambassadors to witness a demonstration over the ocean. you Invite russian representatives as well. no DVD required.

btw the fact that japan command didn't even know one of their cities was wiped off the map on further supports just how near the brink they were.

I've basically been repeating myself throughout the thread, and you arguments are juvenile pseudo arguments at this point so i think i'm good on this thread.

 

[jhmd2000]

earlier you were attacking my lack of capitalization, now this. real strong arguments you've been making. If it bothers you that much then let's just say "single event" instead of moment.



1) if a finite area is fully blockaded and deprived of food and all three branches of their armed forces are literally non-existant, they always end up surrendering. That's your explanation. the evidence that I provided was i cited primary sources who were experts.

2) Nah, you send them a message under a white flag and ask them to send a number of ambassadors to witness a demonstration over the ocean. you Invite russian representatives as well. no DVD required.

btw the fact that japan command didn't even know one of their cities was wiped off the map on further supports just how near the brink they were.

I've basically been repeating myself throughout the thread, and you arguments are juvenile pseudo arguments at this point so i think i'm good on this thread.

I say again: WOODEN planes into the sides of metal battleships.

And you say?

 

[dmcheatw]

I say again: WOODEN planes into the sides of metal battleships.

And you say?

yeah they had a crazy mantra, that's actually really, really common among soldiers of all nations in all times. what does this have to do with murdering 500,000 civilians? your post doesn't seem relevant.when people run out of food, i promise you they'll surrender no matter what their mantra is

 

[jhmd2000]

yeah they had a crazy mantra, that's actually really, really common among soldiers of all nations in all times. what does this have to do with murdering 500,000 civilians? your post doesn't seem relevant.when people run out of food, i promise you they'll surrender no matter what their mantra is

Please be sure to share this insight with American POWs who were taken hostage in Vietnman who she 60% of their precapture body weight and survived, somehow without surrendering.

Also, please stop stating your opinion as historical fact. That would be nice.

 

[TR1982]

earlier you were attacking my lack of capitalization, now this. real strong arguments you've been making. If it bothers you that much then let's just say "single event" instead of moment.

Yeah, I was telling you that you were spelling it wrong, not that you hadn't capitalized it. Pretty funny that you still didn't realize this even after I told you, though. As for the above, it doesn't bother me. You were the one that tried to disqualify thousands upon thousands of events for consideration by adding the qualifier that it had to occur in a "single moment". Usually a tell tale sign that your argument is failing when you have to fall back on contesting semantics.

1) if a finite area is fully blockaded and deprived of food and all three branches of their armed forces are literally non-existant, they always end up surrendering. That's your explanation. the evidence that I provided was i cited primary sources who were experts.

This assumes that the area in question is incapable of supplying itself with food. Sieges don't always work, you know. Would it have worked against Japan? Almost certainly (eventually), but again, that's assuming that the Soviets would have cooperated in such a blockade, and wouldn't have immediately gone in for the killshot themselves, in the process gaining total control over the post-war reconstruction (Hint: that's what would have happened).

2) Nah, you send them a message under a white flag and ask them to send a number of ambassadors to witness a demonstration over the ocean. you Invite russian representatives as well. no DVD required.

First of all, there would be no need to show the Soviets. They already knew we had the bomb. The success of the Hiroshima bombing was predicated on demonstrating that we had the bomb and were willing to use it. Thus sending the message, "I wouldn't try to overrun Western Europe with your numerically superior ground forces if I were you". As for the Japanese, what is your fallback plan if they call our bluff (which they almost certainly would, considering the act in and of itself suggests that we are unwilling to actually use it)? Would you then decide that it is acceptable to drop the bomb on a population center? If not (which clearly you wouldn't be) the entire exercise is rendered meaningless.

btw the fact that japan command didn't even know one of their cities was wiped off the map on further supports just how near the brink they were.

No, it just shows how unfamiliar they were with nuclear technology.

I've basically been repeating myself throughout the thread, and you arguments are juvenile pseudo arguments at this point so i think i'm good on this thread.

Good one! Q.E.D!