PDA

View Full Version : Documentary claim: US picked high population cities as WMD targets for greater impact




enhanced_deficit
12-01-2015, 08:51 PM
If this is confirmed, my head hangs in shame. This shocking claim about dropping of WMDs on two Japanese cities has been made in documentary "WWII from Space" that is on Netflix.

CPUd
12-01-2015, 10:10 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdmfPThGZ-s

enhanced_deficit
12-02-2015, 07:55 PM
That doesn't explain it, targetting a civilian populated city is always immoral.

MelissaWV
12-02-2015, 08:01 PM
That doesn't explain it, targetting a civilian populated city is always immoral.

Then your head should have already been hanging in shame. While atom bombs made a huge statement, there were already some really horrendous occurrences on record. It's in the past now, and the argument can be made that there were few entirely civilian areas targeted (people tend to hide their stockpiles near civilian targets that look especially tragic on propaganda reels), but certainly the allegation in the OP isn't all that shocking.

enhanced_deficit
12-02-2015, 08:24 PM
Yes they also mentioned 25,000 people burnt to death in fire bombing of Dresden.

While it is in the past, I haven't seen condemnations/rebuke of dropping bombs on civilian population centers in media and often the narration is in "heroic" celeberatory tone.

Still watching more episodes before deciding how strongly to feel about this finally and what should be final shame factor.

Jpanese kamakazi soldiers were also very brutal but still this does not make moral sense.

klamath
12-02-2015, 08:33 PM
More Died in firebombing Tokyo that the A bombs. The Germans didn't spare London or did the Japanese spare Nanking. War isn't a party People and that is WHY it should be the highest level of voting to initiate one. It should be an even higher threshold than a constitutional amendment.

Danke
12-02-2015, 08:46 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkQ6J5F01Do

r3volution 3.0
12-02-2015, 08:56 PM
US picked high population cities as WMD targets for greater impact

Well of course they did.

Japanese military and industrial targets has already been bombed to smithereens, there was nothing left but civilian targets.

And most of the larger civilian targets had already been bombed as well (as in the famous firebombing of Tokyo).

Basically, they drew up a list of the largest yet-unbombed cities in Japan and picked the top two.

They did the same thing in Europe; the whole point of "city-busting" was to maximize the number of civilian deaths.

ghengis86
12-02-2015, 09:10 PM
Well of course they did.

Japanese military and industrial targets has already been bombed to smithereens, there was nothing left but civilian targets.

And most of the larger civilian targets had already been bombed as well (as in the famous firebombing of Tokyo).

Basically, they drew up a list of the largest yet-unbombed cities in Japan and picked the top two.

They did the same thing in Europe; the whole point of "city-busting" was to maximize the number of civilian deaths.




And this was months AFTER Japan had indicated that they would surrender. I think it was May of '45 when it was first floated. But it wasn't unconditional and therefore many more GIs would die on remote pacific islands and more Japanese civilians would be incinerated.

r3volution 3.0
12-02-2015, 09:17 PM
And this was months AFTER Japan had indicated that they would surrender. I think it was May of '45 when it was first floated. But it wasn't unconditional and therefore many more GIs would die on remote pacific islands and more Japanese civilians would be incinerated.

Yup

The popular myth is that we dropped the bomb to avoid having to invade the mainland.

In fact, neither was required to end the war.

enhanced_deficit
12-03-2015, 12:06 AM
More Died in firebombing Tokyo that the A bombs. The Germans didn't spare London or did the Japanese spare Nanking. War isn't a party People and that is WHY it should be the highest level of voting to initiate one. It should be an even higher threshold than a constitutional amendment.

It is easy to picture "war is hell". But harder ti imagine "Operation Freedom is hell".

It maybe war marketing success or I guess need to broaden my horizan as I have the disadvantage of not being too familair with history of wars and have just read about/seen on tube sanitized depictions of wars from a remote distance.

Zippyjuan
12-03-2015, 02:24 AM
Most wars don't have clear cut lines "civilians here- soldiers over here". And the weapons are crude. There is no "soldier bomb" which avoids killing civilians. In WII to try to limit the capacity to make war, the means of production were targeted- factories, railroads, energy plants and dams. Many cities in Germany were over 90% destroyed- not just Dresden. Terror was a weapon of war as well. Scare people into not fighting to break their wills. That was the point of the London Blitz. Yeah- most cities were targets in WWII. They weren't fighting much in the corn fields. The concept behind nuclear weapons was to have a weapon so terrible that nobody would want to go to war. It didn't end wars but it did change them. No more huge global wars- just more smaller ones.

timosman
12-03-2015, 02:47 AM
Yup

The popular myth is that we dropped the bomb to avoid having to invade the mainland.

In fact, neither was required to end the war.

It was clear by then the Russkies are going to be the new enemy. We needed to show them what we had. They needed 4 years to catch up - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDS-1

r3volution 3.0
12-03-2015, 02:53 AM
It was clear by then the Russkies are going to be the new enemy. We needed to show them what we had. They needed 4 years to catch up - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDS-1

I hear you, but that could have been accomplished by inviting the Russian military attache to a bomb test in Nevada.

timosman
12-03-2015, 02:56 AM
I hear you, but that could have been accomplished by inviting the Russian military attache to a bomb test in Nevada.

Nah, we needed to wave our dicks far and wide.

r3volution 3.0
12-03-2015, 03:13 AM
Nah, we needed to wave our dicks far and wide.

Ah, yes, if I remember my Aquinas, the criteria for a just war were legitimacy of the sovereign, a just cause, and dick-waving.

TheTexan
12-03-2015, 03:14 AM
More Died in firebombing Tokyo that the A bombs. The Germans didn't spare London or did the Japanese spare Nanking. War isn't a party People and that is WHY it should be the highest level of voting to initiate one. It should be an even higher threshold than a constitutional amendment.

Yes, it's very important that starting a war should take only the highest level of voting.

Lower level voting should not suffice.

CPUd
12-03-2015, 12:53 PM
I hear you, but that could have been accomplished by inviting the Russian military attache to a bomb test in Nevada.

I suspect by the time the war was over in Europe, the Russians had a good idea what the US had via captured German scientists (the ones who didn't go to the US). What the Russians were really wanting to know was if the US were willing to use it.

timosman
12-03-2015, 01:03 PM
What the Russians were really wanting to know was if the US were insane enough to be willing to use it.

ftfy

Could also be a case of somebody losing a bet. :rolleyes:

ghengis86
12-03-2015, 11:02 PM
Ah, yes, if I remember my Aquinas, the criteria for a just war were legitimacy of the sovereign, a just cause, and dick-waving.

Yes, there's a dick-waving section in the Heidelberg Catechism, as well. Seems both Catholics and Protestants aren't immune to it.