What Ifs? of SC

[JerseyJohn]

Genghis

Regarding V. A. hospitals. Not being of Royal blood myself, I wasn't assigned a room in the Emperors Wing. A guy needed the recommendation of a special doctor to get in there. I understand the hospital I was at also played host to several distinguished emperors during my stay: two Napoleons, a few Ceasars and perhaps an Alexander the Great, but no Genghis Khans. You lucky dog, you'll have all that space to yourself! Probably you won't be allowed to bring an emperess but they probably have a little pill that will make the pain of her absense more bearable.

While there I was allowed to play chess with one of the Napoleons. Unlike his namesake he was very good. [He didn't actually think he was Napoleon, of course, and never asked -- nor was told -- why he was in that ward.]

One guy I shared a room with had fought in the Battle of the Bulge and kept telling me about the Germans he'd shot who were dressed like American G. I.s. I said, you mean the M. P.s, right? and he said no, just ordinary guys. He said he'd ask them a few questions that any real American would know, and if they didn't know the answer -- he ginned and pointed his finger and made an automatic weapons sound. I wonder how many Americans this guy killed in that hysteria. He was already fairly old and I saw no point in saying anything to him about his self-appointed executions, but another patient suggested he contact the German Embassy and they'd send him an Iron Cross for helping them. He left after a few days and I was grateful as other WW II vets started dropping by and argueing with him and at the time I was stuck in bed.

The reminiscing by what was then mostly WW II and Korean War Veterans was very enjoyabe and even the unpleasant memories were interesting.

After they had me up and walking the nurses dubbed me a WTT (Walker Talker Typist). This was back in 77 and typing was still a prized skill. They immediately had me in the office with my I. V. pole typing away at their paperwork and getting odd looks from doctors who smirked and added folders to my ever growing in box. It was great therapy, like working there, and I have no doubt it helped my recovery. No doubt these days they'd be more concerned about anyone but the staff seeing that info. It didn't matter much because nothing I typed had anything to do with specific patient records, but all the same I'm sure they'd squash something like that today.

Don't know if there all run that way, but I had a lot of fun at the one I was in -- which is a weird thing to say about being a hospital patient, I know!

--- * ---

My apologies for going on like that, it just happened and now I can't bring myself to delete it.

--- * ---

I don't think those rebellious leaders had any delussions about the Japanese or Germans being their saviors. More likely they were trying to use them to gain their independance from Britain and afterwards they assumed they'd be autonomous states. The United States, after all, might not have won it's own independance without the help of France.

As you point out, they were dancing with the Devil. Their independance would have depended upon the whims of some very oppressive individuals.

[ January 22, 2003, 04:49 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Comrade Trapp

You're right, the Japanese were great fighting men. The Russians beat them in '39 primarily through the use of much heavier tanks and artillery and greater ground support from her air units. After two defeats the Japanese generals were convinced they couldn't defeat Russia till their weapons were improved and their tactics modified. It was Japan that sought the non-aggression pact, not the USSR, and Japan that held to it, not the USSR.

Industrially they weren't in the same league with the countries they were taking on. They thought they could hold their Pacific perimiter, allowing the newly acquired resources to be brought back to Japan, feeding their industries and making them independant of American/European trade. Again it goes back to their failure to effectively neutralize the United States at Pearl Harbor. The subs that operated out of those waters virtually sank their Merchant fleet.

[Liam]

I can stand up a first and say friendly fire is common! In fact I've heard it's %10 of battlefield casaulties. Now this will sound a bit comical to serious people. I remeber when I was a flight sim buff, playing vintage World War 2 Aircraft and their was no filter for your beeds from enemy beeds. Initially it was unbelievable!!! "You shot down a friendly!" I'm like no I didn't! Some guys took their records very very seriously! I had a P38 pilot follow me and put me to my doom and I was like, "Hey!" I didn't know any better. Later I got fairly good at the game and never put a beed on a friendly<well enough to kill them> Though it is still a pain in the arse. Don't get in my firing range! I cover my degree points, you get your own kills. I the end I qualified for the most Elite On-line Squadron of the time...

Oh! I'm not 16, I wish I was! Though back in those days I would've been printing out these posts for future reference! I have a little bit of diminished brain capacity, I think I got that from thinking I was in a War that was never going on. I would never join the military I've seen how they treated my Father and most of their men. It's atrocious, it's like they're considered to be state owned objects! I wouldn't even go there as far as all the gunk I've heard about them. I was screwed up by the Military and I've never even been in the actual Service Uniform. I've served my Servicemen and Women for 10 years though. The elite group I like, <the 18 yr old boys that jump to get away from Idaho> I'm a bit ahhhh about. Go home! Wait about 5 or 10 more years before you enter in the Big Leagers. Go to ROTC...

Vietnam era War, I always asked myself why didn't we go all the way! It was a complete idiotic nightmare and politics and politicians interfering with Generals! While in Korea and WW2 the General was still fairly much in charge of the carnage he committed. You needed the freedom to go into N.Vietnam and take out the base for the VC not attempt to bomb them to death or stalemate them. They were fighting the Frogs 10 years before and knew Jungle warefare they knew that every 1 of us 20 of them may die but in the end it didn't matter. Unless you hit the beehive, the hive kept pouring out more workers. I have known a lot vets, some family too. Noone feels like they got it good that War. Come on and people spit on you and call you BabyKiller! All you did was serve your country! It's like What the Hell, I'm a soldier. I'm probably not old enough to have voted in the arse that sent me here!

As for the Japanese being weak on the ground? I don't think so, maybe against a mechanized power like Russia though who else was mechanized in Asia at the time? We know she had the ability to conquor Australia, and she walked over us in a blitz sorta style of her own. Our colonies<so to speak> and she did it with little loss to her own men. Japanese soldiers fought hard, for the most part they were quite cruel too. They won over a huge portion of the Earth in a small period in time. Mostly with their Air Support and in Hawaii....well, you have to look seriously that our oil supplies were never touched. Our old battleships, were now able to be scrapped and the new designs were put in to the works and we got a great reason to fight them to the death. Some figure our leaders knew it was comming and let it for an excuse to go to war. I wouldn't be shocked!

Though we lost a lot of men VS Japan on those Islands fighting like Hell. Noone can say the Japapenese couldn't fight, their Zero was far superior to our P-40s. They had a fleet 8 times the size of ours. Made up of a bunch of oversized capitol ships they were afraid to lose. Of course we had 27<aprox> times industrial wealth they did so in the end it wouldn't matter unless they dealt us a more direct blow. Waiting till Germany made Swiss Cheese of Britain and Russia and assualted her East Coast...

The Germans intended to build a bomber that would make it all the way to Panama.

I don't know what was ever done in the End. Though all ideas were scrapped...even if they'd of made it to the valuable lifeline how long do you think it would've been out for?

The Japanese did pose a real threat back on that subject. If they'd of got their crap together in the beginning and done their 3rd and 4th wave and destroyed our carriers, sub pens, oil reserves on Hawaii<or better you capture the> which wouldn've have been a problem. We may have had a couple more years to have to battle them and be at such a great disadvantage. We worried they were going to invade, everyone thought they were on the Island all day after the bombing.

Yamamoto was taught in America. Like most of our best enemies from a bit of an underdeveloped nation. He knew his adversary well and he was no walk over. Luck was definitely with our Carrier fleet at Midway<that and some great intel>

If you don't believe the japenese were good fighting men, there are still some today fighting in the Islands in around Indonesia don't know the War is over!

They had enough tools to fight! They were the ones who we initially gave ships and arms to take out the German colonies in the Pacific in WW1...

[SeaWolf_48]

Great stuff guys, hay JJ that story is really funny about the VA guy that should have recieved the Iron Cross!

After reading all that stuff about Nuclear Weapons and how Atom and Hydrogen Bombs work, I come back to the same old question.

Did the US have to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead of making a demistration off the coast of Tokyo, or on top of a mountain somewhere. Was the A-bomb the ultimate terrorist weapon killing innosent women and children, or did it save lives. Would Japan have surrendered in Oct. or Nov. anyway.

What do you think?

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by Liam:

If they'd of got their crap together in the beginning and done their 3rd and 4th wave and destroyed our carriers, sub pens, oil reserves on Hawaii

You can't destroy whats not there.

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by SeaWolf_48:

Was the A-bomb the ultimate terrorist weapon killing innosent women and children, or did it save lives. Would Japan have surrendered in Oct. or Nov. anyway.

What do you think?

Tough to second guess that one! I'm gonna stick with the Party line. The evidence that they would not have is the fact that it took 2 Bombs before they would believe it was only one that dropped on each city. Good thing they bought the threat tokyo was next as there was no more bombs lol (yet).

[ January 22, 2003, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Hueristic ]

[JerseyJohn]

SeaWolf

Glad you enjoyed the Iron Cross memory; at the time that guy gave me the chills because I was afraid if he suddenly understood what he'd really done he might snap, and I couldn't move!

Regarding the Bomb droppings. Since the mid-sixties I've always felt Japan had to surrender even if we hadn't dropped it. During the decades that followed every marine and soldier I'd talked to who served in the Pacific always said the same thing, that nothing would have made them give up except the A-Bombs. It didn't occur to me till a few years ago that all those guys were terrified of the planned invasion of the Japanese Islands, so I understand now how they felt. In my opinion we dropped those bombs as much to impress the Soviets as to get the Japanese to surrender.

Ironically, the decision to surrender was made when the Russians crossed over into Manchuria; the central government wasn't sure what had happened at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki because all communication from those cities had stopped completely. The first reports of a single bomber dropping a single bomb were at first disbelieved as a symptom of hysteria.

The U. S., which had earlier encouraged the Soviets to enter the Japanese War, no longer wanted their involvement, so they were hoping to end the war before Russia could enter. Originally the Soviets thought they'd partition the Japanese Home Islands with the West, but the surrender was accepted before any Russian ambhibious action could be mounted.

Naturally Stalin was neither surprised nor particularly impressed with the bombings as he knew about the A-bomb long before thanks to spies. Probably he knew more about the American A-Bomb than Harry Truman.

By the summer of '45 Japan was so ravaged by regular B-29 fire-storms that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were selected from a small list of cities that hadn't been bombed. They were being left in tact so a better evaluation effectiveness of the two types of bomb's could be more accurately measured. Also, they were built on different types of terrain, Hiroshima was flat while Nagasaki had elevations, especially a massive hill within the city radius, and the analysts wanted to see how these things effected the blast.

Getting back to the question. I believe Japan would have surrendered in any case. There were peace feelers going out but, unfortunately, most were going through the Soviets, who never passed them on. Under the circumstances I think the bomb was the only way to obtain a surrender without allowing the Russians to take too much of the spoils.

On the plus side, the two bombs killed fewer people than would have died in just a few more B-29 strikes and probably saved several million who might have died on both sides if Operation Olympic had been carried out.

[ January 23, 2003, 04:01 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

Hueristic's got a good point about the aircraft carriers, they weren't at Pearl on the day of the attack. Admiral Kimmel, who took most of the blame for what happened, made sure the Enterprise, Yorktown and Hornet were spending the bare minimum amount of time in the harbor. In early December they were delivering fighter planes to some of the smaller bases, I believe Wake and some others that were soon to be made famous by the war.

If Nagumo had remained near the Hawaiian Islands he might have sunk the Enterprise the following day. She returned to Pearl during the evening of December 7th. Halsey and Kimmel agreed it was best to have her refuel, take on a full contingent of aircraft, and leave port at once with her escort vessels.

By then the Japanese striking force was already steaming home at full speed. Which made sense, of course. Having failed to negate the large submarine force he now had to be afraid of them.

I don't understand why grabbing Midway in the initial attack wasn't included in the plan. All in all, the Japanese seem to have worked out a lot of details only to end up with a half-thought through war strategy.

[ January 23, 2003, 05:28 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

That was a lack of planning on behalf of the Japenese. They were blitzing, they should've of stopped! They were successful initially. An invasion of Hawaii, then followed by troop landings in Midway there would have been very little the US Navy could've done. Once they controlled our airfields in the region. We'd of retreated to our coast and waited and built up defenses.

The Japanese didn't need the mobility and armor that we needed in the European Fronts. Neither did they need big guns, they had plenty of effective aircraft and big guns attached to ships. The only other Powers in the region that could contest her...France, surrendered. Britian was grossly thinned out do the Nazis and defending it's homeland and the USA the only real player. They were equals on land to me. In a jungle style warfare. They would have never fought in mobile, roads, city engagements. The Japs knew this, their big enemy was the Chinese and they didn't waste any money on things that they didn't need. Russia would've defeated Her bigtime, at any point had she had the #s there to do it. The fanatical Japenese soldier was a perfect fighting unit for the Pacific... They were short, on average 5ft3...They blended in well with the terrain that was similar to what they were fighting in for "many" years. They had decent small arms, likely all German copycats. I'm sure all their steele was US Grade

We did beat decimate them however. Better supplied, good leadership and intelligence. Average US GI I'm certian cost a hell of a lot more than theirs to equip for the front. #s vs Quality one of the oldest decisions in equiping your army...

I'm certian at least a Million men would've died<combat troops>, Another Berlin to take Japan. So the bombs were a Godsend... Plus if you were putting bricks in your briches at Normandy, you'd just write a letter at attacking homeland Japan.

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

Good points. Controling Midway wouldn't have been a decisive strategic stroke, but it would have given Japan the only adanved post between their Home Islands and Hawaii. It was too small to serve as anything more than an airstrip, but having it would have given them the ability to approach the Hawaiian Islands any time the wanted to make future strikes without risk of advanced detection. In itself a very important consideration. Additionally it would have prevented actions like Doolittle's carrier raid on central Japan.

The Japanese didn't need very heavy equipment on the Pacific Islands or against the Chinese, but their armies facing Russia definitely needed heavy tanks and artillery and better anti-tank protection. Without it the Soviets virtually crushed through their positions.

After the two Outer Mongolia Battles, the Soviet Troops in Asia considered the Japanese fighting man to be extremely formidable. They also held NCOs and officers below the rank of captain in some esteem but thought the Field grade officers and above used stupid, wasteful tactics.

Regarding Olympic: U. S. combat units in line to be transferred to the Pacific for the operation had very low morale and there was some talk of troops refusing to go. The sentiment was they'd already fought and won their war. A lot of former combat veterans I'd talked to over the years said the same thing, that if the invasion were carried out they were sure they'd die fighting in Japan.

[SeaWolf_48]

Intresting points about the A-Bomb.

I quess if your a soldier fighting against the Japs, you love the bomb, if your thinking about innocent women and children you think that it was wrong to nuke the cities. I think that a demostration in Tokyo harbor would have been enough.

On the other hand if we wouldn't have dropped the big one we would have never had all of those great monster movies like, Godzilla, Mothra, Godzilla vs Megalon, Godzilla vs the Bionic Monster, Godzilla vs the Cosmic Monster, Godzilla vs. the Sea Monster, Smog Monster, the Thing, Gigan, Monster Island, and Godzilla 2000. Wee-ou that's alot of Godzilla. Those people are obsessed with monsters from Atomic blasts.

[JerseyJohn]

SeaWolf

Not to forget all the Giant Insect movies of the fifties all from the one test in the Arizona desert in '45. I guess the regular tests conducted within sight of Las Vegas all through the fifties emitted a different form of radiation, more enviornmentally friendly to insects and other non-human forms of life.

My favorite is the early Civil Defense short that has the typical hollywood family, hubby+wife+son+daughter in the basement while the earth above is rung a sunder. The husband has a smug smirk on his face; he was smarter than his neighbors and now he's got none! He looks knowingly at the kids, then his watch, and says "We'll give it twenty minutes, by then it ought to be okay to go up and start clearing things." Sure thing pop, twenty minutes!

[ January 23, 2003, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Comrade Trapp]

I would have to disagree about the Japanese surrendering if we hadn't dropped the atomic bombs. There have been a number of Japanese officers that have said that the Russian entry into the war had a bigger effect than the atomic bombs. They still considered the war in China "winable" and that any invasion on mainland Japan would fail. Of course this all changed when the USSR entered the war and overran Northern China and most of Korea in a very short amount of time.

Also, heres a little known fact what I just found out recently. My great uncle who served as a fighter pilot on the USS Enterprise (which was pretty close to Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack) said his squadran which was the only one left on the Enterprise (the rest were flown to Wake Island and Midway Island eairler that week) took off and was ordered to intercept the Japanese planes over Pearl Harbor. When they tried to intercept (they were flying F4F Wildcats) they were shot down by the more advanced Zeros and were even shot down by our own AA gunners. Also considering that it was one undersized squadran against an entire fleet of zeros. They were forced to aport before they made it over Pearl and did not shoot down a single jap fighter. They went back to the Enterprise, refueled and returned after the second (and final wave) was over. When they returned a few more of them were shot down by our own AA gunners and only a few of them landed on Ford Island (which was the naval air station in Pearl) to provide some air cover in case a third wave was launched. I was suprised to hear this because I didn't think the Enterpise was close enough to Pearl Harbor to launch fighters to intercept, but when you think of who was in command of that carrier taskforce (Healsy who wasn't afraid to take chances) it is no suprise that the misson was ordered. I guess the suprise attack pissed him off a little

[JerseyJohn]

Comrade

Good info. I knew the Enterprise was close and Halsey had given orders before the attack fire at all Japanese planes approaching the Enterprise at sea, but I didn't know this detail. Glad you posted it. You're right, Halsey did have a tendancy to react and often it was the wrong decision. During the first few years of America in the war his decesions were nearly always good ones, the last year or so they nearly always bad. Of course, those back to back typhoons in '45 didn't help his reputation much. True, he had little warning, but there was some warning of them and both times he chose to gamble and it went sour.

Interceptors being shot down by friendly AA guns was one of the most common mishaps of all navies during the war. I think Liam may also have mentioned it when we were discussing friendly fire.

A number of prominent historians also feel that Japan surrendered because the Russians crushed them in Manchuria and Korea and not because we'd dropped the bombs, which some say they hardly had time to respond to before the Soviets came pouring across the border. I've never seen a definite answer one way or the the other but I think they'd have surrendered within a short time of the second (Nagasaki) bomb dropping. A counter arguement goes that, by then they were numbed to having cities utterly obliterated.

In hindsight, there's no way the U. S. could have known the effect the Manchurian move would have had. If so, I'm not convinced we wouldn't have dropped the bombs in any case to show the Russians the effects of our secret weapon.

[ January 24, 2003, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Wachtmeister]

What some Japanese officers may have said to the contrary, I do not see how the Russian entry into the war could have had a bigger effect on the Japanese surrender decision than dropping the two A-bombs. Two major cities vanishing, each from a single nuclear yield, a few days apart, seems to be far more incentive for Hirohito to throw in the towel, than loss of gound in Manchuria to the Russians. I doubt the Russians had the amphibious warfare capability to sieze any further Japanese home Island territory beyond the few northernmost minor islands they took in the last days of the war, and still hold.

Atomic bombs do terrible damage especially with regard to the long term radiation related effects on the survivors. However, conventional bombs, especially massive fire bomb raids that create firestorms, do as much total damage, although without the latent after effects. Within the framework of total war, expending the lives of up to a million, mostly US, soldiers or dropping A-bombs on enemy cities, was probably not too tough a decision. This is especially true since the patently horrible after effects from radiation exposure and fallout were either unknown or poorly understood at that time.

Further, the Japanese had mobilized the entire population to resist the invasion, including women and children. Therefore, assuming Olympic had actually proceeded, invading soldiers would supposedly have been faced with shooting swarms of ill-armed, but fanatical civilains. Had the Japanese population resisted as planned, it is resonable to assume that far more casualities would have occurred on BOTH sides, had the A-bombs not been dropped.

Regarding the so called "morality" the US decision to deploy the A-bomb in WWII, I would appreciate some education in regard to why it is somehow less "moral" to cause death and destruction by means of these two A-bombs, than by conventional explosives, fire bombing, bullet, bayonet, etc.

[JerseyJohn]

WachtMeister,

Agreed, whether it's from a thermonuclear device or from the power of suggestion, if it kills you you're just as dead.

As I've said, it seems no historian wants to come out say exactly why the Japanese surrendered. The Russians crossed into Manchuria at the exact time the U. S. was dropping it's bombs. Up till that time there's the argument they were trying to use their still occupied areas -- including Indonesia and Coastal China along with Korea, Formosa and Manchuria -- to get the best terms possible. It seems absurd to think they were any less lost without the loss of Manchuria and Korea.

My position has always been they would have surrendered without the A-bombs and without Olympic, from continued massive B-29 raids and the already total blocade cutting them off from all resources, even those attempting to cross over from Korea. But it would have taken time; perhaps as much as a year. The United States was thinking post-war political strategy and wanted the Asian borders set again before the USSR began gobbling things. Usually people give me nasty answers to all this. I don't see why, it seems like common sense. Considering Japan's prostrate condition, I think Olympic would have been a hideous mistake. Complicating the situation was the little known arsenal of Plague cannisters the Japanese had built up. This is only now being discussed openly and I suspect the fear of germ warfare in desperation might have been a factor in the U. S. not wanting to impose a siege of the Home Islands.

As far as morals go. I hate to say this, but Japan conducted the entire war -- and pre-war going back to China in the thirties -- in such a barbaric, inhuman manner that the morality of means hardly seems to apply. This was a government that had an active program to send helium balloons filled with plague cannisters along the coastal waters for release in North America. The purpose of the early explosive balloons was only an attempt to find out where they were exploding to find out the proper delivery path. If that plan had succeeded we aren't talking about hundreds of thousands of deaths, we're talking about 50% or more of the North American population.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by SeaWolf_48:

I think that a demostration in Tokyo harbor would have been enough.

On the other hand if we wouldn't have dropped the big one we would have never had all of those great monster movies...

A demonstration should have been enough, agreed.

These kinds of discussions usually come down to personal morality... and/or, direct contact with veterans who have actually lived through the historical "reality."

My father was one of those who island-hopped all across the Pacific... and had been slated to arrive in the initial invasion of the Japanese home island.

Interestingly, I NEVER heard him express an opinion one way or another about Truman's tremendously difficult choice of how to "demonstrate" the effectiveness of the new doomsday weapon. I won't even guess at his reasons for electing not to do so.

But, I knew this much -- he was genuinely Stoic, in the Classic tradition (...ie, NOT so much brusquely impervious to Life's "slings & arrows," but -- more religiously oriented, Nature preserving, and dutifully honor-bound, so to preserve the little human dignity & decency which might be occasionally mustered, if not sustained) and he NEVER talked blithely about surreal and soul-rousing War experiences -- at all, nor did he EVER wear any combat ribbons.

This was a lesson I learned and will highly value to my dying day.

As for the "monster-movies" which resulted from the Atomic attacks... this is no surprise if you happen to believe in the Collective Unconscious, as I most assuredly do.

The Human Experiment was rightly "spooked" by the potential disaster so immediate and treacherous to hand (... fearing, with good reason, the Tyrants who will often arise... in ANY society, totalitarian OR democratic), and expressed itself quite deliberately in any number of movies (... which can be the very best reflection of a common mythic dialogue), as you have disclosed.

The so-called Collective Unconscious (... explored most diligently and poetically by Carl Jung) is a sure and insightful promise... of ALL that we will eventually realize. What we now experience. Have experienced. Will experience. It COULD be more amazing than it is. That fault lies not in the easily breathing ether, but in... we.

One needn't be a superstitious lout to know how PERFECTLY the intricacies of the World, known and un-known, constantly bang about and delicately interact. The empirical scientists should be ashamed (... I surely would be if I were such a rigid and spirit-less sort of person, as most of these science-cultists very apparently are) at the astounding PAUCITY of their pitiful conjectures.

Too bad that so many world leaders are shy to individuate and confront "shadowed" and "prismatic" aspects of their VERY OWN nature. You wish to confront The Beast? Stare into a mirror for a good long time, keep the mind empty... be not disturbed by ANY incidental stimulus... soon enough... you will see.

If these childish (... NOT child-like) leaders would in fact, and in deed, deliberate and contemplate... as a steep and faithful habit, and recognize their bellicose posturing for what it truly is, then there would be less "projection of Evil," and more self understanding... ipso facto, and presto!... fewer sense-less conflicts in the exteriorly perceived ILLUSION that is mighty blindly termed - The Real World.

[ January 24, 2003, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: Immer Etwas ]

[JerseyJohn]

Immer

Of course, and well said my friend. While writing some of the postings I've offered I kept thinking the whole thing is beyond even accepted modern wartime insanity. I used a phrase, normal B-29 mass obliteration raid [or something to that effect] attempting to compare a thousand conventional bombers totally destroying a city of 100,000 in a single night as compared to a single bomb causing 80,000 thousand human beings to utterly dissapear, and I wondered how the word normal ever got in there. But I couldn't find anything to replace it.

It's so absurd, in fact, that I think the best statement was done in parody. The war room scene from Doctor Strangelove where the Curtis LeMay General (George C. Scott) is pushing his plan to the president like a used car salesman, "And I can guarantee as far as our people go, fifty, maybe sixty million dead tops!" finishing up with a pleased grin keeping it upbeat.

Regarding the earlier idea of just showing the Japanese an A-bomb demonstration, I don't think Tokyo Bay would have been a good choice. Perhaps an evacuated Iwo Jima with observers watching as part of a temporary truce. I believe Oppenheimer suggested something along these lines and was blocked by General Groves who said the U. S. only had the two bombs and it would be months before we had more. Again, the political time factor.

The Japanese weren't invited to watch the initial blast (an idea I read somewhere that was discussed by Enrico Fermi, Niels Bohr, Max Planck and several others) because nobody knew for sure if the bomb would work, and if it did, how effective it would be. The genius scientists gave Groves an estimate of Ten Factor which he thought meant + or - 10%, but they were really talking 1/10 or 10x ! Prompting Fermi's famous wager, overheard by a horrified army officer, that his money was on the blast igniting the atmosphere and destroying all life on earth!

Which is pretty much the Peace Threat we've all been living under for five decades now, ever since two countries developed not the A-Bomb, but the Hydrogen Bomb.

You're right about those fifties mutant monster movies. They did provide some sort of necessary release. The best ones, Them! -- The Thing! -- Invasion of the Body Snatchers! . . .etc., were actually fine movies in their own right, and the message was always the same: Don't let down your guard even for a minute -- don't be fooled by peaceful or friendly looking moves on their part, etc., all pure Cold War paranoia transferred to space creatures or giant bugs. The agenda wasn't subtle, whatever they were, where ever they came from, they were trying to take over.

In most movies the invaders weren't interested in conquering the human race, but in eating it! As these creatures were surrogate communists, I wonder what Freud or Jung would have said about the symbolism. :eek:

[ January 24, 2003, 02:39 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

To Bomb or Not to Bomb? That is the Question?

Hey, it saved lives, the Japanese would've fought to the bitter end. In the end, regardless of radiation more would have suffered on both sides. What is right? No! It was the beginning of the End of Warfare as we know it. The Power now being in that he has the Bomb, is God. He who doesn't, are lambs.

When someone tells me to confront my inner beast. I halt up and stare right in the mirror and realize that every thing bad and good that has ever happened to me, I take full responsability for and that being so...I blame noone, and I don't want be blamed by anone. You're accountable, to a degree. So watch out cause maybe some day when we all ly down to rest, we'll see Angels

P.S. Oh! And what made the Japenese Surrender, I don't think it was Manchuria, Outer Mongolia, Korea or or Pacific Empire. It was a slow and steady detioration of an Eastern Tiger...into a wounded beast wanting to take you with it's last dying breath...

[Wachtmeister]

Despite what Hollywood movie script writers would have the world believe, General Curtis E. LeMay was, on balance, an excellent military leader, who served his country with honor and distinction. Like all leaders he made some decisions that seem wrong or even "absurd" in the clear, semi-mystical, 20-20 hindsight given to those of us who were not there 58 years ago.

The Dr. Stangelove association was basically political mud slinging used to good [political] effect during Lemay's, possibly ill-advised, run for Vice President on the George Wallace ticket. Somewhat in common with other WWII leaders such as Halsey, or Patton, Lemay was a blunt, outspoken warrior type - the antithesis of the "political animal". His actual record clearly shows that he was not anything at all like the mad bomber depicted in Dr. Strangelove.

Having served in General Lemay's ceation, the Strategic Air Command (SAC), I can verify that no one more dreaded the idea of launching those missiles and bombers in an all out nuclear war than SAC personnel from the lowest ranking floor sweeper to the SAC Commander. We were saddled with a detailed, vivid picture of the likely result of such a conflict. The SAC concept was to deter such war. At least in terms of avoiding an all out war with The Soviet Union, it served its intended purpose, at least until China get's geared up.

Immer:

Some clarification please on two points:

1. I happen to have a degree in chemistry, which apparently makes me an empirical sceintist. Does this, in turn, automatically invoke "paucity of spirit"?

2. What exactly is it that empirical sceientists should be ashamed of? Seeking out the secrets of the universe by the scientific rather than mystical means? Discovering scientific facts that lead to weapons of mass destruction? Other?

[SeaWolf_48]

Well said Immer Etwas, what is a immer etwas? Is it a Sawte Remmi backwards. Well anyway you are very eloquient and have a very good command of the Kings English.

I have to agree with the statements about killing is killing, no matter which way you do it. Dresden is one of mans worst! On the other hand it seems that earth has lost it's innocence after using a nuke on itself. Man will alway use any weaponed that he develops to beat his neighbor or enemy, that's human nature. But like Einstien said " I don't know what kind of weapons they will use in world war three, but they will use sticks and stones in world war four.

Here my point, we can now create Armmagaddon with nuclear weapons, before them conventional weapons were bad but didnot have the capibility to destroy mankind. We have openned Pandora's box or let the Genie out of the bottle, whichever, by using the bomb on mankind, and if done once it's easier to do the next time.

Jersey John your right, those big bugs were scarry, Them

[JerseyJohn]

WachtMeister

I was also in SAC. Loring AFB, 42nd Bomb Wing 1969-70.

Nobody said anything detrimental about Curtis LeMay; I identified the character as the LeMay General played by George C. Scott.

Dr. Strangelove is a brilliant satire. Mudslinging? It was intended as a parody of Fail Safe but the studio [sheperton, which made both movies during the same year], released the parody before the straight picture, killing the whole idea.

During the Cuban Missle Crisis LeMay was very outspoken about going into Cuba and slugging it out, toe to toe with the Ruskies. Ever see another movie called On The Beach ? That would pretty much have been the result. Even in the early '60s casualty counts were a joke; 50-60 million tops was an optimistic figure. It would have been 100% casualties for everyone on planet earth.

We may have been in different SACs because the one I was in didn't relish the idea of radiating the planet. Yes, we had constant drills and would have done our part if the time ever came, but there was no doubt in anyone's mind, at least not any sane rational person I knew, which included the base commander who I played chess with on occassion, that if the big order ever came it was curtains for everyone.

Why the tirade? Is there something romantic or American about loving the idea of causing life on earth to become extinct? Aside from which it was a pretty hostile bit in response to nothing, a man's name. For his part in WW II commanding the Eigth Air Force I have the utmost respect for LeMay and, as you say, he was outspoken and forthright and all that. The world would have been just as radiated as if he'd been a lying spineless weakling.

The only person I ever knew who served under LeMay was a retired colonel and he swore by him, and I never read or heard anything to detract from his character personally.

And again I repeat, George C. Scott played the Curtis LeMay character in Dr Strangelove -- it was a parody just as Strangelove was a parody of Von Braun and the president was a parody of Adlei Stevenson. So what? BFD !!!

If we have to come here touting some sort of extreme right wing extinct Cold War better dead than red line then we're in trouble.

And the acronym M.A.D. , standing for Mutually Assured Destruction says something about the logic behind that whole arrangement. What's to defend and be sensitive about? Even more so regarding non-affronts!

[ January 24, 2003, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

SeaWolf

Agreed, Them is one of those movies that went way beyond what it was supposed to be. The Thing is another, where the acting, dialogue and musical score all combine to create something better than anyone had a right to expect. One of the aspects of that second movie I really enjoy is it was made right before the Korean War , when the Truman Administration was still busy cutting every defense cent they could find (and naturally we'd pad dearly for that folly in just a few months) and the newspaper character keeps making remarks about how much of the Tax Payer's money their wasting in the lap of luxury on the North Pole.

The whole movie has that feel of authenticity, a snapshot of an America that only existed a few years before being shattered, never to return. And in the middle of it all is James Arness without billing running around as a monster loosely described as a Giant Carrot!

The mid-seventies remake was much more like the John W. Campbell short story Who Goes There , also great as SciFi movies go, but not as great a movie in it's own right as the original. I think the original and remake of Body Snatchers is a similar case. Again the remake is fine -- even getting the original star Eurgene McCarthy to make a witty cameo appearance as the running man warning everyone --which was how he appeard in the ending of the 1956 film. The remake is excellently done, the same story only more cynically done, but it doesn't replace the original, somehow.

Maybe the problem is something expressed by an actress interveiwed a while back (can't remember her name), who said "Why do they remake successful pictures? They ought to leave them and instead do remakes of clunkers so maybe they'll be better the second time."

What gets me is, with all the political paranoia and memories of mutual H-Bombs pointed at one another, I remember feeling pretty safe through the whole decade. Maybe it was something about having Ike in the Whitehouse. If you were a kid it was like having your grandfather or a great-uncle running things.

Looking back, I don't think the American public felt the same hatred for Kruschev that it formerly felt for Stalin. Nobody had any delusions about the things he'd done to become Stalin's successor, but more often than not you saw photos of him either with his wife or out with ordinary people and he looked like a person in the crowd.

You had the feeling he and Ike were sane and rational. I think they were and the accomplishment of not going to war several times during the fifties is one of those understated achievments we all take for granted now, but it could well have happened.

People talk about the Russians of the time not having a delivery system comparable to the U. S. model. I'm sure that was true. I'm also sure that if the U. S. plastered Russia and the Russians failed to deliver a single H-Bomb, the after-effects of the detonated U. S. H-bombs would, by themselves, have spelled the end for beligerants and neutrals alike. Just as it was depicted in that depressing movie I mentioned before, On the Beach , most of the world's people having seen neither explosion nor even a ruined city, yet doomed all the same.

What a great Forum, in a couple of weeks it's gone from Alexander to Armageddon . I wonder what it will be like when we get to the B's.

[ January 24, 2003, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Wachtmeister]

JJ:

Loring, ME... Minot ND with trees.

Extinct cold war line? - guess we all better hope its extinct. Nope. - not guilty. Did not assume you were trashing Lemay. Intent was merely to put some additional facts out about Gen. LeMay. Also wanted to provide a little real world insight to balance out the parody. I don't believe such balancing attempts should be out of bounds, but will bow to the forum icons on that issue and continue from here accordingly.

Personnally, I was not at all turned on By Dr. Strangelove, but that doesn't make it a bad movie.

If my post spun you up I apologize, I thought I pretty much stuck to the facts.

I tend to be what many might characterize as "right-wing" and "conservative". For these viewpoints I make no apology. Neither would I ever expect such from those who may be considered [or consider themselves] "left-wing", "socialist", "liberal", or whatever the label of the month might be. Open airing of differing view points is, I believe, enlightening, and neither viewpoint should be suppressed. Then, we have a shot at understanding - not to be confused with agreement.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Wachtmeister:

Some clarification please on two points:

1. I happen to have a degree in chemistry, which apparently makes me an empirical sceintist. Does this, in turn, automatically invoke "paucity of spirit"?

2. What exactly is it that empirical sceientists should be ashamed of? Seeking out the secrets of the universe by the scientific rather than mystical means? Discovering scientific facts that lead to weapons of mass destruction? Other?

Wachtmeister (or, "Sergeant"... better, one who is excelled in "watching over any mis-steps"):

You are quite right to call me out on this one; at times I get carried away with my own fleeting conceit.

If you will re-read my original post, I said that MOST of the empiricists are rather restricted in spiritual practise. I specifically did not intend to lump all of the traditional adherents of "scientific method" into one foul category. If you are NOT one of those who have disdain for "mystical" adventures, then, fine & dandy all around.

In fact, I greatly admire many of them, to include Einstein naturally, and the starfish-hurling Loren Eiseley and the bongo-banging Richard Feynman (... sp?). There is another... whom I cannot remember at the moment -- the biologist who questioned the great GAPS in the Evolutionary record (... who also loved baseball)?

Anyway, I was suggesting that I have little "faith" in the pronouncements of these scientists, since the exisiting Theories will undoubtedly be up for review, oh, any day now. Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper are two who have addressed this issue far better than I ever could.

No, I mean to say that - ever since Science split from Philosophy and a "religious" orientation, they have leapt!! over backwards in their strange attempt to ignore, if not denigrate, most of the various methods of "mystical" apprehension.

This is, IMHO, a grievous mistake. Hey, Thomas Aquinas even allowed for the "rational" means to perceive and evaluate phenomena (... though, admittedly, this was primarly so that each seeker might better come to know... God).

Well, there is not sufficient room on the whole forum board compleat, so to revisit all of the arguments pro & con concerning Science V.S. Religion.

Suffice it to say that I personally am delighted that Science does indeed satisfy specific needs, such as better dental care and truer formulae for applied medicines, etc.

Nonetheless, it is utterly incapable of explaining (... or easing INNATE concerns about) anything that is "metaphysical."

Given that every human being is in some fashion concerned for his personal Soul, and given that each will rarely consult a Scientist at any great transitional moment, such as approaching death (... this is, and always will be the province of the priest, shaman, curandero and otherwise mystically inclined), then I would simply repeat -- "Science" is mainly incapable of mollifying fears or... keenly exciting a sheer Joy -- in being alive!

Your field has an interesting background. The Egyptians were searching for the "black powder residue" (... out of the minerals silver & gold)of their cherished god Osiris, and so they called this process -- Khemeia... the Arab culture latter added the "al" and thus: "Al-Khemeia" or, alchemy.

And certainly you must adhere to currently accepted "rules of order." There are indeed some matters of force & flow and INVISIBLE conflict that are pretty reliable. For now.

I too was trained in scientific method, albeit in one of the "soft sciences," namely: Psychology. My off-hand remarks were more directly aimed at those such as BF Skinner and the ad-exec Watson, who ignorantly supposed that all humans are some "pliable clay" that might be fashioned (... overtly or covertly, as politics might dictate)into any old odd contortion.

Here, I gleefully scoff. Where is the Will? The Spark. The Breath. The Impetus. The First Cause? Etc.

Anyway, I am very glad that we have well trained and dedicated Chemists. Else, I would have to make do with unholy and ancient remedy, such as applying some horridly odorous root-confecture to my swollen jaw.

I am in no way critical of commonly achieved advances for so-called Civilization. I AM aghast at the extremes that these may take, in the name of "progress." Very true that Mr Science is asking, no, imploring! to remain neutral, just as Mr Technology.

The fact that weapons of mass destruction sit brooding and eerie-eyed on the back-shelf, doesn't mean they will NOT be used. Mutually Assured Destruction is a human conceit... and a constant temptation. The fire-bombing of various European and Asian cities during WW2 is sufficient evidence that humans WILL attempt, as hapless Prometheus, to adroitly USE whatever dread device comes to hand.

They are occasionally O woeful! over this satanic assumption, but of course. They might even consult a therapist or a trusted lover or a minister. Nonetheless, the bombs continue to arc earthward in ever more precise annihilations. Of people. Of animals. WW2 was the FIRST time that civilians were considered fair game... in the name of "reducing morale." "Collateral damage" is the deranged rhetoric we now will usually hear... spewing befouleth from the grim and mirthless mouth. This is nothing less than a truly insane "game."

The election promises made -- that Science & Technology WILL be considerately employed... does not seem to prevent... very much mindless mayhem, true?