This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

North Korea Has Allegedly Tested Nuclear Warheads For Iran

Tyler Durden's picture


What is one sure thing sure to set triggerhappy warmonger fingers in the US and Israel on Defcon 1 more than the word Iran? The words Iran and North Korea. How about three nouns that will send crude soaring by at least $10 the second a CL trading algo sees them fly across Bloomberg? Try "Iran" "North Korea" and "Nukes." And if the following report just released by the Wiener Zeitung is even remotely correct, then Israel, the military industrial complex, and crude are all about to go ballistic, not necessarily in that order. 

According to one of Europe's most famous newspapers, which in turn references a report in Welt am Sontag, North Korea has conducted at least two nuclear warhead tests in 2010, of which was on behalf of Iran. "This could mean that with North Korea's help Tehran may already have a tested nuclear warhead....According to the newspaper "Welt am Sonntag", this assumption is based on data from the Organization of the contract for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban. Accordingly, the Swedish nuclear physicist Lars-Erik De Geer uses data from monitoring stations in South Korea, Japan and Russia and believes that North Korea instead of uranium, used plutonium in two prior secret tests as far back as in 2006 and 2009." What is striking here is the effluvience of meaningless innuendo and baseless allegations. But this certain plant may well be the false flag straw that breaks the camel's back. While it is unclear if it was planted by the US or Israel is irrelevant, it has one simple mission - to preempt even more irrationality by Iran, a day after its parliamentary election has put president Ahmedinajad in power vacuum limbo, with his chief opponent gaining vast popular support. Which is precisely what is needed to validate a response.

More from the Austrians, google translated:

The longtime director of the Policy Planning Staff in the German Defense Ministry, Hans Rühle, writes in the "Welt am Sonntag" that "some of which now go out intelligence that North Korea has actually conducted a nuclear test in 2010, at least for Iran.

Supposedly this means that all military operations now will take for granted that the axis of uber-evil, i.e., North Korea and Iran, now just can't wait to shoot ICBMs at every capital in the "free and democratic" western world, just because they "hate it for its freedoms" [sic].

One does not have to be a rocket scientist to realize that this is simply yet another media fallback alibi to justify an offensive incursion into Iran, if and when it is required. The only question is if the global deflationary collapse (ala Lehman) will happen before or after, which in turn, as John Taylor wrote a few days ago, will then be promptly followed by the (luckily) terminal central planning hyper-reflation experiment.

In the meantime, let the crude liberation begin.

h/t JohnGaltFla


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 03/04/2012 - 03:54 | 2221267 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

Oh Yeah...he was a fruit according to the BBC itself?

In 1933, Marine Corps Maj.-Gen. Smedley Butler was approached by a wealthy and secretive group of industrialists and bankers, including Prescott Bush the current President's grandfather, who asked him to command a 500,000 strong rogue army of veterans that would help stage a coup to topple then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. According to the BBC, the plotters intended to impose a fascist takeover and "Adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression."


From, George Bush:The Unauthorized Biography

Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the U.S. government took over the Union Banking Corporation, in which Prescott Bush was a director. The U.S. Alien Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corporation stock shares, all of which were owned by E. Roland Harriman, Prescott Bush, three Nazi executives, and two other associates of Prescott Bush.

          President Franklin Roosevelt's Alien Property Custodian, Leo T. Crowley, signed Vesting Order Number 248 seizing the property of Prescott Bush under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The order, published in obscure government record books and kept out of the news, explained nothing about the Nazis involved; only that the Union Banking Corporation was run for the Thyssen family of Germany and/or Hungary, nationals of a designated enemy country.

      This act by the U.S. government made it clear that Prescott Bush and the other directors of the Union Banking Corp. were in essence front men for the Nazis. By keeping news of this seizure quiet, the American government avoided the more important issue: in what way were Hitler and his Nazi cohorts set up, armed, and supported by the New York and London cartel of which Prescott Bush was an executive manager?

     On Oct. 28, the government issued orders seizing two Nazi front organizations run by the Bush-Harriman bank: the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation.

      Nazi interests in the Silesian-American Corporation, long managed by Prescott Bush and his father-in-law, George Herbert Walker, were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act on November 17, 1942. In this action, the government announced that it was seizing only the Nazi interests, leaving the Nazis' U.S. partners to carry on the business.

      These were actions taken by the U.S. government during wartime, but Prescott Bush and his collaborators had already played a central role in financing and arming Adolf Hitler for his takeover of Germany. Harriman, Bush and the others in the cabal had financed the buildup of Nazi war industries for the conquest of Europe and war against the U.S.A. They had also helped in the development of Nazi genocide theories and racial propaganda, with the slave labor and extermination camps as the result.

FDR had remarked that the perpetrators would be prosecuted after the war but alas..he didn't live to see the end....

Addendum:Because the BBC (surprise!) have wiped the link from their own servers...Just another day for Winston Smith

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:04 | 2221691 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

Just because you saw it on the BBC doesnt mean its true. Most of what is on the "History" channel is nonsense also.

You people need to read some fucking books for a change, its gotten to the point where any silly ass theory on the net becomes accepted as fact by a portion of the population.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 23:17 | 2223114 Kiwi Pete
Kiwi Pete's picture

Well the reporter went down into the congressional archives. You can hear him talking to the librarian as he orders up the actual records from the congressional committee which he then reads out. It's very convincing. Are you saying that the whole thing is a lie? Perhaps you need to go down there yourself and get out the records and read them for yourself. Even then you could say that they were planted in there.

At some point you need to accept the written evidence. Reading some fucking books doesn't change that!

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:46 | 2222220 CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

MacArthur made bones at Vera Cruz, 1914, and in the Meuse-Argonne bloodbath, 1918. And I wish to hell we had his like around today.

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 01:00 | 2223120's picture

MacArthur was a showboat. If there's a need for killing give me Patton any day.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 10:08 | 2221524 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Had the failed Nazi coup against Roosevelt not been thwarted by Smedley Butler and had not Churchill engineered the abdication of the Windsor Nazi heir...where would your Fabian Socialism have been then?...that's not tinfoil, that's history...the history of conspiracy and a fortuitous outcome preserving the freedoms that we enjoy today in the civilized west.


What history?

Do you have any solid element to offer comparison between what happened and what you predict would have happen if?

Alternative 'history' is not history. It is fiction.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 04:18 | 2221312 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Because the US of A was not allied with Germany?

The US of A is the major force behind the revival of Germany.

One example among many: the US of A was adamant about the war debt being repaid by France and UK.

In the meantime, the US of A was actively looking for Germany to be relieved of debt.

Even better, part of the money the US received from France and UK as part of debt repayment was sent to Germany so they could develop their avionics industry.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 11:08 | 2221595 Benjamin Glutton
Benjamin Glutton's picture
Agreement on German External Debts From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

The London Agreement on German External Debts, also known as the London Debt Agreement, was a debt relief treaty between the Federal Republic of Germany on one part and on Belgium, Canada, Ceylon, Denmark, the French Republic, Greece, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Norway, Pakistan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the Union of South Africa, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America, and Yugoslavia and others. The negotiations lasted from February 27 - August 8, 1953 [1] The London Debt Agreement covers a number of different types of debt from before and after the second World War. Some of them arose directly out of the efforts to finance the reparations system, while others reflect extensive lending, mostly by U.S. investors, to German firms and governments.

In the London Agreement, the German government under Chancellor Konrad Adenauer undertook to repay the external debts incurred by German government between 1919-1945.[1]

The total under negotiation was 16 billion marks of debts from the 1920s which had defaulted in the 1930s, but which Germany decided to repay to restore its reputation. This money was owed to government and private banks in the U.S., France and Britain. Another 16 billion marks represented postwar loans by the U.S. Under the London Debts Agreement of 1953, the repayable amount was reduced by 50% to about 15 billion marks and stretched out over 30 years, and compared to the fast-growing German economy were of minor impact.[2]

The agreement significantly contributed to the growth of the post-war German economy and reemergence of Germany as a world economical power. It allowed Germany to enter international economic institutions such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:09 | 2221804 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Now I am somehow plunged into a severe doubt.

I really want to believe, US citizen strength like, that you do not imply that what happened after the war was incidentally to what happened before the war, right?

Because you know, the german war machine used in WW2 was built before the war, not after.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 04:26 | 2221319 Fukushima Sam
Fukushima Sam's picture

Ok, who turned on the .gov shill-bot?

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 04:55 | 2221343 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

US citizenism and US citizenism comments, as usual. Nothing new here.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 08:34 | 2221457 Al Gorerhythm
Al Gorerhythm's picture

Nothing new from you either. You have a one note song. Branch out for fuck's sake.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 10:13 | 2221529 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Facts are facts.

The depiction of a repeation of events grows a repeation itself.

Do you have a way to beat that?

As to your piece of advice, please feel free to address it to US citizens, starting with you of course.

Leading by the example...

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:49 | 2222226 CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

Right now. Outside the tarpaper shack you are living in. There's a lost puppy that you can capture. Replenish dogbits.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 08:57 | 2221469 Esso
Esso's picture

Can someone please explain citizenism to me? I've tried to look it up, but found no understandable explanations, just some long diatribe that was unintelligible gobbledeegook.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 09:50 | 2221512 DOT
DOT's picture

Your question can not be honestly answered. 

US Citizenism :  incomprehensible ,unintelligible gobbledeegook with over tones of envy.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 10:10 | 2221525 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

US citizenism (and not Citizenism) is what is usually called 'Americanism'

Once you accept the formation of word like americanism, you lose any ground to advocate against the formation of word like US citizenism.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 11:44 | 2221645's picture

Nice display of moronism.

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 02:01 | 2223331 Milestones
Milestones's picture


Sun, 03/04/2012 - 11:54 | 2221664 smb12321
smb12321's picture

Stop trying to make sense to folks who make up history on the fly.  It's gnostic - benearth reality there is another reality.  The US really wanted Germany to win. Churchill was a madman, Hitler wanted peace, Russia & China are freer than the US, Syria & Iran are misunderstood victims commanding universal support from their subjects.  

The reality is that ZH is increasingly (and unfortunately) becoming associated with such (how to say it nicely) "unorthodox" views.  What's stranger is their utter disdain for the US and its "sheeple" as they say a zillion times a day.  I have yet to hear anyone mention a single thing good about this nation - and that's more telling than all the raves.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:10 | 2221805 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

If US citizenism made sense, that would be a story...

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 19:29 | 2222703 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

smb12321 said:

The US really wanted Germany to win. Churchill was a madman, Hitler wanted peace, Russia & China are freer than the US, Syria & Iran are misunderstood victims commanding universal support from their subjects.

...the terrists hate us for our freedoms, the Iraq war will pay for itself, deficits don't matter, ...


Sun, 03/04/2012 - 02:38 | 2221177 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

Simple question- why then did he give his "Arsenal of Democracy" speech in December 1940, a full year before the US got into the war?

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 02:10 | 2221133 KingPin 999
KingPin 999's picture

No, I'm saying if you blockade someone who is determined to fight, then you're going to get a fight. I'm making no right or wrong determination. 

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 02:21 | 2221156 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

That's like saying that if you block a punch it's an act of agression. 

US strategic interests were directly threatened by Japan's expansion in the Pacific. Japan wanted to seize strategic resources. Nobody can claim "right or wrong". But Japan did attack US territory and the US had not done so

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 02:29 | 2221168 KingPin 999
KingPin 999's picture

I really don't understand what you people don't understand. All I'm saying is that if you blockade a country that is already at war with other parties, they will attack you to break the blockade. I'm not saying this is what Japan should of done or that America should have done anything differently. It's simple common sense, we knew they would attack us, therefore, the use of the term sneak attack isn't really factual because we knew they would attack us eventually.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 02:34 | 2221176 The Shootist
The Shootist's picture

We knew they would attack us like we know Iran is going to bomb Israel... i.e., we don't -or do we?

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 02:43 | 2221187 KingPin 999
KingPin 999's picture

I have no idea what Iran is going to do. Completely different situation.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 03:28 | 2221245 streetcrawler
streetcrawler's picture

Iran has MANY more foes to attack before they even get close to the USA. If they unleash some dirty bomb on Israel, France will nuke them off the face of the earth with a fission bomb. Problem solved....except for all of that good engineering in Israel being vaporized....OOOPS

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 11:48 | 2221654 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

There would be a lot of radioactive stolen gold if this happens.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 04:35 | 2221327 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

We knew they would attack us like we know Iran is going to bomb Israel... i.e., we don't -or do we?


Made me laugh.

The quest for symetry leads US citizens on unbelievable paths.

Maybe trying something like "We knew that they would attack Netherlands like we know Iran is going to bomb Israel... id est we dont -or do we?" could be more satisfying.

Additionally, another remark.

Slowly, the issue of Iran having nuclear war means is being shifted from the original assumption.

The original assumption was that Iran, if they get their hands on a nuclear device, would use it to wipe Israel off the map, no matter the relationship that exists between Iran and the rest of the world.

Iran can not be allowed to have nuclear weapons because they will use them to wipe Israel off the map, no matter what. So US citizens used to say.

Little by little, US citizens are working for a substitution, that Iran might use the nuclear means during a war, meaning that if the US attacks Iran, Iran might use nuclear means to retaliate. And that would be unbereable.

From a story of wanton use of nuclear weaponry, based on pure hatred to a very different story in substance.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 11:35 | 2221637 fightthepower
fightthepower's picture

Who cares about Israel? Let them fight their own fight without the US.p

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 02:47 | 2221194 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

As a point of fact we had an oil embargo on Japan, not a blockade. Not the same thing. The US couldnt blockade Japan until the very end of the war.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 02:57 | 2221198 KingPin 999
KingPin 999's picture

Ok, maybe that is technically semantically true, but if the USA and Britain controlled all the oil fields (and the routes from the fields to the far east), doesn't it have the exact same effect, whether the blockade is at the oil field itself or in the sea around Japan.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 03:04 | 2221214 Uchtdorf
Uchtdorf's picture

You're right, of course, as are your posts above. I have studied the Japanese culture and history since 1978, and lived there for 8 years. Since the Meiji Era, Japan had been trying to catch up with the Western world. If multiple European nations had several colonies throughout Africa and Asia and the Pacific (not to mention US imperialism), why couldn't modern Japan? They got the oil embargo slapped on them because their eyes were the wrong shape and they weren't yet part of the CFR Empire. How dare they create an empire on their own! The audacity of those little nips.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 03:22 | 2221228 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

You oversimplify as much as John Wayne up there.

Yes, it must have been the eye shape and had nothing to do with them invading China, building a massive navy and chucking the Washington Treaty overboard. This  threatened the oil supply coming from the East Indies- so the embargo began- and the rest is history.

Let me guess, everyone ws opposed to Germany invading Poland because they were blond? No- actions can have consequences.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 11:51 | 2221658's picture

Maybe the US should have embargoed itself and other powers for occupying China at the turn of the 20th century.


A U.S. Marine wrote that he saw German and Russian troops bayonet women after raping them.[12]

In Beijing, Bishop Pierre-Marie-Alphonse Favier posted a bulletin: in the first 8 days after August 18, Catholic Christians may steal life necessities, and declared that robbing within 50 taels of silver need neither reporting nor compensation.[13] On December 14, 1900, a French newspaper quoted a soldier's statement: "We are open to the Church from the North palace, the priests go with us, ... they encourage us murder, robbery, robbing ... we are doing for the priests. We were ordered to do whatever we want in the city for three days, kill if want to kill, take if want to take, and the actual looting of the eight days."[14]

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 20:46 | 2222818 Uchtdorf
Uchtdorf's picture

Sorry, not buying it. Our execution of the war in Germany could have been modified slightly to enable us to use an atom bomb there first. Why didn't we?

Besides, Japanese behavior still didn't earn them two atom bomb attacks. I like lead and brass as much as the next guy, but not when we are using it to unnecessarily killing somebody's son, somebody's father.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 03:04 | 2221215 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

It is true that the English, Americans, and Dutch controlled most of the supply at the time.  I agree after that war was inevitable, just pointing out that a blockade stops all goods flowing to the blockaded nation from the sea and this is not the same as a few powers with a near monopoly between them cutting off certain goods, however critical they may be.

A blockade would have cut off even food and is an outright act of war, and embargo targets strategic goods (in this case oil and metals) and is merely a refusal to sell which is not an act of war.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 03:45 | 2221265 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Continuation on this streak of propaganda:

but as blockade is usually countered by smuggling or shrewd businesspeople putting up a blockade to force higher price, it follows that blockades, while aiming to block all goods, never manage to do so in reality.

Therefore blockades are just a stronger form of embargos. And as they fail to block all goods delivery, they can not be termed an act of war.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 04:04 | 2221294 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

In a blockade a military ship seizes or sinks the ship trying to enter the port of a blockaded nation regardless of what it is carrying, takes or destroys the goods, and in most cases interns the crew. Yes, that is and has been considered an act of war by pretty much every nation in history, read a flipping book. Can you provide some concrete example of a nation having ships seized and/or sunk and not going to war? There may be a one time issue here and there, but I havent come across any multiple seizures and sinkings that did not result in war or the nation involved refusing to send additional ships to the one being blockaded.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 04:25 | 2221315 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Can you provide some concrete example of a nation having ships seized and/or sunk and not going to war?


In the past, distant past, recent past or what? You know, because with US citizens, facts do not matter so what?

I dunno.

What about Turkey? Turkey even called NATO as procedure allowed.

They caught that ship that was arrested by Israeli navy and the rest but hey, it does not make it.

That is for recent past.

As to the 'distant' past, simply reading how Japan was opened to US citizenism demand for trade instructs.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 11:48 | 2221653 boiltherich
boiltherich's picture

The USS Liberty?

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 04:12 | 2221305 jose.six.pack
jose.six.pack's picture

Blocking a punch is a misleading analogy.

Try: tying hands and feet and forbid them to buy gasoline so that they take orders...


Nobody can claim right or wrong. Both sides did acts of agression. Winner doesn't make any side better, and starting it doesn't make someone responsible about it.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 07:49 | 2221431 Optimusprime
Optimusprime's picture

Nonsense.  Blockade in itself is an act of war.  Technically we are at war with Iran already, by some estimates.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 11:46 | 2221649 boiltherich
boiltherich's picture

If you want to get technical we have been at war with them since they invaded US soil in the taking of our embassy in Tehran. 

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 11:54 | 2221663's picture

We have been at war with them since we installed a dictator and his police state in 1953. We drew first blood.

Tue, 03/06/2012 - 01:29 | 2227057 boiltherich
boiltherich's picture

We have been at war with them since they decided to expand their cult at the blade of a sword all the way to Portugal.  Wanna use history?  We can do this all night. 

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 08:27 | 2221454 mick_richfield
mick_richfield's picture

Wrong.  A blockade is a clear act of war. 

Are you thinking clearly? 

It's not like blocking a punch, it's like pulling a plastic bag over someone's head.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 09:01 | 2221478 MeetTozter
MeetTozter's picture

Nice trick to filter out the 19th century moves US made on the sovereign country of Hawaii, and the "Vietnam" we had in the Philippines 20 years before WW2. Do you want to toss the memory of Commodore Perry into the ante also?

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 11:58 | 2221671's picture

Mark Twain,  New York World [London, 10/6/1900]

You ask me about what is called imperialism. Well, I have formed views about that question. I am at the disadvantage of not knowing whether our people are for or against spreading themselves over the face of the globe. I should be sorry if they are, for I don't think that it is wise or a necessary development. As to China, I quite approve of our Government's action in getting free of that complication. They are withdrawing, I understand, having done what they wanted. That is quite right. We have no more business in China than in any other country that is not ours. There is the case of the Philippines. I have tried hard, and yet I cannot for the life of me comprehend how we got into that mess. Perhaps we could not have avoided it -- perhaps it was inevitable that we should come to be fighting the natives of those islands -- but I cannot understand it, and have never been able to get at the bottom of the origin of our antagonism to the natives. I thought we should act as their protector -- not try to get them under our heel. We were to relieve them from Spanish tyranny to enable them to set up a government of their own, and we were to stand by and see that it got a fair trial. It was not to be a government according to our ideas, but a government that represented the feeling of the majority of the Filipinos, a government according to Filipino ideas. That would have been a worthy mission for the United States. But now -- why, we have got into a mess, a quagmire from which each fresh step renders the difficulty of extrication immensely greater. I'm sure I wish I could see what we were getting out of it, and all it means to us as a nation.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 03:26 | 2221151 barliman
barliman's picture


 Updated at 02:26 AM

This space left blank and it drew a red arrow.



Sun, 03/04/2012 - 02:22 | 2221158 Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

Shootist - You seem to imply that blockading a menace to world peace is an evil gesture?

No, no, no.  We should have been blockading Israel for years already, a.k.a - menace to world peace.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 02:32 | 2221173 SilverRhino
SilverRhino's picture

Three words that invalidate ANY Japanese legitimate claims to mercy


And two more for good measure

UNIT 731

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 03:15 | 2221225 Uchtdorf
Uchtdorf's picture

I would be the first to agree that the Japanese leadership did some awfully dreadful things. It's just tough to find any group of individuals, drunk with power, who have not done the same thing. I also know of people, good people, in Japan who suffered terribly from the war and they would have just as soon never been pulled into it.

Could we all just draw a mental picture of Ron Paul for a moment? He says that we need to bring our troops home. We have defended Germany and Japan and South Korea for long enough. That's the right mindset for these times. Too bad most sheeple won't listen.

Peace, my brothers and sisters.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 08:28 | 2221455 mick_richfield
mick_richfield's picture

Kiling and torturing civilians is not an appropriate punishment for killing and torturing civilians.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:15 | 2221814 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Kiling and torturing civilians is not an appropriate punishment for killing and torturing civilians.

What about this?

Kiling and torturing civilians is an appropriate punishment for torturing and killing civilians.

With US citizens, it might be all about this level of subtleness.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 11:37 | 2221640 boiltherich
boiltherich's picture

"We forced that reaction. We along with others cut off all of their oil imports with a blockade."

Bullshit!  We FORCED JAPAN TO ACT AS THEY DID?  Dude you have a really warped perspective on cause and effect. 

Japan had attacked the Russians in 1904-5 and in 1905 occupied Korea, then occupied Manchuria in 1931.  Then there was the battle of Shanghai in 1932, Japan had become an ultra aggressive imperialist power run by what we would call a military industrial mafia with the emperor as a figurehead, and they had zero respect for human rights, I doubt they would have understood the concept of humans having "rights."  But, even if they did it would not apply to non Japanese because those were considered subhuman.  Especially the Chinese.  But Japan was not trying to affect geopolitics, nor were they trying to contain rogue nations that interfered with their neighbors and sponsored terrorists who in turn attacked Japanese civilians.  They were confiscating foreign nations and killing anybody that got in their way. 

For that reason most of the world, not just the US, cut off vital war machine supplies to Japan, and at least you and a dozen other people here say (imply) that such an embargo is a reasonable justification for them going to war to obtain the raw materials they needed for their industrialization.  We forced them to be so warlike and aggressive.  That is just childish garbage.  Japan murdered millions and millions of people for a decade before Hitler attacked Poland and they did it in the most brutal fashion the world had ever seen. 

We did as you say know they would eventually attack us as well if we cut off iron and coal and oil, so it is doubly disgraceful that those intervening years were not spent preparing for the obvious threat of it rather than pandering to the retarded utopian insanity of the isolationists who would not permit any preparations because as we all know if you deny something you really are afraid of long enough it always just goes away.  Or you can be like the French and be so cowardly as to just surrender the first time a bully comes along.  Or you can be so afraid of the real threats that you make up easier enemies to build your defenses for which are proven to be worse than useless when the shit really does hit the fan (Maginot Line).

And the alternative would have been to continue selling them that iron and coal and oil so they would be content to simply confine their murder and rape and aggression to China and SE Asia yes?  Oh how noble some of you are. 

Someone above suggested in jest (I hope) we bomb/nuke Iran, war is not a joking matter.  It is very hard cheese for the Japanese as a nation and all of us as humans that they suffered the first atomic attack, but I agree with most historians when they claim that nothing short of that kind of shock would have broken the back of the Japanese war machine.  And yes it was horrific, so bad that the whole planet saw it could never be allowed to get to that point again.  Iranian leaders do not think they have the responsibility to adhere to the NNPT because the Shah's government signed the treaty, yet they have not withdrawn as North Korea had.  They are not going to be allowed to have functioning nuclear weapons nor the means to deliver WMD, I hope it does not take the kind of shock that the Japanese had to suffer to get their attention, but if it does then so be it. 

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:15 | 2221817 trav7777
trav7777's picture

wasn't the US already an aggressive imperialistic power at that time?

It was a war between two empires; there was no good and bad side.  I can't get over the need of average people to always reduce everything to a good/bad false dilemma.

Any comparison of Japan to Iran exposes you as a complete idiot.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 16:44 | 2222361 boiltherich
boiltherich's picture

I should be concerned about your opinion fucktard?

The US was totally isolationist after WWI, but no matter, both sides of the Iran issue say essentially the same thing whether you discuss modern Iran or historical comparisons which by the way dickwad I did not begin but the anti war at any and all costs crowd started, what they are saying is the USA id goddamned if it does and goddamned if it does not.

Had the USA done the "right" thing in their eyes and continued to sell oil and steel to the Japanese the Japanese would have confined their rape and murder and wars to the Asian sphere they were already killing for decades to get their hands on, we would not have been attacked and dragged into WWII.  So we are damned because of the embargo of Japan.  The Japanese were not the aggressors but a poor little victim of the USA.  And they use that over and over to express the same fallacious reasoning to the current Iranian situation. 

If we go into a region and impose order as in the Balkan War to stop a slaughter we are cultural imperialists who have no business there, if we do not go to a place like Rwanda we are aiding and abetting the mass murder of hundreds of thousands.  So fuck it, there is no winning any argument, there is not even intelligent discussion with the cowards that think Iran should be permitted to have nuclear weapons.

So I will not be dragged into it further than to say if I were you I would sell my Iranian real estate quick and head for the hills because they are not going to give up their nuclear weapon ambitions and they have made that very clear, and the world is not going to let them make a nuke and it has made THAT very clear.  All the rest is just so much keyboard masturbation.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 17:31 | 2222481 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

Your ridiculously oversimplified views have a peculiar common thread: that the US should interfere in other nations' affairs at all, ever, for any reason except being directly attacked.

That's all your rants come to - Go USA World Police!

"the USA id goddamned if it does and goddamned if it does not."

Only in the binary make believe world you seem to inhabit. Only the jingoists and their Israeli puppetmasters are screaming about the threat of Iran having nuclear-weapons. Some of us simply don't care, we don't see how the US is damned in any way by not launching another war of aggression. Damned by the Likkud Party? F-U-C-K them.

We had no business in the Balkans, plain and simple. We have no business in Rwanda either. We are damned by intervening for a thousand reasons, if you need an example try Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, 1/2 of Latin America, Georgia, et al. The only constant is creation of more misery at immense human and economic cost.

" they are not going to give up their nuclear weapon ambitions"

Show me a single piece of evidence for "nuclear weapon ambitions" that was not produced in the Mossad's media department. Next, if we take that ambition for granted for sake of argument, what does it mean? Nothing. How many nations possess nuclear weapons? How many have acquired them with hardly a peep from America or anyone else? What did America do to stop them? In a world where America, Israel, and Pakistan have nuclear arsenals, one must be in denial of history to claim Iran is any more of a threat than any other nuclear nations.

Pop question: which country has used nuclear weapons in a military conflict?

Bonus: which military assets were targeted?

Answer: America

Bonus Answer: Trick question, they were used against civilian population centers

The world needs protection from rogue nations with nuclear weapons? You mean like America?

If you're so gung-ho about USA World Police why not sign up to join?

Tue, 03/06/2012 - 02:18 | 2227143 boiltherich
boiltherich's picture

Toten... fuck you, that is the way the world works, I did not invent it yesterday and I can't make it go away tomorrow.  It is you who will not deal with reality today.  And I feel bad for you about that.  I do not like that the USA polices the globe, but only because I do not like that the globe needs a cop, if you have any doubt that it needs a cop I would tell you in great detail about the smell of powdered concrete and burning human flesh on September 11 of 2001 in New York City because I was there asshole, or have you all forgotten just how real it can get?  It does get real you know.  But the cost is so much higher than you can even imagine. 

By the way, I nor any person I know cares much about Jewish history, or Jews for that matter, but we are not stupid, if any of you want to use history as a precedent then we will argue all the way back to the invention of written words, and even then Jews held what we now call Israel and Palestine.  I might not study their history or much appreciate their modern politics, but I do say this with all my heart, they have a right to live on their own land and anybody that threatens them threatens all civilized people.  Of all the people on this planet the Jews have been where they are the longest with the least change.  Their calendar started more than 4000 years before that retard mohamad was even born and they were ancient on their land then. 

The non proliferation treaty was meant to stop all further acquisition of nuclear weapons for a very good reason, and unfortunately Israel and Pakistan and India refused to sign it.  I can understand Israel not signing, they were tiny, poor, and surrounded by enemies that were bigger and determined to wipe them out, Iran still has that as an official goal of their government.  US politics allowed for the formation of Israel but not for a formal alliance because there were just too many southern anti semetics to let that happen.  A formal alliance with Israel would have meant they would not have needed nuclear weapons.  They would have been under our umbrella.  But noooooo the jooooo haters just would not let that be.  So Israel had to make their own and did so with the complicity of our government.  Because some people think Israel does not have a right to exist and that is what this all really comes down to. 

The Jewish people have suffered enough, if non Jewish people now must suffer what they had to go through then it is nothing but fair play, justice.  In the end we all answer only to our own conscience about right and wrong, and just as I feel badly for the people who enabled the psychopaths that got control of Germany in the 1930's I feel badly for you, you have subjected your nobility and your honor to an alter of false peace.  I really do feel pretty bad for you, all that conviction and anger, no place to go.  And the worst part is you do not even know what it is you want. 

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 12:04 | 2221678 knightowl77
knightowl77's picture

We cut off their imports numbnuts because they invaded China....So if THEY had not invaded China they would not have had their imports cut off....

I like how it is always OUR fault.....They invade China and we're supposed to do nothing? The very least we should do and did do was not sell them any more war making supplies...As a peace loving person what you have us do, arm Japan instead?



Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:17 | 2221822 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Made me laugh.

The US was in China before Imperial Japan.

Hiding behind humanitarian causes is very US citizenish.

This trend has spred all around the world, showing that US citizenism is spreading.

Libyans have adopted it, performing an ethnical cleansing for humanitarian causes.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 17:34 | 2222489 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

"They invade China and we're supposed to do nothing?"

They invade China and we're supposed to do something?

What like we own China or something?

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 12:49 | 2221754 TrulyStupid
TrulyStupid's picture

Imperial Japan had been on the march for a decade prior to Pearl Harbour, starting with the invasion and occupation of Manchuria justified by the time honored false flag incident: Comparisons of Imperial Japan's behaviour to present day Imperialistic agression would be drawn more accurately to the USA/Israel than Iran.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:59 | 2221910 Jake88
Jake88's picture

And we slept in that one Sunday morning and left our complete fleet unprotected. Hmmmm?

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 02:09 | 2221119 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

*Plus, we were the first to get zee bomb  ;)*

If history is written by the victors, then myths must be written by the victimizors...

The question of the location of a possible German atom bomb test comes from five very unlikely sources: an Italian officer, a Russian marshal's translator, and Benito Mussolini himself, an American heavy cruiser, and an island off the coast of northern Germany in the Baltic Sea.

Before he and his mistress Clara Petacci were murdered by Communist partisans, and then later hung from meat hooks in Milan to be pelted with rocks from an angry mob. Benito Mussolini, by the end of the war reduced to a mere puppet of Hitler and governing a "Fascist republic" in German-controlled northern Italy, spoke often of the German "wonder weapons":

The wonder weapons are the hope. It is laughable and senseless for us to threaten at this moment, without a basis in reality for these threats.

The well-known mass destruction bombs are nearly ready. In only a few days, with the utmost meticulous intelligence, Hitler will probably execute this fearful blow, because he will have full confidence.... It appear, that there are three bombs-and each has an astonishing operation. The construction of each unit is fearfully complex and of a lengthy time of completion.[2]

It would be easy to dismiss Mussolini's statements as more delusional and insane ravings of a fascist dictator facing defeat, clinging desperately to forlorn hopes and tattered dreams. It would be easy, were it but for the weird corroboration supplied by one Piotr Ivanovitch Titarenko, a former military translator on the staff of Marshal Rodion Malinovsky, who handled the Japanese capitulation to Russia at the end of the war. As reported in the German magazine Der Spiegel in 1992, Titarenko wrote a letter to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In it, he reported that there were actually three bombs dropped on Japan, one of which, dropped on Nagasaki prior to its actual bombing, did not explode. This bomb was handed over by Japan to the Soviet Union.[3]

Mussolini and a Soviet marshal's military translator are not the only ones corroborating the strange number of "three bombs", for yet a fourth bomb may actually have been in play at one point, being transported to the Far East on board the U.S. heavy cruiser Indianapolis (CA-35), when the latter sank in 1945.[4]

These strange testimonies call into question once again the Allied Legend, for as has been seen, the Manhattan Project in late 1944 and early 1945 faced critical shortages of weapons grade uranium, and had yet to solve the fusing problem for the plutonium bomb. So the question is, if these reports are true, where did the extra bomb(s) come from? That three, and possibly four, bombs were ready for use on Japan so quickly would seem to stretch credulity, unless these bombs were war booty, brought from Europe.

But the strangest evidence of all comes from the German island of Rugen, and the testimony of Italian officer Luigi Romersa, an eyewitness to the test of a German atom bomb on the island on the night of 11-12 October, 1944, approximately the same time frame as indicated in Zinsser's affidavit, and it is also the same approximate area as Zinsser indicated.

In this context it is also extremely curious that this time frame in 1944 was, for the Allies, a banner year for atomic bomb scares. On Saturday, August 11, 1945, an article in the London Daily Telegraph reported British preparations for German atom bomb attack on London the previous year.



Britain prepared for the possibility of an atomic attack on this country by Germany in August, 1944.

It can now be disclosed that details of the expected effect of such a bomb were revealed in a highly secret memorandum which was sent that summer to the chiefs of Scotland Yard, chief constables of provincial forces and senior officials of the defense services.

An elaborate scheme was drawn up by the Ministry of Home Security for prompt and adequate measures to cope with the widespread devastation and heavy casualties if the Germans succeeded in launching atomic bombs on this country.

Reports received from our agents on the Continent early last year indicated that German scientists were experimenting with an atomic bomb in Norway. According to these reports the bomb was launched by catapult, and had an explosive radius of more than two miles.

In view of our own progress in devising an 'atomic' bomb the Government gave the reports serious consideration. Thousands of men and women of the police and defense services were held in readiness for several months until reliable agents in Germany reported that the bomb had been tested and proved a failure.[5]

5. "Nazis Atom Bomb Plans," London Daily Telegraph, Saturday, August 11, 1945, cited in Edgar Meyer and Thomas Mehner, Hitler und die, Bombe", p. 37.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 05:15 | 2221346 magpie
magpie's picture

Some of the bomb making material was supplied by the Germans themselves.

A U-Boat enroute to the Japanese nuclear program in, you guessed it, northern Korea, was captured with several kilograms of uranium, which did make its way to Japan eventually.

As for the Russian or Italian conspiracy theory, well...guess who occupied the German sources of pitchblende and Japanese industrial installations after the war.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:41 | 2221989 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

The bomb material was allegedly enriched in Nazi slave camps according to the book, Reich of the Black Sun which is just an amazing read, speculative but immensely logical and well documented.

Great stories (suppressed history) behind the legends.  The implosion bomb, never tested by the US before dropping on Japan...supposedly already tested in battle by the Germans on the Eastern Front, would never had been possible without the German optical fuses, a technology not in possession of Oppie et al until provided by the Nazi techno elite looking to transfer technology and save their asses during the last throes of the war in Europe.

History is written by the victors...

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 02:43 | 2221183 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

The decision to drop nukes on Hiroshima & Nagasaki was one of the largest war crimes in history.

I have a great uncle who would have probably been among the first to invade Japan's main island had the nukes not been dropped, and he has always maintained that that act probably saved his life, or from a horrible wound, and unimaginable stress and horror, because the Japanese were fanatical in their devotion to the Emperor and the notion of dying with honor, rather than surrendering.

But my great uncle was a combatant, and overwhelming % of Japanese who died during and in the aftermath of the dropping of those two nuclear bombs were Japanese civilians (some have tried to claim that many were Rosie the Riveter types, and even though not soldiers, contributors to the Japanese war effort; even if that was true, and it's not in terms of %, that logic would basically throw out the notion that citizens can't be targeted in the same manner as combatants can be, as the extension can become so muddied down the line).

Whenever I've raised this point with him, he has gotten very defensive and angry (I don't raise it disrespectfully, but humbly), and he asks me if I were in his shoes, how I would have felt. The truth is that I wouldn't have wanted to have to invade the Japanese Mainland, either, but if my self-interest carried the day, we might as well throw out any rules (as ineffective as they currently are) about the targeting of civilians by military methods during wartime, scrap the Geneva Convention, and throw out all other rules that attempt to protect civilians from direct targeting.

The same thing was true of the bombing of London by Germany, where the goal was to really set the British civilian population on edge (yes, the Germans also wanted to strike London's ports and refineries, but the core bombing was over civilian areas).

And lastly, the literal carpet bombing/firebombing of Dresden, Germany, by U.S. air power, was devasting in terms of the number of German civilians killed. The amount of ordinance dropped during that campaign was among the greatest amounts in the history of warfare in a single campaign, and once again, the explanation was that Dresden, being a center of intense manufacturing, was a legitimate target of such massive bombing, because only by such methods could the capacity to supply the German Military be crippled.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 03:13 | 2221223 barliman
barliman's picture


Off the mark

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are far down the list of civilian casualty deaths and don't even lead the list for civilian casualty deaths in Japan. Read up on the American firebombing campaign in Japan led by Curtis LeMay in the months prior to August 1945.

After World War I, the idea of fighting wars by fielding armies into open areas for combat was abandoned. One of the driving reasons was due to the large number of combatants who died from a variety of diseases while living in trenches. World War II was, from its initiation by the Axis powers, a war fought against civilian populations. The "logic" behind targeting civilians was they constituted the ability of the Allied powers to continue operating as functioning societies which provided the underlying motivation for the combatants in addition to the basic wealth of the composite Allied nations.

Aerial bombardment did not constiture a war crime. Selectively rounding up Jews, Poles, Czechs, etc for elimination after the cessation of hostilities and occupation of captured lands does constitute a war crime.

You do your great uncle a great disservice raising the point you do. How casually you dismiss the long list of atrocities against civilians documented in the decades prior to the war by the Japanese miitary forces. The Rape of Nanking was butchery that would have made Genghis Khan jealous. The Bataan Death March was a war crime in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions. Taking women civilians and forcing them to enagage in sex with Japanese soldiers was considered even more evil.

But you can sit back 70 years later and find fault with the hard decisions and sacrifices made by others that you have benefitted from because they offend YOUR sensibilities.

How incredibly self-centered and despicable of you.


Sun, 03/04/2012 - 03:22 | 2221237 Uchtdorf
Uchtdorf's picture

You make some good points, but it's still tough in all of recorded military history to find "benevolent" soldiers. There's a whole lot of death dealt unnecessarily on all sides, by all armies. Rape and torture and theft as well.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 03:38 | 2221257 barliman
barliman's picture


Actually ...

... at the start of World War I the first "modern armies" were fielded with the intent of doing away with the collateral damage inflicted by armies against indigenous populations. Logistics were part of the war and battle planning. The advent of new technologies were expected to make "war" far shorter and more decisive.

As always, the reality was something else entirely.

As for soldiers throughout history, the professional soldier of a standing army essentially didn't exist until the wealth of the European nations/empires enabled it. A good percentage of "soldiers" throughout history were mecenaries whose 'profit' were the raping and pillaging - they were accompanied on campaigns by their women, some children and a fair number of tradespeople. Without the pillaging, there would have been little to no motivation to participate.


Sun, 03/04/2012 - 09:24 | 2221494 prole
prole's picture

"Aerial bombardment did not constiture a war crime. Selectively rounding up Jews, Poles, Czechs, etc for elimination after the cessation of hostilities and occupation of captured lands does constitute a war crime."

Your manifesto is simply a long-worded blather repeating the victors rant: The only war crime is "losing."

As long as you 'win' then after you kill your foe, you outline the definition of a "war crime," and it is always the same...

The definition of a war crime is: "Whatever that guy I just killed did." (and of course he probably didn't even do it, it's just the convenient propaganda, babies in incubators demonization of the moment)

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:06 | 2222094 barliman
barliman's picture


Manifesto? Moi?

How dare I use as reference the Nuremberg Trials and their process with regard to defining war crimes?

"The Nuremberg trials would not have taken place if there had been a requirement for reciprocal justice, because the allied powers could not have agreed to the intensive self-examination that such a criminal investigation would demand. However deep this apparent flaw in the process was at the time, there remains great value in what was accomplished to establish individual criminal responsibility for the atrocity crimes of senior Nazi leaders. Summary executions were avoided and crimes of great magnitude and horrific character were publicly identified with their perpetrators, who were brought to justice relatively speedily. The manner in which the Nuremberg trials were conducted achieved a lasting credibility for its attention to due process rights. Further, the lessons of Nuremberg and the justice rendered there upon German leaders probably had a positive influence on later generations of Germans, who have been less affected by what their ancestors endured during World War II than they otherwise might have been. Probably as a result of the Nuremberg legacy, Germany has become a strong supporters of human rights, the non-use of force, international justice, and the work of the permanent International Criminal Court."


Oh, that's right - this was the first effort to provide a legal basis that provided due process to the accused and a set of principles to define and hold certain acts as objectively being beyond the expediency of war.

Unfortunately, the Nuremberg trials also enabled those seeking to establish any act of war as a war crime and to claim the "moral high ground" (MHG'ers).

That logic has been extended into moral equivalence where there is no good or evil but a surfeit of guilt the MHG'ers arrogantly dispense on all combatant nations and peoples.

And I am the one with a manifesto?



Sun, 03/04/2012 - 04:55 | 2221342 oldman
oldman's picture

@ Uchtdorf

Maybe yor are correct about 'history', but all of the US soldiers in the movies are 'good guys'.

Who cares about 'history'?

Movies are the real deal                  om

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 20:53 | 2222830 Uchtdorf
Uchtdorf's picture

True. Just wish Hollywood would make some movies about Mao's killings and the Stalin's reign of terror.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 03:42 | 2221247 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

barliman's argument - once you cut through his reams of horseshit - essentially boils down to 2 wrongs makes a right.

Of course Japanese soldiers were barbarians. There's a reason China, South Korea and many asian nations view Japan to this day with more suspicion than any other country.

barliman essentially says that because of death marches, the rape and pillage of South Korea and Chinese cities, and atrocities against POWs and other atrocities committed by Japanese soldiers, there's no merit to suggest targeting two civilian population centers in Japan with nuclear bombs was immoral.

In other words, if your soldiers commit atrocities, there's no limit to the number of your nation's civilian men, women and children (who have done nothing wrong) we'll kill in response.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 03:49 | 2221269 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

One point excluded is that at least Japanese did not do that to their own people. By US citizen standards, it makes them much more civilized than other who do that on their own people.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 04:36 | 2221306 barliman
barliman's picture


Well, we can add liar to your list as well

My statement: "World War II was, from its initiation by the Axis powers, a war fought against civilian populations. The "logic" behind targeting civilians was they constituted the ability of the Allied powers to continue operating as functioning societies which provided the underlying motivation for the combatants in addition to the basic wealth of the composite Allied nations."

No two wrongs make a right. No reams.

Two sentences, written admittedly above your reading level, put forward the world view in context.

There was no period of warfare in recorded history when civilian populations of lands contested by armies were safe from being targeted by the aggressor armies. This is why refugees have always existed. It is better to get away from a war than it is to stay around for it.

With regard to your statement,' ... there's no merit to suggest targeting two civilian population centers in Japan with nuclear bombs was justified.'   It does not make any sense in context. Perhaps you meant to insert the word 'not' in front of justified? 

I have agreed with you on some things in the past. I won't be surprised if I agree with you on some things in the future.

I don't respect moral equivalence or righteous indignation in hind sight.  To question the judgment made to save lives on both sides in the war with Japan is both. War is not the pinnacle of civilization, it is its polar opposite. All too often, it is necessary. There is a good case to be made that World War I was not necessary and should have been avoided I have yet to come across anyone who can make a creditable argument that the Allied Powers had any other moral choice than to defeat the Axis Powers completely.


Sun, 03/04/2012 - 04:38 | 2221328 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

If war is not the pinnacle of civilization, how does it come that US citizens are so fond of it?

Hollow words, verbose as one expects US citizens to be?

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 10:04 | 2221520 DOT
DOT's picture

Verbose ?


You should know.   The purpose of war is to kill humans and to destroy anything useful to humans.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 10:16 | 2221533 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Ah, I thought that war was a means to assert domination, hegemony etc over fellow human beings...

So there is a glimmer of hope there: so far, warriors in the past have all failed, they have not yet killed all human beings so there is room for improvement.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 11:06 | 2221590 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

DOT, I'd add "and to test new, even nastier, and far more efficient killing tools, in a real world environment" to your list.

But some claim I'm a cynic of man's inherent nature.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 12:11 | 2221684 HurricaneSeason
HurricaneSeason's picture

I thought the purpose of war was to send 100-14,000 gallon truckloads of gas to Afghanistan per day. At a cost of $700-$1000 per gallon to deliver it 500 miles from the coast to the center of Afghanistan, they make Apple and their ipods and ipads look like a lemonade stand. I imagine cheesburgers go for $500 each too, with hundreds of thousands of sure thing customers.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:19 | 2221826 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Consumption is an important dimension in whatever US citizens undertake.

US citizens have triggered the race "be the first to deplete Earth's resources"

Hard to understand why but they must have their reasons.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 04:44 | 2221332 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

Wait...let me understand something, because you're not clear as to where you stand on a basic point.

I will try to resolve it by way of a question to you.

Are you suggesting that because the Axis Powers (Germany, Japan & Italy) allegedly had a formal strategy to attack civilians as a means to influence the outcome of the way (a tactical strategy), that (assuming this was true - I don't want to get into the question of whether this was a formal tactic or not, as it's besides the point- let's assume your claim is correct for the sake of the question) it would morally and legally justify us doing the same?

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 05:50 | 2221356 barliman
barliman's picture


My basic point is that war is the antithesis of civilization. War is when nation states choose violence instead of negotiations based in legality or morality. The construct of "they did it first, so we can do it in return" does not apply. If civilians had not been attacked by either side during World War II, is it more legal or more moral to have 2,000,000 die on both sides by an invasion of Japan by Allied ground forces rather than using Hiroshima and Nagasaki as demonstrations of an overwhelming technology that caused the deaths of 300,000?  I don't care whether it was "legal" or "moral" in someone's opinion three generations later, it was the right choice to make at the time.

War can be "declared" both legal and immoral - World War I fought by competing empires over colonies and the subjugation of their resident peoples was immoral on its basis but fought within the legal constraints of direct engagement of the opposing armies to limit civilian casualties. The terms imposed upon Germany provided the seed for World War II.  How I choose to pass judgment on it almost 100 years after it started means nothing because war is STILL the antithesis of civilization today.

The decisions made at a particular point in time were made by the competing sides based on their framework of values. The historical record shows that civilians were targeted for almost all wars. The American obsession with only hurting "combatants" is a relatively new approach that history 200 years from now may say was short sighted and self-defeating. I don't know that answer. I do know that I am proud that we have soldiers who are ovewhelmingly willing to avoid injuring the innocent, if possible, when our opponents are hiding behind them.


Sun, 03/04/2012 - 07:12 | 2221404 Element
Element's picture

If civilians had not been attacked by either side during World War II,


Not to get in the way of your discussions, but you might want to watch this. Play the last video on the page (it's 1 hour 30 mins long), to check-out why air attacks on civilan cities really started during WWII, in Europe at least, and which individual started it off, and why:

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 09:15 | 2221487 real
real's picture

Becuase they finally could. all means developed are eventually used in killing each other

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 09:34 | 2221500 Element
Element's picture


Germany had huge stocks of advanced nerve gases during WWII, and did not use them, even when Berlin was being pulverised to rubble.

Russia didn't go there either.

And I know you didn't watch that video.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 12:29 | 2221715 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

The US was also keeping stocks of mustard gas near the front lines just in case- in 1943 German bombers hit a US ship in the Italian port of Bari loaded with the stuff and it stopped the flow of ships into that port for several days.

Everyone had it, nobody used it.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 12:28 | 2221710 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

"If civilians had not been attacked by either side during World War II, is it more legal or more moral to have 2,000,000 die on both sides by an invasion of Japan by Allied ground forces rather than using Hiroshima and Nagasaki as demonstrations of an overwhelming technology that caused the deaths of 300,000? "

This sounds like the popular straw man argument. Just because the bomb isn't dropped doesn't mean necessarily that an invasion of Japan was necessary. America effectively and completely blockaded Japan in 1945. What were the Japanese going to do to fight back?

There is clear and convincing evidence that Japan was suing for peace at least two months before the bombs were dropped, but Washington refused to listen to the overtures. There is also clear and convincing evidence that the bombs were dropped, not to effect a Japanese surrender, but to show Stalin that America was the ruler of planet earth then.

Both Eisenhower and McArthur were against the bombs being dropped on Japan. It was Sect'y of War Henry Stimson's pet project.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:39 | 2222018 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

The U.S. used nukes on Japan because they wanted to demonstrate to current and future adversaries what would await them if they challenged the U.S., because they did want a real case demonstration of the affects of the use of such weapons in the present and future, and because some in the U.S. high command did feel that Truman was rejecting the idea of a long term blockade of Japan (essentially a siege), instead narrowing U.S. strategy down to either a) an invasion, or b) using the nukes (why Truman projected that limited option menu is anyone's guess, but many have their stong opinions).

I don't resent anyone for getting angry and lashing out when I suggest that using nuclear weapons on civilian populations was a prima facie war crime.

People have been desensitized to the suffering of defensless civilians, and more importantly, they have been lulled into the myth that we can have rules of Just War and the tactics that are acceptable in carrying Just War out, but if we violate those rules once, twice or 'as many times as may be expedient and convenient,' we can still claim the mantle of superior moral authority.

Those who claim that nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima saved more lives than would have been lost had we not are merely rationalizing what was a clear violation of basic morality and Just War theory, ex post facto.

It's easier for them to live with the consequences that accrued by professing to believe such claims, if even superficially (Id, Ego, Super-ego).

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:20 | 2222133 barliman
barliman's picture


Ahhhh, the classic MHG'ers response ...

I don't answer a question that requires a real world decision. I will arrogantly state the realities of the time were not the reality that had to be faced ... because I say so.

This puts you on the same level of the politicians and bankers currently saying that continually setting aside the rule of law and the history of past experiments in unsustainable sovereign debt because they say it will work this time.


Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:23 | 2222145 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture


I answered a real world question.

I said the use of nuclear weapons on two Japanese cities constituted a war crime.

Ergo, I would not have chosen to do so.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 20:58 | 2222839 barliman
barliman's picture



So you would have chosen to let 2,000,000 die to salve your conscience.

Even though more than 300,000 civilians would have died during the decimation required on a house by house level of ground invasion.

..... or would you prefer to be even more intellectually dishonest and now state that you would have blockaded the Japanese home islands?

Problem is you then have to choose to continually bomb the Japanese and destroy ALL means of self-sufficiency - which kills even more civilians ...

Or maintain a blockade of attrition that would have taken decades to play out, been ruinous to both sides and, in the best of circumstances, caused even more people to die.

Moral cowardice, a la Neville Chamberlain, was one of the reasons millions of people died in World War II.

It lives on today in people like yourself ... committed to your ideology no matter how despicable it proves in the long run.


Sun, 03/04/2012 - 06:17 | 2221380 t_kAyk
t_kAyk's picture

I was with you until you said WWI was necessary.  War is never necessary, IMO. 

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 21:02 | 2222847 barliman
barliman's picture



The Allied and Axis Powers were World War II - a war of necessity brought on by the imminently avoidable World War I and its ludicrous reparations used to bankrupt Germany.


Sun, 03/04/2012 - 03:31 | 2221226 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

bro, i had an uncle that was on okinawa.  i heard stories that would curl your toes.  something like 100,000 japanese died on that one tiny little island alone, with around 75,000 allied casualties.  what would mainland japan have been like? 5x?  10x?  who knows?  is it ever a numbers game, or is total war always a numbers game?


besides, tojo killed what, 20million chinese, and half a million died from chem weps, probably double the japanese that died both directly or indirectly from fat man and little boy.


of course if you believe what some here believe the whole war from start to finish was one big war crime.  c'est la vie.


no junks from me btw, i've not found much to disagree with so far.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 03:38 | 2221254 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

You're adopting a common position, and one that's seductive.

I even conceded that I would have not wanted to have been offshore Japan, awaiting orders to launch an invasion of the mainland.

But if we can't acknowledge that civilians (non-armed, non-combatants) can't lawfully, morally be directly targeted by military methods, essentially allowing warfare to devolve into no rules, no discerning between combatant and civilian, we're worse than back in the stone age given the weapons of utter destruction we now possess and utilize.

Turn the tables. Do you have children? Would you think it moral if your 4 year old were killed, your mother was killed or your sister was killed, by an intentional strike, during a time of way, or would you not believe such a direct targeting of clear non-combatants and to be unjust and immoral?

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 03:50 | 2221272 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

what if, hypothetically speaking, a vast majority of the two million or so japanese soldiers under arms fought to the death, as they had proven wont to do during the pacific campaign?  suppose then, that civilians would not all passively wait for the end, but rather take up the arms of those soldiers as they fell, continuing the fight.  or even worse, killed their children and then committed suicide when all looked lost, because they had been told all sorts of horror stories about what american troops would do to them if taken alive.  morally speaking, how many countless thousands of young children were spared absolute abject terror and betrayal before a gruesome death at the hands of their own parents?  my point is, from a sheer numbers standpoint, hiroshima and nagasaki look small.  truly, i don't think it is an underestimation to argue that dropping those bombs saved millions.  many of them civilians, in all likelihood far more than died in the blasts, but we'll never really know... and that, i think, was a good thing.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 03:58 | 2221284 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

You're presupposing things that may or may not have happened.

Once a civilian picks up a weapon and enters the fight, they're no longer a civilian, but a soldier/combatant.

Would many Japanese civilians have done that? Would women and toddlers have done that?

I doubt many women or toddlers, old men and women, or babies would have. Maybe a significant % of males between 15 and 60 would have (although I don't know).

But isn't that like pre-cog? Now we're getting into killing present civilians based on some sort of haphazard modeling of who we believe will or won't pick up a weapon and attempt to fight at some future point.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 04:14 | 2221307 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

just because you cannot precisely quantify something does not mean it is irrelevant.  have you not seen the footage of mothers tossing their chidren off the cliffs on okinawa?  that happened; and would have happened on the mainland as well.  to what extent, you are correct, no one is certain.  one point i feel very strongly about though is male civvies, most of them would have taken up arms.  they may or may not have surrendered more easily than regular army. 

i just find arguments in favor of more death than actually occurred because it was somehow less immoral to be a bit offputting, and the argument that peasant types who take up weapons in defense of their homeland somehow don't count is a bit shaky as well.  all of that aside, in essence your position is less than 300k civvies > 3-4million military plus civilian?  which, counting losses on both sides, i think might be a little conservative.  do you disagree with that figure?

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 04:41 | 2221331 barliman
barliman's picture



You are using logic presupposing ETF's willingness to revise his politically correct stance in light of rational statements.


Sun, 03/04/2012 - 04:50 | 2221334 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

If having a legal and moral framework by which there are limits to what a nation can and cannot do, even in times of war, is a 'politically correct' doctrine, than I guess I am in favor of political correctness in that context.

I had always thought of it as a question of basic morality.

By all means, justify the rape, pillage and murder of civilians, as a war time tactic or because "the other side is doing it," for fear of being 'politically correct' otherwise, any way you like.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 05:47 | 2221369 barliman
barliman's picture


See my reply to the question you asked me above, below or whereever it is.

Stop saying I am saying things I am not ( justify the rape, pillage and murder of civilians) because you embarass yourself when you do it. Other people can read. The know when you are lying.

Point of clarity - neither side in World War II chose NOT to target civilians when they had the offensive capability to do so.

There is another way to address this question ...

In Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones is fighting with a bunch of bad guys in the marketplace and clears out a bunch of them in hand to hand combat ... but then the crowd clears and there is a BIG bad guy there with a fancy sword that demonstrates his proficiency with it ... and then Indiana pulls out his revolver and shoots the BAD guy in the chest.

Moral or immoral?


Sun, 03/04/2012 - 12:39 | 2221731 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Actually both sides, British and German, chose to NOT target civilians early in the war.  An off target german bombing raid on Britain dropped bombs unintentionally on civilians.  Churchill used this as his excuse to begin bombing civilians in Germany, which had the effect of Germany needing to dedicate more defence resources to protect civilians.  This was Churchill's intent, since the Brits were so severely outnumbered at that point in the war (1940 I think).

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 05:43 | 2221367 shuckster
shuckster's picture

I find that the self righteous moralism referred to by "Truth" is the stuff ill intended parties. The left talks about compassion, but in private conversation fantasizes about murdering and torturing their enemies. Same with the religious right. War is rather simple when you boil down to it. You have to do what you have to do. No one enjoys, and if they do, they learn to stop enjoying it rather quickly, once they've seen it first hand. But there are times when it is appropriate. Was Japan a real threat to the United States? Not at all. But there are things that even the US, with it's vast wealth, cannot tolerate - namely, the butcher of it's POW's and the other autrocities committed by Japan. However, I offer the opposite solution. If history has taught us anything - it is that if you are going to do something do it right. In keeping with this principle, I believe the Japanese people as a whole should have been whiped out completely - or their attack on Pearl Harbor should have been brushed off. But half measures has only led us to a more perilous predicament. 60 years later we are still dealing with the repurcussions of the nuclear attack on Japan. Not only do they presumably boil with resentment, but they seek to influence our neighbors to share their resentment. As far as making desktop definitions of "civilians". That's silly. A person of a certain birth will inevitably grow into their parents. Influencing how they think is a short term solution. If someone threatens, they must be completely elimated or left alone, but punching them and then expecting them not to retaliate is illogical and eventually leads to a more worse retaliation. I'm not saying we will not one day be at war with Japan again, but I am saying that every day, in their heartest of heartest, they are praying for our downfall and are waiting to strike us when we are at our weakest point

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 07:31 | 2221420 Element
Element's picture


Not only do they presumably boil with resentment, but they seek to influence our neighbors to share their resentment. ... I'm not saying we will not one day be at war with Japan again, but I am saying that every day, in their heartest of heartest, they are praying for our downfall and are waiting to strike us when we are at our weakest point


WTF? ... "presumably"? ... how old are you, and are you even an American?  I've personally not once seen the Japanese do any such thing, nor voice a sentiment that they desire revenge for WWII's butchery, or the nuclear attacks, or the shocking fire-bombings.

You seem to have almost no grasp of what has transpired since 1945. In Australia the bitterness against the Japanese was white-hot right up until about 1970.   Then we gradually started to get over it, but the old diggers never did. But they have almost all died now, or very soon will.  There's practically zero animosity remaining between Japan and the Western world of today, quite the reverse in fact, a lot of respect and remorse for past wrongs and mistreatment, on both sides.


EDIT: ah, I see your bio says, "college student in Southern California", that explains some of it.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 12:46 | 2221749 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

"the US, with it's vast wealth, cannot tolerate - namely, the butcher of it's POW's and the other autrocities committed by Japan."

And Eisenhower's now infamous POW camps in Germany where over a million Germans died AFTER the war was over of starvation and exposure -- should the Germans not be able to tolerate that?

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:31 | 2221851 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

What? Where does this come from?

I had quite a few relatives in US POW camps after the war- every one of them was quite happy with the food and got alot more then they did before. Real people I actually knew and talked to, not some story in the interweb and the universal sentiment was that the food was good- not always as much as one wanted perhaps but considering that the population was literally starving to death at that time they had it better then most. Civilians had it worse then prisoners in that first year after the war but they were starving before the war ended.

Compared with relatives in Soviet camps (the very few who returned or lived long after they did) it was a freaking cake walk.  A million dead in Soviet camps- no doubt. US camps? Bullshit.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 19:35 | 2222721 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

It was just the ones under Eisenhower's and some allege french control. Patton let the POWs go home when Germany surrendered. Some people allege part of Eisenhower's hatred of Germans was due to his Jooishness. It has also been alleged that this policy was due to JSC 1067 or the Morgenthau Plan which was to eradicate 25 % of the German people.

some refs:

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 03:35 | 2221253 CryingBear
CryingBear's picture

fuk imperial Japan. they were just as bad as the Nazi's. Using Chinese and Korean civilians to perform test surgeries without anesthsia and raping little civilian boys because their penises were to small to have sex with women. they are lucky we didnt wipe their race off earth. if it wasnt for the japanese invasion, their would be no communist china or north korea. 

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 03:52 | 2221274 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

If they were as bad as that, why did they gain immunity from prosecution thanks to the US of A in exchange for the 'knowledge' they collected through their experiments?

As history reads, US citizens of A chose they were lucky to have the likes of Japan.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:21 | 2221830 trav7777
trav7777's picture

the german bombing of London??!?!  WTF

This was in retaliation for Churchill's order to bomb Berlin!  Churchill knew that the war was taking too high a toll on his military assets so he attacked a civilian population center in order to ratchet up to total war.  Hitler took the bait because his population demanded retribution, so he bombed their cities.

Nobody seems to remember that Russia also invaded Poland and that the allies were the ones who FIRST took the steps toward total war outside of the Eastern Front, where it really was always total war.

The Allies really rather mercilessly continued to prosecute total war (that they instigated) through until complete surrender and occupation.

War is war, that's the way it goes.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:03 | 2221926 Jake88
Jake88's picture

Far more Japanese were killed in conventional bombing than in the nuclear bombings.  It is almost universally agreed thta the nuclear attacks save hundreds of thousands of Japanese and American lives.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 19:41 | 2222725 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

How many Jewish lives will be saved if Iran nukes Israel instead of using conventional bombs?  One would think, using your inescapable logic, that Israel would give Iran nukes instead of threatening war.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:19 | 2222132 mkkby
mkkby's picture

No disrespect to your uncle, but both of you have been conned by a false choice.  It was not nuke or invade.  Japan could have been easily and bloodlessly blockaded/sieged for as long as it took for them to surrender.  We had destroyed their navy.  They had no way to resist such a thing.

Dropping the bomb was as much a display of power than anything else.  Those who did it knew it was horribly wrong.  Want proof?  Why didn't we nuke Berlin the very next day?  The invasion of Europe carried the same risk to our soldiers.  Yet we did it.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:47 | 2222214 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

I couldn't agree with you more, and I was originally remiss to not point out that there more than two options (I since posted that there were  indeed more than two options), including the blockade option (which still would have inflicted suffering on civilians, but wouldn't have directly targeted civilians with military machinery and weaponry).

And of course, many here have claimed, and I am in agreement with them, that Truman wouldn't let the Japanese surrender under any condition, and even their offer to surrender as long as they'd be merely allowed to retain their Emperor in a symbolic manner (which was allowed ultimately, anyways) was rejected.


Sun, 03/04/2012 - 09:29 | 2221186 resurger
resurger's picture

Trav, MDB & Hammy are your cronies or what?

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:22 | 2221831 trav7777
trav7777's picture

nope, don't know 'em.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 10:01 | 2221517 bugs_
bugs_'s picture

and they used biological weapons on the Chinese, attempted to use them on us.  an often forgotten point.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:02 | 2221787 trav7777
trav7777's picture

"Japan" asked for it?  You mean japanese people?  All those children we fried had it coming, eh?

You people and your rationalizations...

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:07 | 2221935 Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

Japan invaded China to prevent it from becoming Communist.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 03:59 | 2221286 HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

We were planning "Olympic" to throw about 1.45 Million Army and Marines onto the Japanese Main Island Homeland.

With about another 3 million being moved, trained, called up and so forth so on etc... We expected every single Japanese Man, woman and child to resist and they were organized into a very structured home units in every little village all through Japan.

We made so many purple hearts for that specific invasion for the expected millions of wounded, we are still handing out that pile of PH's today for our current Wars.

The war with Olympic may have lasted into the late 50's early 60's

The decision to use Atomic weapons for a One Two punch against Cities that are untouched to send a message to Japan that they face total destruction never before seen by mankind.

It is a blessing that those bombs saved so many lives on both sides.

Now in these Current World Events I consider the old Cold War data and books learned decades ago still valid today. However our Nation has in some ways become soft and in other ways very strong.

Someone may very well lob a Nuclear weapon into our Homeland. If that happens, you need to expect that the response at the scene will be one of total containment with absolutely nothing in or nothing out.

If you don't accept this and laugh me off as a nutcase who has lost touch and getting too old for this shit (Hulka) then I will hope that you are not within the fallout range or inside the C,B and A Zones after a blast.

I look around me and I see just... so many thousands of walking dead. They dont prepare, they dont understand and are clueless.

I do notice a few who are awake and we are doing what we can.

I don't fear the enemy. I do fear the stampede of a herd of civilians driven mad by loss of everything modern and fear of hunger, loss and a world turned upside down.

If that happens, I will stack bodies at the door. And then seek to bug out because within three days those bodies will make sickness that will kill many more faster than any war.

I do keep some Diesel on hand for cremation purposes.

It will not be the first time war has been in our Nation.

Research Gettysburg after the 3 day battle and you will learn that dead livestock, horses and arms, legs etc burned in pyres lasting weeks and months.

The entire area took 6 months or more before even considering anything near recovery.

A nation can and will use nuclear, bio and slime weapons against civilians. It would not be difficult at all to put a RPG into a train tanker in a small town during a cool winter night with no wind. The gas will spread and kill people in the beds.

Does anyone remember the massive kill from a big Union Carbide industrial Accident? Or Iran's own attack on it's people along with Saddam's use of nerve, gas etc.

Some things are far worse than nuclear weapons.

The true horror comes from the evil within us. There are those who documented what happened to people young and old in a total vacumn for example until they died. I have read some of these books to research and frankly I would leave the library enraged because what was done back then can be twisted even further today by thugs and social paths who have no qualms to take out people like you and me.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 07:14 | 2221406 trauma
trauma's picture

You forgot to mention that at the time Stalin was amassing his forces for an invasion of the Japanese mainland as well and the 2 nukes were a message from the yanks to him to back off.  It also reduced the power/role of the Soviets in the negotiations for Japanese Surrender of which both the Emporer and Civilian Gov was prepaired to enter into before the bombs were dropped.  The Imperial Forces ono the other hand were not so welcoming of the party but they got to see first hand what US Marines were capable yet oddly, the actions of US babarism in the pacific seems to be missing from the pages of history.  Still, it was enough to scare the crap out of the Japanese enough for them to prefer suicide to being captured.

Also odd is the missing millions of Germans killed after the cessation of hostilities on both the East Occupied and West Occupied Zones.  2 years of terror missing from history on how the Germans were treated until 46 when the US realised that the Germans could be useful in their Cold War against Stalin.  Just saying.

Accounts of German occupation from France, Italy and German behaviour in Finland point to a disciplined and civil military organisation. Not like others who came afterwards and the Italians are just loving the position the Mafia has in their society thanks to the support given them during WW2

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 08:02 | 2221440 Optimusprime
Optimusprime's picture

Correct.  Also, HS ignores the fact that the Japanese had been seeking terms for surrender--so long as the EMperor remained (which we ended up conceding anyway, after "making our point" to the rest of the world with our hell weapons)--for MONTHS prior to the dropping of the bombs.  Olympic was never "necessary".

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 17:49 | 2222520 HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

Good points.

Regarding USSR, they did declare against Japan and deploy somewhat. I was not certain if USSR was wanting to open a new front a-la Berlin in Japan too... so I did not include it.

Regarding the Emperor, to the Japanese People and their Bushido, Surrender is not an option. And the mindset was the Emperor is Divine and to even consider signing Terms with the USA or anyone is not exactly supported at the time.

Sometimes I wonder if our own Embargo against Japan caused them to strike south for the oil, rubber and eventually to Pearl in a attempt to smash our Carriers. (That was the real prize...) they also happened to leave the tank farm at Pearl alone more or less. If they destroyed that too... our ability to make war on the Pacific would be limited to the West Coast only.

I think Embargoing Iran now is driving them to war. I myself over the years have been a very strong die hard Hawk for a proper war for the reasons deemed.. reasonable. !

Now I am beginning to see a Nation that is not truly at war today or any time into the future.

Our enemies are going to hit us where it hurts and it only hardens my resolve not to quit.

Those who fail to properly teach history to our Children will doom our Nation due to ignorance of lessons bought and paid for by our fathers and their father's blood on the Tree.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:25 | 2221841 trav7777
trav7777's picture

yeah, yeah, blablabla...the japs were all robots who would fight to the death.

But a couple of big bombs caused everyone to surrender.  Bullshit.  They were already trying to surrender to anyone who would listen.

The ONE condition was retain the Emperor; this is all very well-established and documented history, dude.  We nuked them over insistence to unconditional surrender, all over this ONE point, and then we let them fucking retain the Emperor ANYWAY!

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:13 | 2221950 Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

Truman (possible crypto-jew) and his jew handlers just wanted to fry people-Christians in particular as both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had large Christian populations.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 11:01 | 2221575 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

Being how Japan was an island nation and the US had the largest navy in the world by the end of the war, a good old fashioned blockade would have been sufficient to get Japan to surrender.

There was only one reason they used the bomb; to scare Stalin.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 12:41 | 2221736 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

A huge point ignored by the "Nuking Japan is a war crime" crowd- the US had never faced the bulk of the Imperial Army which was alive and well.  We had beaten their Navy to a pulp but had fought only a sliver of the army itself- they still had over two million soldiers in China which would have been impossible to dislodge. It was a few thousand here and a few thousand there hopping islands through the Pacific which were destroyed through overwrhelming numbers and firepower but the vast majority of their army was untouched.

After reading this discussion Im glad I grew up when reading actual books in large numbers was necessary to understand things and not scanning the net for any bit of lunacy someone posts.  Most here have an absolutely minimal comprehension of what occured and have such a distorted view unconnected with actual events it would be funny if not so sad.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:26 | 2221845 trav7777
trav7777's picture

idiot...the red army sliced through them like butter.

They were DONE, COOKED at that point.

The Japs had ALREADY tried to surrender multiple times.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:36 | 2221860 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

And yet we took severe casualties never fighting much beyond divisional strength.

Please list a single, footnoted book which shows its information sources to back up your contention that they tried to surrender.  Not some half baked shit you read on the internet, an actual researched piece of work that clearly shows where the information comes from.

I dont think you have or have read such a work.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:02 | 2222077 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

Im beginning to think you have absolutely nothing to back up what you say. Quelle suprise.

I recall you being very frustrated with people here at the time of the Fukushima meltdown because they were experts who read something unsubstatiated on the interweb and evidently you have an actual background in nuclear power and have studied the issues.

Youre doing the same damn thing.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 19:22 | 2222682 spankfish
spankfish's picture

The Decision to Use the Bomb by Gar Alperovitz

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:02 | 2221786 knightowl77
knightowl77's picture

Were you there? Do you have 20/20 hindsight? in WWII Pacific Islands had to be invaded and cleared.....

Don't you remember the stories of Japanese still being found on certain Islands 20 or 30 years after the war had ended, but they were still resisting because they never heard the war was over? Japan would not have surrendered to a blockade.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:49 | 2222228 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

But even if what you say is true, it's a red herring.

The issue  is whether it's acceptable to deliberately target civilians with military force, let alone nuclear weapons.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 01:26 | 2221060 johngaltfla
johngaltfla's picture

Buckle the F up time gang.

Oh and grab a cigar and a cold drink.

It's about to get beyond real.

Can we say "gasoline rationing" boys and girls?

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 01:35 | 2221083 Nassim
Nassim's picture

I guess "Welt am Sontag" has correspondents in North Korea's bunkers, or is it Germany's Defence Ministry? Redoutable spies. :)

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 01:46 | 2221102 johngaltfla
johngaltfla's picture

More like CIA handlers leaking BS...

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 01:26 | 2221061 KingPin 999
KingPin 999's picture

This has to be bullshit. For one, how did it take over a year for this to come out, because if this was known beforehand you know the Republicrats would use it for propaganda in the debates. Second, how the hell can a nuclear scientist know whose nuke is being tested. I guess nuclear isotopes have a different atomic weight if they are Iran's.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 01:28 | 2221065 johngaltfla
johngaltfla's picture

Because you don't release bullshit like this until you are absolutely ready to attack. AKA, Colin Powell's famous bullshit speech to the U.N.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 01:33 | 2221077 Conrad Murray
Conrad Murray's picture

A video reminder for the newcomers and forgetful:

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 02:47 | 2221193 BigMike
BigMike's picture

"Who said somethin' about oil, bitch? You cookin'??"

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 01:33 | 2221080 cherry picker
cherry picker's picture

I remember that speech and upt to that moment always respected and liked Powell,but looking at his face and watching the presentation it was clear in my mind he did not believe in the story he was telling.  It was obvious he was under "orders".  That was a sad day in my mind.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 02:27 | 2221166 barliman
barliman's picture


Every nuclear fuel source has its own "fingerprint"

Each reactor is unique in it materials, construction, operation and by-products. In the process of creating plutonium, the reactor's characteristics are included in the plutonium creating a "fingerprint" for the reactor.


Sun, 03/04/2012 - 01:27 | 2221062 larry david
larry david's picture


Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!