Taibbi continues to impress and inspire.

---

It is what it is.

Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Taibbi continues to impress and inspire.

I pretty much hate him. He worked hard to help Trump win.

Quote
RgrF
Seems to me the Trump outrages are just too recent for some to put in perspective.

It's not a matter of "recent", it's a matter of the nature of those "outrages".
As I posted earlier, "...the U.S. government and society as a whole muddled through Viet Nam and its ramifications; it can for Afghanistan [and Iraq] as well.
The inner rot to the system caused by tRumpism may well be permanently disabling, if not fatal."

Quote
JoeH

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
JoeH

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Lemon Drop
3. Dropping an atom bomb on the Japanese. A military science experiment that never would have been done to Europeans. At the end of a war we were going to win.

I suspect most folks are unaware that neither of the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan was the deadliest bombing raid of WWII.

“On the night of 9/10 March 1945, the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) conducted a devastating firebombing raid on Tokyo, the Japanese capital city. This attack was code-named Operation Meetinghouse by the USAAF and is known as the Great Tokyo Air Raid in Japan. Bombs dropped from 279 Boeing B-29 Superfortress heavy bombers burned out much of eastern Tokyo. More than 90,000 and possibly over 100,000 Japanese people were killed, mostly civilians, and one million were left homeless, making it the most destructive single air attack in human history.”

[en.m.wikipedia.org])

The fire storms from bombings of Dresden and other German cities resulted in similar numbers of casualties, so they were not exempt as "Europeans".

And the atomic bombs were planned for use over Europe against Germany, they just were not ready soon enough. By the time they were ready, any need for them being used was already considered unnecessary due to the success of the D-Day invasion and other military actions including the air war. The Soviet forces on the East were also advancing quite steadil

y and quickly.

I am only speaking about atomic weapons. I'm pretty sure we all know about Dresden.

Germany was never going to be the target of the new experimental weapon. As confirmed by the Secretary of War.

Leslie R. Groves, “Memorandum to the Secretary of War,” April 23, 1945, Records of the Manhattan Engineer District, 1942-1948, Record Group 77, National Archives, Washington, D.C. 

"Our previous hopes that an implosion type of bomb might be developed in the late spring of 1945 have now been dissipated by scientific difficulties. . . .

“While our plan of operations is based on the more certain, more powerful, gun type bomb, it also provides for the use of the implosion type bombs as soon as they become available. The target is and was always expected to be Japan. A composite group of the 20th Air Force has been organized and specially trained and equipped.” 

Leslie R. Groves, Memorandum, “Military Policy Committee,” Records of the Manhattan Engineer District, 1942–1948, Record Group 77, National Archives, Washington, D.C. “MPC Minutes, 5 May 43 mtg”  

"The point of use of the first bomb was discussed and the general view appeared to be that its best point of use would be on a Japanese fleet concentration in the Harbor of Truk [in the Pacific, north of New Guinea]. General Styer suggested Tokio but it was pointed out that the bomb should be used where, if it failed to go off, it would land in water of sufficient depth to prevent easy salvage. The Japanese were selected as they would not be so apt to secure knowledge from it as would the Germans.” 

By that point in the war there was no need for the bomb in Europe, and they knew that by Summer/Fall of 1944. Your quote is a single source with after the fact rationalizations included. Historians have uncovered older memos during the earlier stages of the project that included targeting of sites in Germany and the issues connected with that. For starters that included the US not having a bomber that could carry the bombs, the B-29 development was not far enough along. They would have needed to acquire Avro Lancaster bombers from the British. There were still development problems with the B-29 into 1944, the Silverplate models to carry the A-bombs did not start being produced until Fall 1944.

Thanks for your comment Joe, I missed it earlier.

It's my opinion that American political and military leaders never would have used this experimental weapon, particularly once they better understood its destructive capabilities and what radiation might do, on Europeans. Racist attitudes toward the Japanese played a role in a number of things that went on in that era. That doesn't mean nobody ever suggested using it on Germany.

Certainly some of the scientists on the Manhattan project who were European Jews hated Hitler enough to want to use it on Germany. A country they believed was building their own a bomb.

Quote
Lemon Drop

Certainly some of the scientists on the Manhattan project who were European Jews hated Hitler enough to want to use it on Germany. A country they believed was building their own a bomb.

Baseless speculation. Even though there were many American and European Jews who helped to develop the atomic bomb (an American-born uncle of mine among them), they knew they were doing this for America and were no more or less motivated by anti-Nazi or anti-Japanese sentiment than any other American at the time.

Unless you can show some proof of your statement, I suggest you correct it.

It's my opinion that American political and military leaders never would have used this experimental weapon, particularly once they better understood its destructive capabilities and what radiation might do, on Europeans.

Wouldn't that suggest that post war testing using American GIs amounted to criminal behavior?

Quote
Steve G.

Quote
Lemon Drop

Certainly some of the scientists on the Manhattan project who were European Jews hated Hitler enough to want to use it on Germany. A country they believed was building their own a bomb.

Baseless speculation. Even though there were many American and European Jews who helped to develop the atomic bomb (an American-born uncle of mine among them), they knew they were doing this for America and were no more or less motivated by anti-Nazi or anti-Japanese sentiment than any other American at the time.

Unless you can show some proof of your statement, I suggest you correct it.

I'd ask for your proof of YOUR very generalized, broad statement. You have no way of knowing all the motivations of every scientist on the project.

Obviously as Germany was America's enemy in WWII, a lot of people wanted to bomb them in some fashion "for America."

At that time nobody would have thought it "unamerican " to want to attack Japan or Germany.

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
Steve G.

Quote
Lemon Drop

Certainly some of the scientists on the Manhattan project who were European Jews hated Hitler enough to want to use it on Germany. A country they believed was building their own a bomb.

Baseless speculation. Even though there were many American and European Jews who helped to develop the atomic bomb (an American-born uncle of mine among them), they knew they were doing this for America and were no more or less motivated by anti-Nazi or anti-Japanese sentiment than any other American at the time.

Unless you can show some proof of your statement, I suggest you correct it.

I'd ask for your proof of YOUR very generalized, broad statement. You have no way of knowing all the motivations of every scientist on the project.

Obviously as Germany was America's enemy in WWII, a lot of people wanted to bomb them in some fashion "for America."

At that time nobody would have thought it "unamerican " to want to attack Japan or Germany.

and yet, you continue to provide no proof of your statement. At least I had an eye-witness uncle who was there. You seem to want to impute a special malign motivation to The Jews.

Quote
Steve G.

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
Steve G.

Quote
Lemon Drop

Certainly some of the scientists on the Manhattan project who were European Jews hated Hitler enough to want to use it on Germany. A country they believed was building their own a bomb.

Baseless speculation. Even though there were many American and European Jews who helped to develop the atomic bomb (an American-born uncle of mine among them), they knew they were doing this for America and were no more or less motivated by anti-Nazi or anti-Japanese sentiment than any other American at the time.

Unless you can show some proof of your statement, I suggest you correct it.

I'd ask for your proof of YOUR very generalized, broad statement. You have no way of knowing all the motivations of every scientist on the project.

Obviously as Germany was America's enemy in WWII, a lot of people wanted to bomb them in some fashion "for America."

At that time nobody would have thought it "unamerican " to want to attack Japan or Germany.

and yet, you continue to provide no proof of your statement. At least I had an eye-witness uncle who was there. You seem to want to impute a special malign motivation to The Jews.

What??? Steve it is well-documented in any Manhattan Project history that those scientists believed they were in a race with Hitler's Germany to build the first atomic weapon. Though it turned out Germany wasn't as far advanced as they thought.
They had heard of his plan to defeat the UK and the US and were determined to stop him and end the war. I'm not seeing a "special malign motivation" there. Rather a shared motivation to build a weapon that would "end all wars" they believed.

They could not have known how the war would progress nor how eventually military and political leaders would decide to use the weapons. That wasn't their call.

Quote
Lemon Drop


Certainly some of the scientists on the Manhattan project who were European Jews hated Hitler enough to want to use it on Germany. A country they believed was building their own a bomb.

Here's what you said, adding a baseless motivation to make it look like an added petty squabble by some European Jews.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2021 11:47AM by Steve G..

Quote
Lemon Drop

...

Quote
JoeH

By that point in the war there was no need for the bomb in Europe, and they knew that by Summer/Fall of 1944. Your quote is a single source with after the fact rationalizations included. Historians have uncovered older memos during the earlier stages of the project that included targeting of sites in Germany and the issues connected with that. For starters that included the US not having a bomber that could carry the bombs, the B-29 development was not far enough along. They would have needed to acquire Avro Lancaster bombers from the British. There were still development problems with the B-29 into 1944, the Silverplate models to carry the A-bombs did not start being produced until Fall 1944.

Thanks for your comment Joe, I missed it earlier.

It's my opinion that American political and military leaders never would have used this experimental weapon, particularly once they better understood its destructive capabilities and what radiation might do, on Europeans. Racist attitudes toward the Japanese played a role in a number of things that went on in that era. That doesn't mean nobody ever suggested using it on Germany.

Certainly some of the scientists on the Manhattan project who were European Jews hated Hitler enough to want to use it on Germany. A country they believed was building their own a bomb.

That's the thing, they didn't really understand the capabilities - especially where radiation effects were involved - until after the war was over and the Hiroshima and Nagasaki sites were evaluated. As it was, due to the two bombs being set for air bursts at over 1500 feet, there were limited amounts of radioactive fallout in both areas. Yes, survivors suffered radiation burns from the explosions themselves, but additional injuries from radioactive fallout were not common.

American political and military leaders thought of these as "big bombs" with great destructive power that had the advantage of only needing a single delivery vehicle instead of hundreds or thousands of bombers. They knew there would only be a few available at a time, so selected for bombing sites that were relatively undamaged to see just how much damage they could do with a single bomb. That took out of consideration a demonstration bombing at an uninhabited site proposed by some, mostly scientists involved in the project. A limited number of political leaders were knowledgeable on the bombs. Truman was not one of them as he had not been included in briefings until after he became president. Nagasaki as the second bomb site was earlier than planned since the military leaders in the Pacific decided to take advantage of a window of good weather. It is after that military decision with the initial reports of high civilian casualties from the first two uses that Truman directed that any further A-bomb drops would require his authorization first. That kept the third bomb that was prepared to ship out for use later in August from being sent to the Pacific. However production of fissile materials continued at a pace to provide 2-3 bombs a month even after the Japanese surrender was signed.

This line of thinking of the bombs as just "big bombs" continued after the war was over. They developed battlefield versions to fire from existing cannon, small devices that could be carried by soldiers, and so on. It is not until the late 1950s and early 1960s that this military/political thought really turns away from that and towards recognizing the other effects. That included plans for use in Europe against the Soviets that would have been in paces like Poland, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia.

Quote
Steve G.

Quote
Lemon Drop


Certainly some of the scientists on the Manhattan project who were European Jews hated Hitler enough to want to use it on Germany. A country they believed was building their own a bomb.

Here's what you said, adding a baseless motivation to make it look like an added petty squabble by some European Jews.

I don't believe there is anything petty about this topic. I'm very sorry my comment came across that way.

I've read biographies of several of the MP scientists and there is no doubt that people like Leo Szilard were motivated very specifically by a desire to make sure Hitler didn't have this weapon first.

Why don't you tell us about your relative? That sounds interesting.

My father's brother. A top chemist via Columbia University. Very, very smart (not a Jewish genius like Richard Feynman and others. They had plenty of those, too).
He is considered to be hero by my proudly American family.

Quote
vision63

Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Taibbi continues to impress and inspire.

I pretty much hate him. He worked hard to help Trump win.

I don't remember seeing or hearing anything about that. He has always struck me as a liberal.

---

It is what it is.

Quote
N-OS X-tasy!

Quote
vision63

Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Taibbi continues to impress and inspire.

I pretty much hate him. He worked hard to help Trump win.

I don't remember seeing or hearing anything about that. He has always struck me as a liberal.

He supported Bernie, therefore he cost Hillary the election - that would seem to be the take.

Quote
Steve G.
My father's brother. A top chemist via Columbia University. Very, very smart (not a Jewish genius like Richard Feynman and others. They had plenty of those, too).
He is considere
d to be hero by my proudly American family.

Very cool.

Quote
RgrF

Quote
N-OS X-tasy!

Quote
vision63

Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Taibbi continues to impress and inspire.

I pretty much hate him. He worked hard to help Trump win.

I don't remember seeing or hearing anything about that. He has always struck me as a liberal.

He supported Bernie, therefore he cost Hillary the election - that would seem to be the take.

Makes perfect sense to me that Taibbi would support Bernie.

---

It is what it is.

Quote
N-OS X-tasy!

Quote
RgrF

Quote
N-OS X-tasy!

Quote
vision63

Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Taibbi continues to impress and inspire.

I pretty much hate him. He worked hard to help Trump win.

I don't remember seeing or hearing anything about that. He has always struck me as a liberal.

He supported Bernie, therefore he cost Hillary the election - that would seem to be the take.

Makes perfect sense to me that Taibbi would support Bernie.

If that's all he did, I wouldn't have a problem with him since Hillary kicked his ass.

Y'all just don't know "enough" about him. You can't just take his words at face value. He's a backstabber. I won't go into it (because I could for hours), but it's out there if one is interested in knowing. I wish I could see him face to face.