my freind sent me this - what do you think?
Printable View
my freind sent me this - what do you think?
Reminds me of the play Picasso at the Lapin Agile by Steve Martin... someone is predicting what will happen in the 20th century and says "the city of Hiroshima will be completely modernized." at which Einstein snaps his to her to give her full attention.
Other than that it's one of the duller political cartoons I've seen as it tries to create parallels that aren't there. Granted it was a horrible thing, but to call it a terrorist act? Not so much, The US made sure to drop a bunch of leaflets beforehand warning the populace.
I don't think it is that funny, but I don't think it is in bad taste either.
Hiroshma was a tragedy, but one of which I don't know it could be avoided.
Still, laughing with tragedy is a human way to deal with it. ER doctors laugh with what they deal with, as do lawyers, undertakers, ...
It is simply a way of dealing with it.
The same goes for the Mohammed cartoon.
As for the bombings...
60 years later it is easy to take weeks pouring over information, and then deciding what the people of the day had only days for, with unreliable info to base their decision on.
The one good thing that flowed from the bombings of Hirsohima and Nagasaki -which were terribly inefficient, as far as nukes go- is that everyone became so scared of MAD that noone ever depolyed the real bad boys, like the megaton hydrogen bombs.
I also think that the pilots didn't know what they were going to drop.
They would've known it was out of the ordinary, but with the 'need to know' in the military, they would not have known what they were going to cause.
That gives a slanted view of it. In fairness, most political cartoons do. To frame it properly, mention which publication it was originally printed in.
The obvious omission is the beginning of the story. The cartoon, only takes the conclusion of the story for their attempt at making a point.
Regards,
Mitch
Actually, "objective" is a better word to use than "slanted."Quote:
Originally Posted by SinglerM
The kid in the cartoon (an innocent, whose mind is not clouded by any personal bias) presumably knows nothing about that particular bombing, which ultimately claimed over a hundred thousand lives. With the recent willingness to throw the word "terror" around quite a bit, the child is simply learning about another premeditated attack (which, frankly, was intended to destroy civilian life on a massive scale), and calling it what he assumes others around him would.
After having fire bombed many of Japan's wooden cities for quite some time, killing untold numbers of civilians, the US was frustrated that their enemy's will to fight was unbroken and as defiant as ever. In their desperation, a way to bring Japan's stubborn military brass to their knees was sought. Cold and calculated, the two famous bombs they dropped did exactly that, which brought on the unconditional surrender. Was it an effective decision that saved many Allied lives? You better believe it. When asked to recall their memories, do the Japanese describe it in those words? Absolutely not. They will describe terror in graphic detail - a word more commonly used by those who are terrorized, as opposed to those who unleash terror.
The 9/11 attackers obviously didn't underline "terror" on a whiteboard during their planning stages; they set out to do as the Enola Gay pilots did, and bring a defiant enemy to its knees in a fell swoop. The civilian lives lost on that day were a fraction of those lost to the many bombings in Japan. The point is, each attacker viewed their actions as "necessary," and neither thought of themselves as "terrorists" in the undertaking.
Nickelbag is right!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickelking
9/11 kills 3,000 civillans and from both bombs USA kills 220,000 to 400,000 civillans so see there is no parallel at all
Again he is right cos the leaflets make it all betterQuote:
Originally Posted by Nickelking
lol, don't get me wrong it was an atrocity. I don't think the bombs should have been dropped, but I think the comparison isn't well founded.
Edit: I'd like to say that I find it in poor taste to start a thread asking for opinions and turn around and respond to an opinion contrary to yours sarcastically and insultingly.
Obviously it was intended to make people thing, but I think the comparisons that it is referring to are totally different, but the artist/author has achieved his goal regardless hence this discussion.
now this is insulting and then someQuote:
Originally Posted by Nickelking
See, this is why I don't shave insult, it burns, stings, and is worse than most astringents, not a bad exfoliator though, especially the dead sea version. I much prefer to use the body shop shave cream, but proraso isn't bad. Lately I've taken to using somerset's shave oil before the cream, while I'm lathering, but I am worried that when I actually get down to straight razor shaving that it might make the handle of the razor too slippery as some people have mentioned. YMMV of course, but that's just my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayzor
If an A-bomb were dropped on an American city today, it would be defined a terrorist act, no matter who did it, and for whatever reason. The politicians who throw these words around don't seem to realize that we live in a glass house. I love America, and I am a veteran, but I don't think we have a great deal to be self-righteous about.
During the 40s, many Americans viewed the Japanese people as big, dangerous, yellow-skinned, pointy-eyed bugs that needed exterminating. I'm glad we've gotten past that.
What really scares me is when guys like Donald Rumsfeld talk seriously about developing small nukes to use as "bunker-busters." No one in the world has used atomic weapons for over 60 years. He wants to jinx that just to blow some guy out of his hole in the ground? :thinking:
Norm
They knew, a member of the black powder shooting club in Arizona that I was in was the reserve navigator for the Enloa Gay. He said they were told to wear special goggles when the bomb dropped. They were also training intensely what he referred to as the "drop and scoot". They had to drop the bomb and get as much air speed as they could to get out of the blast area. I remember hearing Paul Tibbets (the pilot) stating he felt like his seat was hit with a sledge hammer with the shock wave hit the plane. I also remembering him saying he had no regrets of dropping the bomb. It shaved hundreds of thousands of lives for all countries concerned by helping the war conclude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
I also remember reading that the pilot has publicly stated many times that he had no regrets whatsoever. I can imagine that almost anybody in his place will feel the same though - if you want to remain sane, you better view what you did as 'saving lives'.
As far as how many lives were saved by the bombings that's just speculation anyways. It precipitated unconditional surrender, however, most of that summer the japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender. Obviously the unconditional part of it was more important to the US politicians than the 'hundreds of thousands of lives'. And then clearly its better that those deaths are born by the enemy, even if you have to trade for civilians, than by both militaries in continued fighting.
But I'll be really surprised if the only consideration was the surrender of Japan. I just can't imagine how a demonstration to to rest of the world of the new military capability of US hasn't been just as important. But perhaps Bruno is right, if using a nuclear weapon just to see how it works in real life was unavoidable due to our human nature, it is best that you use a small one early on and get over with it.
Kenrup ia absoloutly correct, and any honest review of history will show this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenrup
The dropping of the A-Bomb was no more of a terrorist act than the invasion of Manchuria or the Blitz. Anyone who feels that Japan was the unfortunate victim of Imperial US agression should review the events at Pearl Harbor, the Philipines, and Nanking. And if you've a strong stomach, google Unit 731.
Wat the dropping of an A-Bomb horrible? Yes, of course it was, but so is every aspect of war. It is homicide on an industrial scale. For those of you who stil think that it was wrong to use that particular weapon,ask yourself honestly, would the Japanese have used it if they had it?
I think one thing people are forgetting, however, is that the laws of war have changed since the 1940's to what they are today. Today, we wouldn't dream of dropping a low yield bomb on a predominantly civilian target because of collateral damage. At the time the decision was made to drop the bombs civilian casualties were viewed a little differently.
And another question to ask is, what was the alternative? Japan had already attacked us pretty much out of the blue (although I do believe there was some warning.) And have you ever heard the term Operation Downfall? If not google it. It was the code name for the operation to invade Japan. Take a look that the suspected casualty numbers. Were talking anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions of troops killed and that just on our side within the first week. Yes, in one week. Now, before someone says, "well they wanted to be in uniform, they signed up for it, they get what they deserve" remember that this was not the case. The draft was in full swing so it was not an all volunteer force as it was today. There were a some who went on record as saying that the bombings were a mistake and that Japan was ready to surrender before we even bombed them.
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."
- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
However, captured Japanese documents and post war interrogations of Japanese military leaders disclose that information concerning the number of Japanese planes available for the defense of the home islands was dangerously in error. During the sea battle at Okinawa alone, Japanese
Kamikaze aircraft sank 32 Allied ships and damaged more than 400 others. But during the summer of 1945, American top brass concluded that the Japanese had spent their air force since American bombers and fighters daily flew unmolested over Japan.
What the military leaders did not know was that by the end of July the Japanese had been saving all aircraft, fuel, and pilots in reserve, and had been feverishly building new planes for the decisive battle for their homeland. As part of Ketsu-Go, the name for the plan to defend Japan -- the Japanese were building 20 suicide takeoff strips in southern Kyushu with underground hangars. They also had 35 camouflaged airfields and nine seaplane bases.
On the night before the expected invasion, 50 Japanese seaplane bombers, 100 former carrier aircraft and 50 land based army planes were to be launched in a suicide attack on the fleet. The Japanese had 58 more airfields in Korea, western Honshu and Shikoku, which also were to be used for massive suicide attacks.
Allied intelligence had established that the Japanese had no more than 2,500 aircraft of which they guessed 300 would be deployed in suicide attacks. In August 1945, however, unknown to Allied intelligence, the Japanese still had 5,651 army and 7,074 navy aircraft, for a total of 12,725 planes of all types. Every village had some type of aircraft manufacturing activity. Hidden in mines, railway tunnels, under viaducts and in basements of department stores, work was being done to construct new planes. This doesn't sound like a country on the verge of surrender to me. But I wasn't there and probably don't have the whole story.
Additionally, the Japanese were building newer and more effective models of the Okka, a rocket-propelled bomb much like the German V-1, but flown by a suicide pilot. When the invasion became imminent, Ketsu-Go called for a fourfold aerial plan of attack to destroy up to 800 Allied ships.
While Allied ships were approaching Japan, but still in the open seas, an initial force of 2,000 army and navy fighters were to fight to the death to control the skies over Kyushu. A second force of 330 navy combat pilots were to attack the main body of the task force to keep it from using its fire support and air cover to protect the troop carrying transports.While these two forces were engaged, a third force of 825 suicide planes was to hit the American transports.
As the invasion convoys approached their anchorages, another 2,000 suicide planes were to be launched in waves of 200 to 300 , to be used in hour by hour attacks. By mid-morning of the first day of the invasion, most of the American land-based aircraft would be forced to return to their bases, leaving the defense against the suicide planes to the carrier pilots and the shipboard gunners.
Carrier pilots crippled by fatigue would have to land time and time again to rearm and refuel. Guns would malfunction from the heat of continuous firing and ammunition would become scarce. Gun crews would be exhausted by nightfall, but still the waves of kamikaze would continue. With the fleet hovering off the beaches, all remaining Japanese aircraft would be committed to nonstop suicide attacks, which the Japanese hoped could be sustained for 10 days. The Japanese planned to coordinate their air strikes with attacks from the 40 remaining submarines from the Imperial Navy -- some armed with Long Lance torpedoes with a range of 20 miles -- when the invasion fleet was 180 miles off Kyus hu.
The Imperial Navy had 23 destroyers and two cruisers which were operational. These ships were to be used to counterattack the American invasion. A number of the destroyers were to be beached at the last minute to be used as anti-invasion gun platforms. Once offshore, the invasion fleet would be forced to defend not only against the attacks from the air, but would also be confronted with suicide attacks from sea. Japan had established a suicide naval attack unit of midget submarines, human torpedoes and exploding motorboats.
And all of this was what we would have to get through just to get on the beach, much less move inland. Another concern was that with the Allies tied up in Southern Japan, Russia would be able to move into Northern Japan. What happened when Russia moved into Eastern Germany? Or China into Northern Korea?
Not trying to sway anyone's opinion, believe it or not, just putting some information out there. YMMV.
-Aaron
Great Post, Aaron. Thanks for all that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenrup
Sorry, I don't believe they knew what was in store. Sure, they may have been trained to prepare for the mother of all blast forces, and they would have had an idea therefore of the destructive and lethal power of the bomb blast itself, but I don't believe for one instance they would have understaood the destructive power of the bomb after the initial explosion. The radiation sickness, the radiation burns, the abnormalities for decodes... nah, it was a different time where knowledge of the A-bomb was little more than how big the bang was. I believe they were lucky to be in ignorance of the REAL power of the bomb (and not just the bang)... that sort of foreknowledge is enough to cook anyone's noodle for life.Quote:
Originally Posted by AF Medic
That is what I meant the first time.Quote:
Originally Posted by majurey
The pilots obviously were well trained, and from the intense preparation, they would have expected a really big blast.
But they would no have foreseen all the rest.
I honestly think that these days, if you send out a pilot in a non-war situation, you cannot be 100% that he will drop the bomb.
I would like to offer my mothers perspective. She explained to me that Japan would not stop at anything and so we really didn't have much of a choice! She was just a little surprised that the bomb stopped them! She also notes that she has no doubt that our intentions were to stop Japan and other countries from their aggression and to save lives in the long run. She says that if our only intention was to utterly destroy Japan instead of just stopping them we would've bombed Kyoto instead and we would not have fed the Japanese people and help rebuild Japan after the war!
My mother was 14 at the end of WWII living in Japan. She came to America in 1959!
The terrorists that we now face wish to crush us completely and turn us into them!
Our goal was to stop aggression and then let the countries fulfill their own ends, as long as those ends did not include aggression towards us!
I am not certain if the younger generation feel as my mother does, but, after all, my mother is an eyewitness to this history while the younger generation can only offer speculation!
I know that a nuclear bomb has lasting effects ,but from a terrorizing perspective, I can't imagine fire bombing Japan (or Germany) was much less terrorizing . Didn't more people die in one night of fire bombing Tokyo then in one of these blasts. How about couple of million of German citizens (I'm not sure of the total number) killed by good old-fashioned mom-and-pop conventional bombing. It seems to be all pretty terrible to me. I suppose in some ways we suffer from the same enthusiasm for the biggest bang that led to these things being dropped in the first place, except now we highlight their terribleness in some post-war righteousness, at the expense of remembering the untold number of atrocities committed in more sweet conventional ways. It's all a bunch of sad stuff.
Justin
Extra: Interesting story Mark.
I hope I didn't leave the impression that either my mom or I are excited about all of this. My simple point was that you do what you got to do and then you live with the results whatever they be!
The difference is night and day.
The A-bomb attacks were by a nation at declared war opon the nation who had received the declaration of war and was itself at war against the dropper. In short it was one of many acts in an ongoing conflict. A conflict where there could be a diplomatic end where both sides had clear goals and a difference of opinion.
9/11 was a random act by a underground group who can neither hope to destry or occupy the people they are attacking. There is no military or diplomatic significanc to the act, nor any declared war being fought. Their goal was to kill people not for the purpose of ending conflict or winning ground but simply as an end in itself. Their only goal was to frighten the population, not even to gain surrender.
Nope --- nice to have a few perspectives.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
Justin
It's a political cartoon... IMHO, it is what it is... thought provoking. But to conclude that it is 'correct' in it's implication simply goes too far for me. But I understand that other's will see it differently.
By today's definition of "terrorist act" (ref: thefreedictionary.com)...Quote:
Originally Posted by norman931
the calculated use of violence, or the threat of violence, against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fearI'd agree it was such an act. But, if the USA was in a war of nearly global proportions (as was the case in WWII) then I would mostly disagree that it would be the act of a "terrorist" (ie, a "terrorist act") since the bomber would not be acting as such by the definitions of a "terrorist"...a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activitiesBut I guess "radical" is in the eye of the beholder, so YMMV.
Mark, thanks for sharing that!Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
Hey Mark, has your mother ever talked about the notion of the Emperor being God -- not like God , or kind of a god, or God's buddy, but actually God? How do you stop a people who believe their leader is everything and beyond this world? Are was this just an exaggeration.?Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
Justin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildtim
Actually, timmy anyone that see TV news or do even basic research knows Bin Laden wants to "restore freedom to our nation," to "punish the aggressor in kind," and to inflict economic damage on America. He declared that a continuing objective of his holy war was to "bleed America to the point of bankruptcy." Bin Laden said, "We swore that America would not live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America will not get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops its support of Israel." He condemns the U.S. for "plundering" the resources of the region, oppressing the people by supporting abusive regimes in the region, and dictating policy to legitimate leaders.
and they say propaganda doesn't work on us highlly inteligemunt AmericansQuote:
Originally Posted by JMS
Rayzor,
The number of your somewhat disrespectful posts is quickly outweighing those of value.
Please ensure you remain respectful and civil here.
Thank you! I thought that was going to be my next post!Quote:
Originally Posted by AFDavis11
ok ok im sorry
ill rephrase that
with all due respect, they say propaganda doesn't work on us highlly inteligemunt Americans
It appears that your only intent with this thread was to rile people up as opposed to having any civil discourse!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayzor
Try your game else where Sir!
these are words of truthQuote:
Originally Posted by norman931
also words of truthQuote:
Originally Posted by Blade Wielder
There is no correlation between the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Japan, and the acts of the radical terrorists. None whatsoever! Two nations were at war, declared war, and we did what was required to win, and save American lives. Look at the invasion of Iwo Jima, and the devastation which was wrought on that small island, and then try to imagine the sheer devastation which would have ensued if we were required to physically invade Japan. I feel that the atomic bombs, as devastating as they were, actually saved lives, from both countries.
Matt
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
this is testament to excellent marketing aka propaganda of our US government
army genral and president dwight eisenhower said:
"...and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."
navy admiral chester nimitz said:
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."
General MacArthur has said that Japan would have surrendered before the bombings if the US had notified Japan that it would accept a surrender that allowed the Emperor to keep his title as leader of Japan, a condition the U.S. did in fact allow after Japan surrendered.
Tell that to my grandfather who fought on Iwo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayzor
my grandpa died in omaha beach
i respect and am very thankful of the sacrafice so many have made for us to enjoy life
i hope we can someday enjoy life without such mass murder as jewish holocost, or nuclear bombs on japan, invade iraq, etc, etc, etc, etc
You go from jerk to nice guy and back again fairly easily don't you? Or am I misreading you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayzor
maybe even more important :wQuote:
Originally Posted by gugi