Big C said:

---

A lot of this stuff is semantics. Here's what the world saw...

October 7th attacks were horrific and a strong response was reasonable and expected.

In the ensuing few weeks, okay there were going to be some civilian casualties in Gaza, as everybody knew that Hamas used civilians to shield their operations. Okay fine but try and limit it.

By November, the Oct. 7 attacks had receded a bit in people's memories and every night we saw carnage in Gaza. Day after day after day, which overshadowed the 10/7 attacks. That accompanied by harsh, "no regrets" rhetoric from Netanyahu and his cronies. Limited humanitarian aid, often blocked. Children starving. That has been going on for close to 500 days.

So call it what you will: proportionate / proportional / rules of war / laws of war / art of war, whatever. But observers throughout the world see a response that appears too blunt and ham-handed, with seemingly limited effort to be surgical (as hard as that might be).

Israel needed to win some hearts and minds... and they could have. But they didn't, at least for the most part.


Note that I am very anti-Hamas and also pro-state-of-Israel (though not pro-current-Israeli-government).

---

I agree the discussions of proportionality are largely a distraction, particularly when people like Bearister misapply the doctrine and hold Israel to a standard that no other country is held to.

The Israeli position is not surprising. They will not accept continued Hamas control of Gaza and they want their hostages back. Those are legitimate war aims. Full stop. Many in this thread expect Israel to accept a cease fire/end of the war on different terms. No other country would do that.

In terms of the bolded, please explain what alternate methods are available to Israel to achieve its war aims - removal of Hamas and return of hostages. Hamas hides behind women and children and in schools/hospitals. Israel is entitled to fight to win.

I'm going to offer an easy example of the hypocrisy. Israel is told it is responsible for feeding and providing water to Gaza - aid that is taken by Hamas. No other country is expected to feed its enemy. In fact, in connection with the recent India-Pakistan tensions, India has threatened to terminate a water treaty with Pakistan.

I haven't seen a single article/person claiming India is required to provide water to its enemy. Certainly non one on this board. The impact on Pakistan would be far more devastating in terms of starvation and loss of life than anything happening in Gaza. Yet no one questions India's right to terminate a treaty/water deliveries in a time of war.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/water-wars-how-india-is-planning-to-divert-water-from-indus-river-system-leave-pakistan-high-and-dry-waters-treaty/articleshow/121209850.cms

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/water-wars-how-india-is-planning-to-divert-water-from-indus-river-system-leave-pakistan-high-and-dry-waters-treaty/articleshow/121209850.cms

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/india-weighs-plan-slash-pakistan-water-supply-with-new-indus-river-project-2025-05-16/

Cal88 said:

---

bearister said:

---

I don't know what the ultimate truth is because I'm not going to spend endless hours researching to find the credible sources contradicting what Baby Boomers were fed, set forth in this AI Overview:

"While there is evidence of Japanese leadership exploring potential surrender terms before the atomic bombings, it's inaccurate to say they were outright willing to surrender. Japanese leaders were divided on the matter, with hardliners advocating for continued resistance, even in the face of devastation. The atomic bombs, coupled with the Soviet Union's declaration of war, ultimately pushed the Japanese government towards accepting the Allied terms of surrender.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Evidence of "Peace Feelers":

The US was aware of Japanese efforts to explore peace negotiations, as they had cracked Japanese diplomatic codes (MAGIC).
These intercepts suggested Japan might be moving towards surrender, but not necessarily unconditional surrender.

Historians have noted instances of Japanese leaders attempting to find a way out of the war, often seeking terms that would preserve the emperor's position.

Factors Preventing Surrender:

Division within the Japanese government:

The hardline factions within the Japanese War Council consistently rejected unconditional surrender and advocated for continued fighting.

Unacceptable terms:

The Japanese demanded significant concessions, such as no foreign occupation, Japan's control of disarmament, and the retention of the emperor, which were not acceptable to the Allies.

Fear of total defeat:

The Japanese leadership feared a complete collapse of their society and a humiliating occupation.

The Potsdam Declaration:

The Allied ultimatum for unconditional surrender was met with "mokusatsu" ("no comment"), effectively rejecting the offer.

The Soviet Union's entry into the war:

The Soviet Union's invasion of Manchuria further destabilized the Japanese government and made it more likely they would accept surrender.

The Role of the Atomic Bombs:

The atomic bombings, particularly after the second bomb, significantly shook Japanese leadership and contributed to the shift towards surrender.

The bombs demonstrated the devastating power of the new weapon and reinforced the idea that continued war was not a viable option.

The Emperor Hirohito ultimately intervened to accept the Allied terms, ending the war.

In conclusion, while there were indications of Japanese leaders exploring peace, the country was not genuinely willing to surrender before the atomic bombings. The bombs, combined with the Soviet Union's declaration of war, were decisive factors in forcing Japan's surrender."

Your sources?

If Japan was chomping at the bit to surrender, any theories why it didn't surrender on Hiroshima +1 or +2?

I found this in an AI Overview:

"A U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that Japan would have surrendered by November 1945, even without the atomic bombings. "

…..so I suppose the possibility exits that like Rick in Casablanca, I was "misinformed."

---

Japan was already defeated before Hiroshima, and their leadership had already signaled that they were ready to surrender. As I've mentioned above, this is a well-known fact, supported by the testimonies of most top US military leaders. Exhibits A through E:

[url=https://www.espn.com/soccer/team/_/id/384/crystal-palace][/url]General Eisenhower: "my grave misgivings, first on the basis that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking the world opinion by the use of a weapon ,….no longer necessary to save American Lives."

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 329, Chapter 26) . . . [Nimitz also stated: "The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . ."]

In a private 1946 letter to Walter Michels of the Association of Philadelphia Scientists, Nimitz observed that "the decision to employ the atomic bomb on Japanese cities was made on a level higher than that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

"The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . ."

Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before.

Rear Admiral L. Lewis Strauss, special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy from 1944 to 1945 (and later chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission), replaced Bard on the Interim Committee after he left government on July 1. Subsequently, Strauss repeatedly stated his belief that the use of the atomic bomb "was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion. . . ." Strauss recalled:

I proposed to Secretary Forrestal at that time that the weapon should be demonstrated. . . . Primarily, it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate. . . . My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to the Japanese observers, and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a good place--satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood. . . . I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest . . . would [have] laid the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they had been matchsticks, and of course set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities, their fortifications at will. . . .

On September 20, 1945 the famous "hawk" who commanded the Twenty-First Bomber Command, Major General Curtis E. LeMay (as reported in The New York Herald Tribune) publicly:

said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 336, Chapter 27)
The text of the press conference provides these details:

LeMay: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.
The Press: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic bomb?
. . .
LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

---

Lots of dissembling here. The allies had set (and announced) the war goal of unconditional surrender. Japan did not offer that prior to Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Full stop.

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/japanese-diplomacy-1945

The other opinions you offer above are just that - opinions - and don't discuss the alternatives to dropping the bomb. Yes - it would have been possible to invade Japan at great loss of life - on both sides. The US/Truman was not obliged to accept those losses.

Again - until Nagasaki, Japan did not offer to unconditionally surrender. Suing for peace on different terms is largely irrelevant.

Wikipedia actually has a decent explanation of the argument on both sides. As usual, you present questionable characterizations as "facts" that are in dispute (if not objectively false).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Rear Admiral George Stephen Morrison said:

"There's danger on the edge of town
Ride the King's Highway, baby
Weird scenes inside the gold mine
Ride the highway west, baby
Ride the snake, ride the snake
To the lake, the ancient lake, baby
The snake, he's long, seven miles"

Japan did not sue for peace. At best a minority faction within the Japanese government put out feelers. This is supported by simple common sense. Even after 2 nukes were dropped and Russia invaded (successfully) in Manchuria the Japanese war council still was tied 3-3 in its vote to surrender. They only surrendered when the Emporer broke the tie.

BearGoggles said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

bearister said:

---

I don't know what the ultimate truth is because I'm not going to spend endless hours researching to find the credible sources contradicting what Baby Boomers were fed, set forth in this AI Overview:

"While there is evidence of Japanese leadership exploring potential surrender terms before the atomic bombings, it's inaccurate to say they were outright willing to surrender. Japanese leaders were divided on the matter, with hardliners advocating for continued resistance, even in the face of devastation. The atomic bombs, coupled with the Soviet Union's declaration of war, ultimately pushed the Japanese government towards accepting the Allied terms of surrender.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Evidence of "Peace Feelers":

The US was aware of Japanese efforts to explore peace negotiations, as they had cracked Japanese diplomatic codes (MAGIC).
These intercepts suggested Japan might be moving towards surrender, but not necessarily unconditional surrender.

Historians have noted instances of Japanese leaders attempting to find a way out of the war, often seeking terms that would preserve the emperor's position.

Factors Preventing Surrender:

Division within the Japanese government:

The hardline factions within the Japanese War Council consistently rejected unconditional surrender and advocated for continued fighting.

Unacceptable terms:

The Japanese demanded significant concessions, such as no foreign occupation, Japan's control of disarmament, and the retention of the emperor, which were not acceptable to the Allies.

Fear of total defeat:

The Japanese leadership feared a complete collapse of their society and a humiliating occupation.

The Potsdam Declaration:

The Allied ultimatum for unconditional surrender was met with "mokusatsu" ("no comment"), effectively rejecting the offer.

The Soviet Union's entry into the war:

The Soviet Union's invasion of Manchuria further destabilized the Japanese government and made it more likely they would accept surrender.

The Role of the Atomic Bombs:

The atomic bombings, particularly after the second bomb, significantly shook Japanese leadership and contributed to the shift towards surrender.

The bombs demonstrated the devastating power of the new weapon and reinforced the idea that continued war was not a viable option.

The Emperor Hirohito ultimately intervened to accept the Allied terms, ending the war.

In conclusion, while there were indications of Japanese leaders exploring peace, the country was not genuinely willing to surrender before the atomic bombings. The bombs, combined with the Soviet Union's declaration of war, were decisive factors in forcing Japan's surrender."

Your sources?

If Japan was chomping at the bit to surrender, any theories why it didn't surrender on Hiroshima +1 or +2?

I found this in an AI Overview:

"A U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that Japan would have surrendered by November 1945, even without the atomic bombings. "

…..so I suppose the possibility exits that like Rick in Casablanca, I was "misinformed."

---

Japan was already defeated before Hiroshima, and their leadership had already signaled that they were ready to surrender. As I've mentioned above, this is a well-known fact, supported by the testimonies of most top US military leaders. Exhibits A through E:

[url=https://www.espn.com/soccer/team/_/id/384/crystal-palace][/url]General Eisenhower: "my grave misgivings, first on the basis that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking the world opinion by the use of a weapon ,….no longer necessary to save American Lives."

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 329, Chapter 26) . . . [Nimitz also stated: "The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . ."]

In a private 1946 letter to Walter Michels of the Association of Philadelphia Scientists, Nimitz observed that "the decision to employ the atomic bomb on Japanese cities was made on a level higher than that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

"The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . ."

Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before.

Rear Admiral L. Lewis Strauss, special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy from 1944 to 1945 (and later chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission), replaced Bard on the Interim Committee after he left government on July 1. Subsequently, Strauss repeatedly stated his belief that the use of the atomic bomb "was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion. . . ." Strauss recalled:

I proposed to Secretary Forrestal at that time that the weapon should be demonstrated. . . . Primarily, it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate. . . . My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to the Japanese observers, and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a good place--satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood. . . . I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest . . . would [have] laid the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they had been matchsticks, and of course set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities, their fortifications at will. . . .

On September 20, 1945 the famous "hawk" who commanded the Twenty-First Bomber Command, Major General Curtis E. LeMay (as reported in The New York Herald Tribune) publicly:

said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 336, Chapter 27)
The text of the press conference provides these details:

LeMay: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.
The Press: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic bomb?
. . .
LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

---

Lots of dissembling here. The allies had set (and announced) the war goal of unconditional surrender. Japan did not offer that prior to Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Full stop.

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/japanese-diplomacy-1945

The other opinions you offer above are just that - opinions - and don't discuss the alternatives to dropping the bomb. Yes - it would have been possible to invade Japan at great loss of life - on both sides. The US/Truman was not obliged to accept those losses.

Again - until Nagasaki, Japan did not offer to unconditionally surrender. Suing for peace on different terms is largely irrelevant.

Wikipedia actually has a decent explanation of the argument on both sides. As usual, you present questionable characterizations as "facts" that are in dispute (if not objectively false).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

---

The series of quotes I have provided above are all from key US military leaders, they are their unequivocal assessments of the situation. No one else was better qualified to assess Japan's military situation and readiness to surrender than MacArthur, Nimitz, Eisenhower, Halsey, Strauss, LeMay et al.

Their assessment has been covered up and blotted our of history, understandably so, by both leaders like Truman and the political establishment, as it is a black mark on the legacy of WW2.

bearister said:

---

Rear Admiral George Stephen Morrison said:

"There's danger on the edge of town
Ride the King's Highway, baby
Weird scenes inside the gold mine
Ride the highway west, baby
Ride the snake, ride the snake
To the lake, the ancient lake, baby
The snake, he's long, seven miles"

---

Great reference, though I think his son wrote the lyrics.

The EndYouTube The Doors - TopicNov 8, 2014

From the movie that made the song famous: "In a war there are many moments for compassion and tender action. There are many moments for ruthless action - what is often called ruthless - what may in many circumstances be only clarity, seeing clearly what there is to be done and doing it, directly, quickly, awake, looking at it."

Everyone wants to justify what is viewed as a deviation from standard military procedures, conduct people like to think is supposed to be a normal when engaged in killing people. That includes you in connection with our actions in Japan, To again quote from Apocalypse Now, there really "is no method at all" to doing this other than your side is in the right.

108 ft Maverick's ride (still being verified).

It should make this season's….

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14126234/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk

When you have a weapon like that you are going to use it- as a demonstration and for advantage over the Soviets in Asia

Cal88 said:

---

The series of quotes I have provided above are all from key US military leaders, they are their unequivocal assessments of the situation. No one else was better qualified to assess Japan's military situation and readiness to surrender than MacArthur, Nimitz, Eisenhower, Halsey, Strauss, LeMay et al.

Their assessment has been covered up and blotted our of history, understandably so, by both leaders like Truman and the political establishment, as it is a black mark on the legacy of WW2.

---

Interesting discussion. I love that our football board can have them.

There are purported overtures / suing for peace events in Jan/Feb, May and August 10 of 1945. Notably, all of them included Japan's insistence that the Emperor and Constitution remain in effect. The US always insisted on unconditional surrender. The parties never agreed on terms until after the bombs were dropped and Russia invaded. The Allies made the "unconditional surrender" terms concrete with the Potsdam Declaration in July, 1945. Japan's response was "Mokusatsu" (killing with silence"). Japan only accepted unconditional surrender @1 week after the 2nd bomb. This is important. However Japan's overtures can be characterized, there was never a deal ... the inference from the "Japan sued for peace" words is misleading.

The only quote you included that specifically referred to Japan suing for peace was Nimitz. Many historians believe this quote refers to Japan's August 10, 1945 offer (4 and 1 days after the bombs were dropped).

All of your other quotes discuss the effect of the bombs on ending the war. They reflect the view that Russia's invasion played a massive role in Japan's surrender because it eliminated their best chances for a most favorable surrender (ie retaining the Emperor / Constitution). Once those hopes were foiled they surrendered.

Bill Maher says that we all need to take the time to talk to MAGAs and have an understanding of where they are coming from…..



…..I already know where they are coming from.

bearister said:

---

108 ft Maverick's ride (still being verified).

It should make this season's….

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14126234/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk

---

UFB! Wish the system would allow more than one star

bearister said:

---

Bill Maher says that we all need to take the time to talk to MAGAs and have an understanding of where they are coming from…..



…..I already know where they are coming from.

---

There is no stage 5 cancer and we all know she isn't a medical doctor. Trump Jr. was trying to be funny, and cancer just isn't funny. Now Maher can be funny.

wifeisafurd said:

---

bearister said:

---

Bill Maher says that we all need to take the time to talk to MAGAs and have an understanding of where they are coming from…..



…..I already know where they are coming from.

---

There is no stage 5 cancer and we all know she isn't a medical doctor. Trump Jr. was trying to be funny, and cancer just isn't funny. Now Maher can be funny.

---

Was he trying to be funny or expressing sarcasm at another situation where the Biden White House was hiding important information from the public? In any case, I can't find that tweet anymore, he either deleted it or it was fake and never existed.

Agreed 100% pic.twitter.com/ry4aifQtVx

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) May 18, 2025

wifeisafurd said:

---

bearister said:

---

Bill Maher says that we all need to take the time to talk to MAGAs and have an understanding of where they are coming from…..



…..I already know where they are coming from.

---

There is no stage 5 cancer and we all know she isn't a medical doctor. Trump Jr. was trying to be funny, and cancer just isn't funny. Now Maher can be funny.

---

This is pretty much how I saw it - a jab at wifey when Joe has serious cancer. Tasteless.