Hiroshima: necessary?

To bring up another context - had the Enola Gay wandered off-course, or somehow a mistake was made and the people of Hiroshima were accidentally killed, that would make a huge difference to me.

That's the role distinctions and contexts play - accident v. determination in this instance.

But we specifically (and avoidably) targeted a civilian population for annihilation, an action that served neither military nor humanitarian (saving American lives) purpose, but sought to terrorize the population and governments of Japan and the Soviet Union.

So what purpose did it serve? It kept the Russians out of Japan (and thus out of post-war negotiations). It fired up the Cold War.

That's a political purpose.

Secondly, what was that political purpose? How do you know that it didn't save future American lives from even being threatened?
So basically, your argument is that I should assume that Truman and co. did the right thing? Based on what?

As I've said, the historical record doesn't bear out any kind of "save American lives" claim. Unless someone can find me where it did.

murder = bad
death = bad
killing = bad
suffering = bad
war = bad for these reasons and plenty of others

I mean we'd ALL like to live in PerfectWorld but we DON'T and we definitely weren't living in it in 1945. Calling it unnecessary is just more 20/20 hindsight and I do believe we've learned our lessons considering that no nuclear weapon has ever been used by anyone for other than testing and research purposes since.

Howzabout, you show me the evidence that "it was necessary" or that anyone "thought it was necessary." What have you got? Assumptions.

and again, even the 'it weren't neccessary' smoking gun you have states the end of the war as no earlier than november 45 - do you think there wouldn't have been any american casualties in those three months?
You're right. I am balancing the deaths of 250000 vs. possible casualties over a couple of months of bombing.

I mean your argument isn't that different from the 'we shoulda invaded' argument, except even less plausible!
Damn that historical record!

Milo, I'm not going to get drawn into this argument with you, that's why I posted the way I did and left it at that -- at this point I myself have no exact conclusion on this matter, like I said two years on this very thread even. But trying to argue that a government might have different goals other than ones officially stated is like saying that the sky is blue, and trying to push this as some sort of arch-surprising revelation here is a goddamn bore.
But I wasn't arguing with you. Your last point just reminded me of something else.

And simply because we can't change the past we shouldn't examine it, examine the popular mythology of the past?

http://www.doug-long.com/hst.htm

an excerpt:

7/18/45 Letter to Bess Truman:

"...I've gotten what I came for - Stalin goes to war [against Japan] August 15 with no strings on it. He wanted a Chinese settlement [in return for entering the Pacific war, China would give Russia some land and other concessions] - and it is practically made - in a better form than I expected. [Chinese Foreign Minister] Soong did better than I asked him. I'll say that we'll end the war a year sooner now, and think of the kids who won't be killed! That is the important thing."

and...

7/18/45 Diary Entry:

"P.M. [Prime Minister Winston Churchill] & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan [atomic bomb] (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time."

I was stopped at a redlight today behind an old Ford Bronco that had "kill 'em all" "go get 'em Bush" and "BOMB IRAQ" shoe-polished on the rear window.

Maybe if that person had any thoughts of questioning his government, he wouldn't be so supportive of pre-emptive war.

This is a discussion on Gar Alperovitz's book on Hiroshima.

But I'm not out specifically to change people's views to fall in line with mine. Even if I were, I wouldn't worry about it on a small-scale like this.

put words in other peoples mouths
Funny, when accused of this, I immediately asked what was meant by the statement and got a "well, yeah, you're right."

and then demand they defend statements they never made (show me a single post calling Hiroshima necessary by the people you accuse of doing so),
Where did "accuse" anyone of "calling Hiroshima necessary"? The one person who did so, in my reply, I noted that they did so "for rhetorical purposes."

What I see a lot of people doing is making a half-assed condemnation. "Well, I don't really support it, but it's not like Harry Truman and the military higher-ups were war criminals. They just killed a quarter-million civilians to serve no actual military or humanitarian purpose."

Let me ask you, had the Japanese managed to build a bomb and take out, say, San Francisco - how would you feel? Would they have been "favoring Japanese lives" over "the enemy"? Is that acceptable? Does being an "enemy population" make everyone a viable target?

and do anything and everything to make sure no thought will be provoked other than 'wow, whatta belligerant asshole' - 80% of your posts on this thread are the same as 80% of your posts on other threads.
You're right, when it comes to defending mass murder, or just making it a joke - see your first posts today - I am a belligerent asshole. Gosh golly, lock me up, I don't find the slaughter of non-combatants to be a non-issue or funny!

You've still done nothing to convince me you're not a right wing plant.
Which kind? Fern?

If you're going to make baseless accusations and character attacks, you should at least be man enough to back them up.

Oooh, you really got me there.

a right wing plant - see also rnc funding of nader 2000 campaign

At least I'm in excellent company, then.

what does it say about our macho sensibilities that we wouldn't even consider peace without Japan totally capitulating? why not blockade japan let them rattle their bamboo spears? why wasn't humiliating their military and dismantling their empire enough to expiate pearl harbor?

so that's what's on my mind. who was it who said "it's not the future i'm afraid of. it's the past."