Yeah, well they set it on fire instead. So.. details, details.

CtrlAltDelete: Yeah, well they set it on fire instead. So.. details, details.

Fire is a traditional - even classical - way to indiscriminately slaughter men, women, and children. Gas, not so much.

Rules of war were different back then. Civilians were fair game. Chemical weapons weren't unheard of. Nothing "strange" about it.

BravadoGT: Rules of war were different back then.

Actually, the rules of war (aka the Geneva Protocols) prohibited chemical warfare. It was weak BS, but it was "the Rule."

IIRC, however, the USA did not sign on.

Lionel Mandrake: Actually, the rules of war (aka the Geneva Protocols) prohibited chemical warfare. It was weak BS, but it was "the Rule."

IIRC, however, the USA did not sign on.

True, but the Allies knew that the Axis didn't always keep their word. (Sarin nerve gas, for example, was a Nazi invention.) To counter this, the Allies kept large stocks of older chemical weapons, particularly mustard gas, in theater to be used in retaliation should the Nazis ever use chemical weapons first. As a matter of fact, a supply ship carrying mustard gas was attacked by the Luftwaffe in an Italian harbor and sank. It's been sitting there in the harbor ever since slowly leaking out mustard gas, nobody can get close to it and blowing it up would just spread the gas around. I don't doubt that if the Imperial Japanese had ever used chemical weapons on Allied forces like they had on the Chinese retaliation-in-kind would have been swift.

And the Japanese went overboard trying to make their own crazy weapons, like disease bombs and zepplin based missiles.

WWII was hell, but it could have been 100% worse if Truman and Hitler weren't the only leaders to go full retard.

doglover: WWII was hell, but it could have been 100% worse if Truman and Hitler weren't the only leaders to go full retard.

Yeah, one bomb doing what thousands had been doing for years is "full retard." Putting Truman and Hitler in the same category is the epitome of "full retard."

MasterThief: True, but the Allies knew that the Axis didn't always keep their word. (Sarin nerve gas, for example, was a Nazi invention.) To counter this, the Allies kept large stocks of older chemical weapons, particularly mustard gas, in theater to be used in retaliation should the Nazis ever use chemical weapons first. As a matter of fact, a supply ship carrying mustard gas was attacked by the Luftwaffe in an Italian harbor and sank. It's been sitting there in the harbor ever since slowly leaking out mustard gas, nobody can get close to it and blowing it up would just spread the gas around. I don't doubt that if the Imperial Japanese had ever used chemical weapons on Allied forces like they had on the Chinese retaliation-in-kind would have been swift.

its interesting to note that Hitler steadfastly refused to use chemical weapons in war, (despite being urged to by his commanders), having been injured by chemical weapons during WWI.

Now in the concentration camps though, that was fair game.

BravadoGT: Rules of war were different back then. Civilians were fair game. Chemical weapons weren't unheard of. Nothing "strange" about it.

Actually, attacks against civilians, at least on that scale, were very uncommon. There was a lot of controversy on both the British and German sides about whether it was appropriate to bomb civilian areas or even industrial areas away from clear military targets.

Unless, of course, you were talking about Jews or Poles, in which case all bets were off.

BravadoGT: Rules of war were different back then. Civilians were fair game. Chemical weapons weren't unheard of. Nothing "strange" about it.

Yeah, Japan had chemical weapons too. There's been some lawsuits because they abandoned some in China when they pulled out, on bases, and they've degraded since and causing pollution.

This made the news by itself, but then later there were government graft scandals involved with the removal contracts for extra fun and games :)

Lionel Mandrake: Putting Truman and Hitler in the same category is the epitome of "full retard."

This needs to be said again.

Doglover, you obviously do not agree with Truman's decision to use the atomic bombs, but to lump him together with Hitler diminishes any argument you could possibly posit.

I always figured if nuclear war broke out, bombing chemical weapons would be used to kill the survivors.

It wasn't about beating the Japanese, it was about beating the soviets to Japan. Remember how they kept the eastern europe territory?

Lionel Mandrake: Fire is a traditional - even classical - way to indiscriminately slaughter men, women, and children. Gas, not so much.

Okay. But there's some serious scholarship around the idea that while the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan were flashy (as it were), the firebombings of London, Tokyo, and Dresden were where the line of "killing civilians in mass events is okay" was crossed. People melted onto bridges. Smaller cities were firebombed too, Japan did it to Chongqing (one of the creators of "Doraemon" writes in a memoir that she had heard of it on the news as a kid during the war, but when Tokyo was firebombed realized just what it meant).

Of course Tokyo had already burnt terribly in 1923 in the "Big Kanto Earthquake Diaster." Quake hit while people were cooking lunch, and there were firestorms across the city. One of my high school teachers (in the 80's) was really old already, and he told me one day about being 8 in 1923, running to the imperial garden compound downtown (which was stone walled) and seeing a friend get sucked/blown out into the flames to his death.

Having escaped a house fire myself, I'm not anxious to be firebombed anytime. Though, I've never had serious gassing, so maybe it's better.

Better yet we never have to make those choices...

itazurakko: Though, I've never had serious gassing, so maybe it's better.

Mustard gas is a painful death over the course of 30min to an hour, where your innards are literally burning away.

Lost Thought 00: Mustard gas is a painful death over the course of 30min to an hour, where your innards are literally burning away.

Yeah, I've heard that it makes the phrase "hacking up a lung" literal. I have NO desire to experience that.

But burning alive is also very much not good.

Mentat: Actually, attacks against civilians, at least on that scale, were very uncommon. There was a lot of controversy on both the British and German sides about whether it was appropriate to bomb civilian areas or even industrial areas away from clear military targets.

Unless, of course, you were talking about Jews or Poles, in which case all bets were off.

Two words: Dresden, Germany.

itazurakko: Lost Thought 00: Mustard gas is a painful death over the course of 30min to an hour, where your innards are literally burning away.

Yeah, I've heard that it makes the phrase "hacking up a lung" literal. I have NO desire to experience that.

But burning alive is also very much not good.

This is why I prefer death by severe shock, the only embarrassing aspect is someone finding your body after your bowels moved.

Lionel Mandrake: CtrlAltDelete: Yeah, well they set it on fire instead. So.. details, details.

Fire is a traditional - even classical - way to indiscriminately slaughter men, women, and children. Gas, not so much.

Pfft like it's america's fault they built a city outta wood. Lesson learned.

Lionel Mandrake: doglover: WWII was hell, but it could have been 100% worse if Truman and Hitler weren't the only leaders to go full retard.

Yeah, one bomb doing what thousands had been doing for years is "full retard." Putting Truman and Hitler in the same category is the epitome of "full retard."

Very true, not really a valid comparison, but there is debate as to whether the use of atomic weapons was as necessary and that there was unanimous agreement about using them in the first place.

I think that's what s/he was saying

Also for the people talking about Dresden and comparing it to the Tokyo firebombings, I remember reading an article claiming that the death toll was largely estimated in excess and they revised it recently.

Link (new window)

Zoinks!: Lionel Mandrake: Putting Truman and Hitler in the same category is the epitome of "full retard."

This needs to be said again.

Doglover, you obviously do not agree with Truman's decision to use the atomic bombs, but to lump him together with Hitler diminishes any argument you could possibly posit.

Well I don't care about the nuclear weapons but he did inter thousands of Japanese Americans. Can't really say he was Hitler but there are similarities that cant be ignored.

doglover: WWII was hell, but it could have been 100% worse if Truman and Hitler weren't the only leaders to go full retard.

Stalin feels left out of your list.

I find it interesting that the Brits said "gas 'em, some will die but most will be driven away then you should burn the town" and the US said, "Nah, we'll just firebomb in an equilateral triangle a mile on each side, and incinerate the houses AND the people"

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

me_the_farker: Well I don't care about the nuclear weapons but he did inter thousands of Japanese Americans. Can't really say he was Hitler but there are similarities that cant be ignored.

FDR authorized internment, not Truman.

Truman's decision to nuke Japan is morally questionable - why not demonstrate the capability in mid-ocean with the message that the Japan mainland is next?

me_the_farker: Zoinks!: Lionel Mandrake: Putting Truman and Hitler in the same category is the epitome of "full retard."

This needs to be said again.

Doglover, you obviously do not agree with Truman's decision to use the atomic bombs, but to lump him together with Hitler diminishes any argument you could possibly posit.

Well I don't care about the nuclear weapons but he did inter thousands of Japanese Americans. Can't really say he was Hitler but there are similarities that cant be ignored.

You're confusing Truman with FDR, buddy.

They are lucky we didn't bust out the Bat Bombs! (new window)

Slam Bradley: They are lucky we didn't bust out the Bat Bombs! (new window)

The Japanese did use their fire balloons on us though, killing some kids at a picnic.
US attacked by fire balloons

doglover: And the Japanese went overboard trying to make their own crazy weapons, like disease bombs and zepplin based missiles.

WWII was hell, but it could have been 100% worse if Truman and Hitler weren't the only leaders to go full retard.

GODWIN! I called it first!

What do I win?

Cheops: me_the_farker: Zoinks!: Lionel Mandrake: Putting Truman and Hitler in the same category is the epitome of "full retard."

This needs to be said again.

Doglover, you obviously do not agree with Truman's decision to use the atomic bombs, but to lump him together with Hitler diminishes any argument you could possibly posit.

Well I don't care about the nuclear weapons but he did inter thousands of Japanese Americans. Can't really say he was Hitler but there are similarities that cant be ignored.

You're confusing Truman with FDR, buddy.


Yeah read the thread. Slinking away now.

Whatthefark: Mentat: Actually, attacks against civilians, at least on that scale, were very uncommon. There was a lot of controversy on both the British and German sides about whether it was appropriate to bomb civilian areas or even industrial areas away from clear military targets.

Unless, of course, you were talking about Jews or Poles, in which case all bets were off.

Two words: Dresden, Germany.

That occurred once total warfare became the accepted practice. Before the war, and even during the 1939-40 period before the invasion of France, attacking civilian centers was a questionable tactic. I should have added that caveat, my mistake.

Why does this surprise anyone?

Chemical weapons are the "poor man's nukes" nowadays, but it wasn't always true. They used to be the epitome of destructive power, and in WWII when it looked like it was going to be a fight to the last man on the Japanese home islands, it's hardly amazing that the war planners would want to resort to the then-most powerful weapons in an effort to shorten the war.

One of the legitimate reasons for using atomic weapons was to try to convince the Japanese Emperor to surrender. I know everyone else will deny this, but it was one of the reasons just the same.

TofuTheAlmighty: Truman's decision to nuke Japan is morally questionable - why not demonstrate the capability in mid-ocean with the message that the Japan mainland is next?

Because it was a giant science experiment.

That's not ALL it was, of course, but that's a big part of it. You can see the journals and all the notes with the angles, the annotated photos of the injuries, all of it.

Using two kinds of bombs, also, they could compare the effects of each.

TofuTheAlmighty: me_the_farker: Well I don't care about the nuclear weapons but he did inter thousands of Japanese Americans. Can't really say he was Hitler but there are similarities that cant be ignored.

FDR authorized internment, not Truman.

Truman's decision to nuke Japan is morally questionable - why not demonstrate the capability in mid-ocean with the message that the Japan mainland is next?

The Japanese wartime gov't could suppress or explain away such a demo. Also,I think we only had two A-bombs.

Also the impact of the Bomb was to bring the Russians in...and that convinced the Emperor to order a surrender.

Gyrfalcon: One of the legitimate reasons for using atomic weapons was to try to convince the Japanese Emperor to surrender. I know everyone else will deny this, but it was one of the reasons just the same.

True, but Eisenhower (as a general, obviously)and others in the WH thought that Japan might be talking to the Russians to mediate a surrender on the condition they get to keep the Emperor.

Truman wanted an unconditional surrender though and went ahead with the bombing.

Funny thing is that in the end Japan did get their emperor when the surrendered.

brainiac-dumdum: Gyrfalcon: One of the legitimate reasons for using atomic weapons was to try to convince the Japanese Emperor to surrender. I know everyone else will deny this, but it was one of the reasons just the same.

True, but Eisenhower (as a general, obviously)and others in the WH thought that Japan might be talking to the Russians to mediate a surrender on the condition they get to keep the Emperor.

Truman wanted an unconditional surrender though and went ahead with the bombing.

Funny thing is that in the end Japan did get their emperor when the surrendered.

Also, Eisenhower, Leahy, Hoover, MacArthur and many others were against using the bomb.

Eh. The bomb was a horrific weapon, no doubt. When you shock experienced bomber crews with your weapon, you know that is a true dealer of death. However, the invasion of Japan would have been much, much worse.

As awful as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, since the end of World War II no nuclear weapons have been used for any other purpose than testing. While it is purely speculation on my part to say that this is because the world is fully aware of their destructive power, allow me to posit that this knowledge was only gained by their use on those two Japanese cities. As such, and considering other factors like a possible invasion of the Japanese mainland, it may very well be possible that those two bombs saved more lives than they killed.

brainiac-dumdum: MacArthur and many others were against using the bomb.

He quickly changed his tune.

How many nukes did he request to be used in Korea?

Cheops: As such, and considering other factors like a possible invasion of the Japanese mainland, it may very well be possible that those two bombs saved more lives than they killed.

Only if they were not willing to surrender:

By the end of January 1945, some Japanese officials close to the Emperor were seeking surrender terms that would protect his position. These proposals, sent through both British and American channels, were assembled by General Douglas MacArthur into a 40-page dossier and given to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 2, two days before the Yalta Conference. The dossier was reportedly dismissed by Roosevelt out of hand-the proposals all included the condition that the Emperor's position would be assured, albeit possibly as a puppet ruler.

Link (new window)

Occulto: brainiac-dumdum: MacArthur and many others were against using the bomb.

He quickly changed his tune.

How many nukes did he request to be used in Korea?

I can't remember, but he did want to use them. I thought he wanted to use them on China.

TofuTheAlmighty: me_the_farker: Well I don't care about the nuclear weapons but he did inter thousands of Japanese Americans. Can't really say he was Hitler but there are similarities that cant be ignored.

FDR authorized internment, not Truman.

Truman's decision to nuke Japan is morally questionable - why not demonstrate the capability in mid-ocean with the message that the Japan mainland is next?

Well, seens how they weren't convinced after Hiroshima, I don't think a mid-ocean test shot would have had the desired effect.

There are "plans" written up for every scenerio imaginable or unimaginable. We probably had a "plan" to nuke Tokyo. There is probably a "plan" to nuke Florida if the Cubans ever invade and us god fearing, second amendment loving, Red Dawn watching Floridians can't hold them off by the time they reach the GA border.

If the Japanese had developed nuclear weapons, is there any question that they would have used them against the US and Chinese?

TheOther: If the Japanese had developed nuclear weapons, is there any question that they would have used them against the US and Chinese?

That would have required them to have an air force that could survive in the air for five minutes without being shot down.

TheOther: If the Japanese had developed nuclear weapons, is there any question that they would have used them against the US and Chinese?

Monkeys might also fly out of my butt.

At some point the hypotheticals are so unreal, and known to be unreal at the time (you want a good comparison of home standard of living toward the end, North Korea works pretty well) that they don't really factor in.

There just wasn't a time where they were almost winning and maybe had the bomb. No one but the US had the bomb.

itazurakko: TheOther: If the Japanese had developed nuclear weapons, is there any question that they would have used them against the US and Chinese?

Monkeys might also fly out of my butt.

At some point the hypotheticals are so unreal, and known to be unreal at the time (you want a good comparison of home standard of living toward the end, North Korea works pretty well) that they don't really factor in.

There just wasn't a time where they were almost winning and maybe had the bomb. No one but the US had the bomb.

It's used as an attempt to ease cognitive dissonance.

brainiac-dumdum: I can't remember, but he did want to use them. I thought he wanted to use them on China.

I recall he wanted to use them on the Chinese bases in Manchuria to get them to back off and stop supporting the North Korean forces.

So yeah, on China, but as part of the Korean War.

This is really old news. We even shipped them to our bases in the pacific. No idea where we ditched them after we dropped the bomb.

Mentat: Actually, attacks against civilians, at least on that scale, were very uncommon. There was a lot of controversy on both the British and German sides about whether it was appropriate to bomb civilian areas or even industrial areas away from clear military targets...Unless, of course, you were talking about Jews or Poles, in which case all bets were off.

Yeeaaaah. That whole "we're gonna Zyklon-B millions of people into oblivion" means that the Allies were more than within their range of responding with chemical weapons. Gas had been outlawed after WWI, but nobody trusted anyone not to use it. And then there were nukes instead. Fun.

Not a surprise it was on the table. Is this some kind of Right-Wing justification, proof that Great Britain, still suffering from V2 Rockets, was unwilling to consider taking these weapons off the table, and thus we should feel okay torturing and killing innocent Iraqis? I swear that Bill'O tried this angle a few months ago and KO shut him down then.