"like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima" - Americas Iraq Attack Plan

yellum

"Shock and Awe" tactics they're calling em. Guess the word Blitzkrieg was taken.

Read this from a few news sources:
here ,CBS src here andCommon Dreams src here

800 cruise missiles smacking into Iraq in the space of 48 hours. Thats one every 4 minutes. Twice as many as were deployed over the last Gulf War which took 40 days. Thats going to get CNN's ratings back up.

Ullman told CBS reporter David Martin. So “you take the city down. You get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."

Lemming

From here

The main objective was not just to disable Iraq's fighting capacity but to leave the population dispirited and unwilling to support Saddam's regime.

Didn't Hitler try this on the English during the Blitz in 1940? Wow .. that was a success. War (or Terror Attacks) does funny things to the mindset of a nation that you can't predict Like perhaps the US after 9/11 when Al Queda wanted them to quake in their boots and do nothing?

But seriously though, do they think the Iraqi people are going to hail the US as saviours after that? No water, No power, disease rampant in Baghdad?


From here

He wants to do to Baghdad what we did to Hiroshima.

Nobody in their RIGHT MIND should want to inflict another "Hiroshima" on the world. That name stands as a testimant to why fission weapons should never again be used. They are not military weapons. They are designed to kill civilians - to anhilate population centres. To even aspire to do something "similar" is the work of a very warped mind.

rien_du_tout

Something I've been asking myself from a young(er) age......... .Could the atomic bombs dropped on hiroshima and nagisaki be considered war crimes of some sort?? I think that the infliction of so many civilian deaths makes it seem like it could, although I dont understand the legal definition of a war crime or whatever. It has to be up there with the worst moments of human civilisation.

seán

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hellrazer

Originally posted by rien_du_tout
Something I've been asking myself from a young(er) age......... .Could the atomic bombs dropped on hiroshima and nagisaki be considered war crimes of some sort?? I think that the infliction of so many civilian deaths makes it seem like it could, although I dont understand the legal definition of a war crime or whatever. It has to be up there with the worst moments of human civilisation.

seán

It seems to me like the whole world has forgotten that the US was/is the only country to have ever used not one but two Nuclear weapons in a conflict.
The atrocities of Nagisaki and Hiroshima should have been treated as crimes agains humanity.It will never happen though because of who it was that carried it out.The US is wrong trying to police the planet and they wont even listen to the UNs ruling.In most cases willing to go it alone against these "rogue states".Its the US that needs sanctioning not the Iraqis.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hellrazer

Originally posted by daveirl
Oh for christ's sake. Can the Anti-Americanism. Yes Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible events but come on the US were the good guys. The world was at war with pure evil. The Japanese were as bad as the Nazi. Just look up Unit 731 if you want to see about War Crimes. My god, I'm not a big fan of US foreign policy at the moment but come on, they saved all of our asses in WW 2

Too right Im "slightly":) anti-US.
Im talking about the number of innocent civilians killed by those two Atomic bombs.If it had only been the murderous Japanese army that were killed then fine but it wasnt.
It was mainly civilians.
Its also the case with Iraq.
Im all for the ousting of Sadam but not at the expense of innocent children who by the way are still dying from the depleted uranium weapons that were used in Gulf War 1.
Come on FFS the US still wont give the Iraqis enough medicine to treat their kids leukemia.So dont start all this Im all for the US crap.The US are the ones at fault here and given half a chance they`ll bomb Iraq with more cluster bombs,depleted uranium weapons etc.
Richie.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hellrazer

Originally posted by daveirl
And how would you have gone about winning WW2. It took the atomic bomb for them to surrender.

I dont have an opinion on how the war should have been won.It definately should not have involved Atomic bombs.
It was still at the loss of massive civilian life.Thats my point nothing more nothing less.
Besides I think any country would have surrendered after that.
Dave would your attitude still be the same if the US had dropped the bombs on German soil rather than Japanese soil????I think not.Just because its on the other side of the globe it doesnt seem to effect us here in the West.Similar situation in Iraq."Its in the middle east so I dont really care" seems to be the attitude of many in the west.
Richie

KdjaCL

Originally posted by daveirl
And how would you have gone about winning WW2. It took the atomic bomb for them to surrender.

At the rate the US were moving tru the Pacific surrendering was the easy way out.
They still had enough troops and weaponary to fight on for a long time in the pacific but they constantly being pushed back, the general consensus among the japanese was that the US would have gotten to Tokyo eventually and by surrendering they knocked that on the head.

Also with the fall of the rest of the Axis and other factors whether those Nukes were used or not ,the war was being lost on all fronts by the Axis so i have to agree they should not have been dropped on civilian cities.

Germany had fallen before the japs surrendered so it was only a matter of time and with the excess troops US had stationed in Europe and also the rest of the Allies Japan really had no choice and no hope of winning.

kdjac

Clintons Cat

"Shock and Awe" tactics they're calling em. Guess the word Blitzkrieg was taken.

Reading that article
The term that comes to my mind is "Gunboat Diplomacy"
Ie send a Gunboat to Shell some renagade tribal village and the rebelllious tribes will concede to the overwhelming technological supremacy.

m1ke

the nuclear strikes on japan were an act of pure malice, coldy calculated

1. The option of contacting japan and showing japanese scientists a test version of bomb, and saying surrender or we'll use this on you was debated and dropped.

2. The Japanese were going to surrender anyway but the Americans wanted an "unconditional" surrender and the Japanese feared for their sovereignty and didn't want their emperor to be deposed.

3. The term "unconditional" surrender was actually used mistakenly by Roosevelt in a press conference, and to keep face and not look like a chicken he had to continue using it. This also forced Churchill to use the term too so not as to show a split. This effectively cut of all negotiations accidently.

So America could have avoided dropping the Bomb but they just wanted a fast and easy way out. Infact I think simply showing Japanese scientists a nuke go off in the Nevada desert(or wherever they do it) would be enough to secure their surrender.

ykt0di9url7bc3

gl Bush...have fun and place nice


<Saddam>"But I'm ready for him!"

bonkey

Originally posted by daveirl
come on, they saved all of our asses in WW 2

So winning the war for the good guys should excuse any atrocities comitted? This is effectively what you're trying to argue here.

I'm not saying Nagasaki and Hiroshima were atrocities, but there is penty of evidence to indicate that the "generally held" belief of them saving lives is, at the very least, suspect - which should be sufficient enough grounds for at least an investigation.

It is possible for both sides in a war to commit atrocities.

ncidentally, I believe Greenpeace or Earthwatch or some such organisation has come out and stated that the deliberate targetting of water and electrical supplies which affect civilian areas in a nation which has a resource network of such low quality already would certainly constitute a war-crime, as the impact on the populace would be devestating.

Nice to see that its being touted here as a favoured tactic.

jc

rien_du_tout

Originally posted by daveirl
Going OT: But its generally accepted that far more would have died in the War in the Pacific if it had continued on instead of being ended by the nukes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I'd almost agree with u there Dave. It was thought that sacrificing a load of Japs would be better than getting their good lads killed. I dont want any1 to be killed but people in uniform 1st please. (ya know I mean soldiers and not firemen or nursing or something:)

Also it was a sign of power to Russia. It was not absolutely necessary, ok there's a case for it but just because the allies were the good guys generally doesnt mean they couldnt have done bad things. The dropping of the atomic bomb has to been seen as the lowest point humanity has ever gone to. Killing eachother is bad enough, but in that manner, inexcusable. They made a moral choice and I definetly dont agree with it but hey, history is written by the winners, and I dont believe my view is "anti-american" in the racist way u imply. I admire many americans but not any person who orders the deaths of innocents, for whatever reason.

seán

Sand

I dont think the Japanese would surrender so readily as perhaps the germans did when it became obvious they couldnt win - even then the german high command fought on to the very last street in Berlin. As for the Japanese they had a completely different culture which regarded kamikazies as national heroes and spiritually pure yada yada, and they despised their enemies who surrendered because it didnt fit with their samurai ehtos they were getting going with their imperialism - why did you think they treated POWs so badly?

The US believed taking Japans mainland would be a nightmare - Saipan, the only Japanese proper island they took by force ended up with the civillians jumping off cliffs rather than be captured. The Japanese milatary had a proven track record of fighting to practically the very last man. The mountainous terrain of Japan would make any invasion all the harder. The whole Japanese honour thing would mean they wouldnt surrender in any fashion which made them lose face - unless they were "shocked and awed" by something as god awful as atomic bombs. An interesting point to note is that the 2nd bomb was dropped after the first and in that time the Japanese did not surrender - it took a second for them to realise they couldnt combat this.

But they were meant to surrender to movie footage ( lies and propaganda no doubt to demoralise us )? Im not to sure thatd happen tbh given the above. As for unconditional surrender? Yes, unconditional surrender is what you look for when you want to prevent the regime continuing in power - why wasnt a conditional surrender arranged for the Germans after D day or the battle of the bulge when it became clear the germans had lost....

Personally the only thing I disagree with about using the bombs is the choice of target - surely a fairly deserted island close to the Japanese coast could have been used a demonstration - but then they didnt surrender after the dropping of the first bomb onto a city so whose to say theyd have been impressed by a deserted island.

Zachary Taylor

I admire many americans but not any person who orders the deaths of innocents, for whatever reason.

I don't understand how anyone can fail to have anything but admiration for Harry Truman or General Marshall, considering their careers as a whole. Hiroshima was unspeakably awful, but knowing what we today know about American ability to fight a land war in Asia, particularly with an army that had just halped to conquer Europe, I think that they made the right decision. I would also consider...

http://www.eppc.org/publications/xq/ASP/pubsID.123/qx/pubs_viewdetail.htm

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
An interesting point to note is that the 2nd bomb was dropped after the first

Sorry, bit this cracked me up.

What...you mean the second bomb wasnt dropped before the first? Gosh

Seriously tho...I think you left out a word or two there...you were (I assume) going to point out that there was 3 days between bombs ?

and in that time the Japanese did not surrender - it took a second for them to realise they couldnt combat this.

Well, in fairness, given that this was a never-before-seen weapon, I think it not unreasonable that it would take time to sit back and first of all say "WTF just happened to our city", "Was this some trick", and "What the hell do we do now".

While we may be used to our leaders reacting to world-events literally within hours, I dont think 3 days was a particularly long time to debate something of this magnitude. Imagine the reaction time of any nation today if it lost a city to a never-before-seen weapon? Even if they knew who was responsible, the impact of the introduction of a new weapon with previously-unheard-of power will force any nation to stop and think.

Also...was the first bombing followed by an ultimatum? Along the lines of "you've just seen what we can do, and we will keep doing this unless you surrender - you have 48 hours"?

Personally the only thing I disagree with about using the bombs is the choice of target - surely a fairly deserted island close to the Japanese coast could have been used a demonstration - but then they didnt surrender after the dropping of the first bomb onto a city so whose to say theyd have been impressed by a deserted island.

Absolutely...but surely the onus is on them to have tried?

The acts of WW2 covered no-one in glory. Both sides abandoned the previous doctrine of avoiding civilian targets. Like children with new toys, both sides revelled in heaping any form of destruction on the other side. I'm not suggesting for a moment that this was the only potential war-crime, nor denying that the losing side comitted more than their fair share.

All I am saying is that it is worrying when a military see the acts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a template to copy (in terms of its impact on the people). If any you see those events as a good use of power, then fair enough...you will no doubt support this, but I cannot.

jc


jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Carpo

It should be noted that the only condition that the Japeneese required for their surrender was the provision that the emporer would be unharmed (a condition which was later granted during thier 'unconditional surrender' anyway). It could be siad that the Japeneese could not surrender without this condition as the emperor was practically seen as akin to a god, and more important than the lives of the Japaneese people.

Now the Under Secretary of State at the time (sorry cant think of his name off the top of my head) had been the ambassador to Japan for 10 years prior to the war and should have known this arguably better than anyone else in America. And yet the part of the Pottsdam Declaration, calling for Japans surrender, that said the emporer would be unharmed was edited out just before it was broadcast.

I find it ironic that the comparison between the current situation and this historical event should be made by someone important to the Bush administration, when back then it would seem that a conscious descision was made to persue a military solution without having a real go at a diplomatic one, which I'm sure many people would feel, bares a striking resemblence to the whats happening now.

DeVore

The Emperor actually WAS seen as a god. In fact is wasnt until later that the Emperor rescinded the traditional claim on Godhood.

DeV
ps: Welcome to Boards Carpo

Carpo

ps: Welcome to Boards Carpo

Thank you

Incidentaly I've just been reading this site about the whole event. Very interesting stuff. If anyone wants to know more about the nuclear bombings they should have a read of it.

m1ke

I can find a certain similarity in the fact that America refused to show the Japanese a test case of their nuclear capabilities to let them preview the massive destruction and loss of life a refusal to surrender would mean, and the surrendering issue terms.

They didn't pursue diplomatic routes or possible alternatives to war which would have saved what - 80,000 innocent civilians (I don't know the exact amount). I would accept the Americans arguments that the nuclear bombs saved more lives in relative terms if I knew they had no other possible alternatives...

This same trait I think can be seen by Americas refusal to exhaust diplomatic avenues in the iraw situation. 'War is just a continuation of policy' has never been more true here, a situation where oil would cost 100 dollars a barrel would be an unacceptable scenario for them.

The initial question though: the atomic bombs dropped on "hiroshima and nagisaki be considered war crimes of some sort??" : Who do you pin it on though, no one would accept responsibility for this - The guys who designed the bomb, the president - who can claim he was acting on the advice of the civil service, the guy flying the aeroplane who actually dropped the bomb.

It's this dethacted and distant sort of warefare that makes it easy for war to be a continuation of policy. No one will be ultimately be responsible for the atrocities that might happen in Iraq if it is carpet bombed with 800 missiles in 48 hours.

rien_du_tout

Originally posted by Zachary Taylor
I don't understand how anyone can fail to have anything but admiration for Harry Truman or General Marshall, considering their careers as a whole.

Huh? Ok, so once u stock up a decent number of "being a good boy" points u dont have to make any moral choices anymore, and furthermore those choices cant be argued against!? This seems such silly logic I'll leave it there coz thats obviously not what u meant to imply.

I would also consider...

http://www.eppc.org/publications/xq/ASP/pubsID.123/qx/pubs_viewdetail.htm

Ya I checked out that site, but I dont think its very balanced.

In a just war, and certainly the Allied cause was just, all military action should be designed to destroy the enemy's capacity and will to continue fighting.
Hmmmmm, this leaves too much open for use, me thinks. 1st of all, every1 fighting a war thinks their side is just, generally, and also, it appears to conclude that no line needs to be drawn as where to stop in achieving your goal.

At the bottom of the website points 1 and 2 simply try state the fact that Japan wasnt thinking of surrendering and the fact they were going to resist invasion. Neither of these justify the use of the atomic bomb in my mind. Think back to the start of the war between these 2 countries and I'm sure both were still true, and if the americans had used them then I'm sure every1 would say it saved the lives of countless Chinese and others, etc. But does the fact 1 immoral thing will prevent some1 else murdering make it right?? I dont think so.......and I would have thought the mindset that "the end justifies the means" would have gone long ago.

The last 3 points are again based on the thinking that if I can do something immoral, that will stop something immoral happening to my side then its ok.

seán

Shinji

The victors always get to write history how they choose, don't they?

A lot of the points made about Hiroshima and Nagasaki on both sides here are valid. However, let's not pretend that the Japanese were the only people with imperialist intentions in the Asia Pacific area at the time; the British, the French, the Russians and most of all the Americans had serious expansionist policies in the region. War was just about inevitable; and in reality, there weren't any "good guys", just as there were no "good guys" during the first world war in Europe. In the Pacific, there were horrific atrocities and human rights abuses on both sides - the Japanese were barbaric in their savage treatment of prisoners of war and of the native populations in areas they invaded, but the Americans were terrifyingly complacent about millions of deliberately planned civilian deaths.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the only Japanese cities razed to the ground; they just go down in history because they were the first uses of nuclear weapons in wartime. Casualties in Tokyo were actually higher; on a single warm summer night, the Americans dropped sticks covered in burning tar from a height on the entirely wooden-built residential districts of the city in a circle, so that the flames would spread inwards and nobody would be left alive. There was no military target in the area and the dead were almost entire women, children and the elderly.

The suggestion that the Japanese would never have surrendered because of their culture of Samurai honour is one that's only really made by people who don't understand the Japanese mindset but like to make flippant comments regardless. The fact is that the atomic weapons may have speeded up the Japanese surrender, but it would have occured regardless. In fact, it's a self defeating argument; you say the Japanese would never have surrendered even in the face of overwhelming odds, but yet in the face of overwhelming odds in the form of nukes, they, er, surrendered - proving that however proud, arrogant and brave they may have been, they weren't stupid.

Besides which, I don't honestly believe that protecting the lives of soldiers is a valid excuse for the cold-blooded slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Maybe that's just me, eh? Or maybe the thinking of those defending the act isn't a million miles off the thinking of those who ordered it; namely, that they're only nips, so who cares really?

Chaos-Engine

Originally posted by daveirl
Going OT: But its generally accepted that far more would have died in the War in the Pacific if it had continued on instead of being ended by the nukes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Perhaps
But they would have more than likely be military deaths and not innocient civilians...

yellum

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine
Perhaps
But they would have more than likely be military deaths and not innocient civilians...

Uhm, why are soldiers not innocent anymore. Trained killers they may be but jesus a lot of em were drafted or pressured or brainwashed into fighting for their country. All life is equally precious surely, or are some more equal than others ?

Chaos-Engine

Originally posted by yellum
Uhm, why are soldiers not innocent anymore. Trained killers they may be but jesus a lot of em were drafted or pressured or brainwashed into fighting for their country. All life is equally precious surely, or are some more equal than others ?

yes actually

Men(only males are conscripted unless you're an israeli) are expendable. Females and Children aren't. They can produce more members of society while men jsut help to build it...

Soldiers whether conscripted or not are going to be attacking YOU(the traditional enemy). Civilians will not be. Soldiers aren't innocient. They are part of a collective force that is aimed at your destruction.
Civilians just have views.

Chaos-Engine

And another thing.

I would have prefared twice as much soldiers to have died in WW2 than to have seen the hateful attacks on Japan with the use of the Atomic Bomb... Indiscriment Killing ...

Men, Women, Children, Hospitals, schools.. an entire city ffs

Pearl habour was a Military base!!

Moriarty

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine
yes actually

Men(only males are conscripted unless you're an israeli) are expendable. Females and Children aren't. They can produce more members of society while men jsut help to build it...

Uhm... No. Im no less valuable than a woman or child, thanks very much. Children are not some other-wordly lifeform that suddenly metamorphose into nasty adults. I see no difference between men and women in the terms we are talking about either. Note: I am not saying that children are valid targets in war, im simply saying that no person is expendable, be it man woman or child. I would suggest that your thinking is antiquated.

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine
Soldiers whether conscripted or not are going to be attacking YOU(the traditional enemy). Civilians will not be. Soldiers aren't innocient. They are part of a collective force that is aimed at your destruction.
Civilians just have views.

This is cods-wollop. During the draft in the US/UK, any man not in a protected industry (mining, etc) was forced to take up arms. When a draft is in effect the difference between the majority of the armed forces and civilians is blurred at best. Please remember that every able-bodied person contributed to the overall war effort. All the women began working in factorys, public transport and all the other previously male-dominated areas, fueling the war economy. Civilians had far more than views, they actively participated in the continuation of the war on both sides.

Many soldiers that were drafted hated the very idea of going to war, but according to your thinking, simply because their government forced them to participate they are no longer innocent.

There is no black and white, only varying shades of grey.

Moriarty

whoops, forgot this reply and too lazy to edit it in..

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine
And another thing.

I would have prefared twice as much soldiers to have died in WW2 than to have seen the hateful attacks on Japan with the use of the Atomic Bomb... Indiscriment Killing ...

Men, Women, Children, Hospitals, schools.. an entire city ffs

Pearl habour was a Military base!!

This is simply nonsensical. If twice as many soldiers had died, those same people and citys that you would be saving from nagasaki and hiroshima would die and be destroyed many times over, with possibly even more cities being leveled with the continuation of conventional warfare.