>Duh. There was a failed coup attempt by SOME military
>officials who would have rather all Japanese die than admit
>defeat. But the Emperors word was divine and final. The coup
>failed because the military officials who needed to be
>aligned with the coup for it to be successful, did not
>align.
>The extent of damage to Hiroshima was not known until after
>Nagasaki had been destroyed.

But the fact still remains that the Emperor did not override the military's concerns until AFTER both bombs were detonated.

Did they know how many was killed? No. But they did know that the cities were in shambles? Yes. Did they know people were killed in large numbers? Yes.

>The American lives lost were ALL military lives. None
>civilian.

SO WHAT? Does that mean they are supposed to be expendible?

>I'll repeat;
>
>"I'll say this, military reasons, desire for atomic
>diplomacy (Impressing the Soviets), racism, the need for a
>number of scientists to validate their work, fear of
>Congressional investigation for a two billion dollar
>expenditure, and the immeasurable momentum of the Manhattan
>Project itself, propelled the administration to use the
>bomb."

It's still just as irrelevant as it was when you said it the first time.

>Again, you fail to see how politics plays into this. The
>U.S. didn't know what the full effects of the bomb would be.
>They needed targets they had very little or no destruction
>from previuos bombings. The rest of Japan was fucked from
>being bombed(Tokyo included). Hiroshima and Nagasaki had
>not been touched and they were large enough cities, so they
>were chosen for the tests. Kyoto was spared for its
>"historical value", but it was also on the list of possible
>targets.

They were worried about the bomb somehow becoming a dud, yes, but that doesn't mean that they didn't know the potential destruction the bomb was going to have. This wasn't a mere experiment, as if to say, "let's try it and see what happens".

>Shinjimae baka shiro. The only thing pathetic is the way you
>think. You obviously have zero experience with any form
>battle where your life is on the line and have never seen
>someone die violently in front of your face, much like the
>administration whose balls you polish whenever possible. If
>you had, you would not wish that fate on someone who had
>done nothing to deserve it.

You're right; I have no military experience, or any kind in which my life was on the line. But I think I'm honest in saying that if I were, the last life I would be concerned about is the life that's trying to end mine.

>Now don't you say they deserved
>it. If some Iraqis came to your house, liquified your
>families eyes, injected them with drugs so they wouldn't
>lose consciousness, slowly burned the flesh off their
>bodies, cut off their limbs, shot them all in the stomach,
>left them to die slowly and then went to every family in
>your little country town and did the same, you would say
>your family and the others didn't deserve that. Multiply
>that experience a hundred-fold and you got the effects of
>those bombs.

You're right. My family doesn't deserve that. Nor did other families in Japan.

But we aren't talking about who deserves what. We are talking about what was done in order to end the war and the steps taken in lieu to it by both parties. Cherry-picking who shouldn't have died is a waste of time, and it's ignoring the simple fact that more people - and particularly more Americans, which was, and should be, the main factor - would have died had we not dropped that bomb than if we had.

>But I could be wrong. Maybe you have had experience with
>death and you actually enjoy it. Your pathetic sadism loves
>the fact that Native Americans are damn near extinct. It
>thinks slavery was actually good for Africans. The
>assassinations of the 60's Black leaders were justified.
>But since nobody with any true experience with life & death
>would ever have 13,000+ posts on Okayplayer, I'll say you
>just a punk. Scared to do any real research beyond your
>foxnews nourished ideals, because you might actually learn a
>bit of truth. And that truth just might make you have to
>throw out everything you've been hoodwinked and bamboozled
>into believing for all these years.
>Now, i'm all for cats being passionate about they shit, but
>you really sound like you think Rupert Murdoch got scouts on
>OKP. Dog, they ain't here. Just admit that the bombings had
>very little to do with "saving lives" and ending an already
>ending war. Just admit there were other factors involved.
>It's not hard...it might even make you feel a little better.
What information could possibly that you or anyone else has that could possibly change my mind about this? You can bring in 3,000 pieces of material saying this or that, but the fact is that the basic argument is still the same: Japan refused to surrender, we hit Hiroshima, the Soviets invaded Manchuria, Japan STILL refused to surrender, we hit Nagasaki, and the emperor finally intervened and surrendered unconditionally.

Now, unless YOU can find something that challenges the BASIC facts of what led to the end of the war, then guess what? You're wasting your time. Because we were involved in the bloodiest war of all time, and our primary opponent FAILED to surrender...TWICE. And you can sit here and make these baseless assumptions and whine and complain because you can't counter that, but the PREMISE STILL STANDS, and there's nothing you can do about that.
__________________________
"Most offensive quote from an anti-war activist - From Medea Benjamin, a "peace campaigner" from San Francisco, objecting to the gated demonstration area outside of Fleet Center: "We don't deserve to be put in a detention centre, a concentration camp." is a concentration camp, ninny. Now, go stand in a corner and grow some shame." -

My politics and sports blog .