Forum Index > Chat > 6 August - Aniversarea atacului de la Hiroshima

#0 by BlackCross (Raging Lunacy) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 14:50:00 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear attacks during World War II against the Empire of Japan by the United States of America under US President Harry S. Truman. On August 6, 1945, the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" was dropped on the city of Hiroshima, followed on August 9, 1945 by the detonation of the "Fat Man" nuclear bomb over Nagasaki. They are the only instances of the use of nuclear weapons in warfare. In estimating the number of deaths caused by the attacks, there are several factors that make it difficult to arrive at reliable figures: inadequacies in the records given the confusion of the times, and the pressure to either exaggerate or minimize the numbers, depending upon political agenda. The United States Department of Energy estimates that, at Hiroshima, the death toll from the immediate blast was roughly 70,000, with additional deaths occuring in the time soon after the explosion and in the decades that followed. The figures for Nagasaki are slightly less.  Other estimates vary widely,  and are as low as 74,000 for Nagasaki. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the deaths were civilians. The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender, as well as the effects and justification of them, has been subject to much debate. On August 15, 1945 Japan announced its surrender to the Allied Powers, signing the Instrument of Surrender on September 2 which officially ended World War II. Furthermore, the experience of bombing led post-war Japan to adopt Three Non-Nuclear Principles, which forbids Japan from nuclear armament. Inherently immoral A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes or crime against humanity. Two early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued: "Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?" A number of scientists who worked on the bomb were against its use. Led by Dr. James Franck, seven scientists submitted a report to the Interim Committee (which advised the President) in May 1945, saying: "If the United States were to be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race for armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons." On August 8, 1945, Albert Camus addressed the bombing of Hiroshima in an editorial in the French newspaper Combat: "Mechanized civilization has just reached the ultimate stage of barbarism. In a near future, we will have to choose between mass suicide and intelligent use of scientific conquests[...] This can no longer be simply a prayer; it must become an order which goes upward from the peoples to the governments, an order to make a definitive choice between hell and reason." In 1946, a report by the Federal Council of Churches entitled Atomic Warfare and the Christian Faith, includes the following passage: "As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one's judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible." In 1963 the bombings were the subject of a judicial review in Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State. On the 22nd anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the District Court of Tokyo declined to rule on the legality of nuclear weapons in general, but found that "the attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war." New York City: An anti-nuclear weapon display in Tompkins Square Park on August 4, 2006In the opinion of the court, the act of dropping an atomic bomb on cities was at the time governed by international law found in the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907 and the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922–1923 and was therefore illegal. As the first military use of nuclear weapons, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki represent to some the crossing of a crucial barrier. Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC wrote of President Truman: ”He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species. It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity." Kurznick is one of several observers who believe that the U.S. was largely motivated in carrying out the bombings by a desire to demonstrate the power of its new weapon to the Soviet Union. Historian Mark Selden of Cornell University has stated "Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan." Takashi Hiraoka, mayor of Hiroshima, upholding nuclear disarmament, said in a hearing to The Hague International Court of Justice (ICJ): "It is clear that the use of nuclear weapons, which cause indiscriminate mass murder that leaves [effects on] survivors for decades, is a violation of international law". Iccho Itoh, the mayor of Nagasaki, declared in the same hearing: "It is said that the descendants of the atomic bomb survivors will have to be monitored for several generations to clarify the genetic impact, which means that the descendants will live in anxiety for [decades] to come. [...] with their colossal power and capacity for slaughter and destruction, nuclear weapons make no distinction between combatants and non-combatants or between military installations and civilian communities [...] The use of nuclear weapons [...] therefore is a manifest infraction of international law." John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations, used Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples why the US should not adhere to the International Criminal Court (ICC): "A fair reading of the treaty [the Rome Statute concerning the ICC], for example, leaves the objective observer unable to answer with confidence whether the United States was guilty of war crimes for its aerial bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan in World War II. Indeed, if anything, a straightforward reading of the language probably indicates that the court would find the United States guilty. A fortiori, these provisions seem to imply that the United States would have been guilty of a war crime for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is intolerable and unacceptable." Although bombings do not meet the definition of genocide, some consider that this definition is too strict, and that these bombings do represent a genocide. For example, University of Chicago historian Bruce Cumings states there is a consensus among historians to Martin Sherwin's statement, that "the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst." Historical accounts indicate that the decision to use the atomic bombs was made in order to provoke an early surrender of Japan by use of an awe-inspiring power. These observations have caused some commentators to state that the incident was an act of "war terrorism". Michael Walzer wrote, "... And, finally, there is war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Hiroshima seems to me the classic case." This type of claim eventually prompted historian Robert Newman, a supporter of the bombings, to argue that the practice of terrorism is justified in some cases. Militarily unnecessary Those who argue that the bombings were unnecessary on military grounds hold that Japan was already essentially defeated and ready to surrender. One of the most notable individuals with this opinion was then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years: "In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater), Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet. "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. "The use of [the atomic bombs] 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 D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported: "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." What was originally the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall has now been turned into the Hiroshima Peace Memorial. The atomic bomb exploded almost directly overhead.The survey assumed that conventional bombing attacks on Japan would greatly increase as the bombing capabilities of July 1945 were ...a fraction of its planned proportion... due to a steadily high production rate of new B-29s and the reallocation of European airpower to the Pacific. When hostilities ended, the USAAF had approximately 3700 B-29s of which only about 1000 were deployed. Had the war gone on these and still more aircraft would have brought devastation far worse than either bomb to many more cities. The results of conventional strategic bombing at the cease-fire were summed up thusly: "...On the basis of photo coverage, intelligence estimated that 175 square miles of urban area in 66 cities were wiped out. Total civilian casualties stemming directly from the urban attacks were estimated at 330,000 killed, 476,000 injured, and 9,200,000 rendered homeless." General Haywood S. Hansell General MacArthur has also contended that Japan would have surrendered before the bombings if the U.S. had notified Japan that it would accept a surrender that allowed Emperor Hirohito to keep his position as titular leader of Japan, a condition the U.S. did in fact allow after Japan surrendered. U.S. leadership knew this, through intercepts of encoded Japanese messages, but refused to clarify Washington's willingness to accept this condition. Before the bombings, the position of the Japanese leadership with regards to surrender was divided. Several diplomats favored surrender, while the leaders of the Japanese military voiced a commitment to fighting a "decisive battle" on Kyūshū, hoping that they could negotiate better terms for an armistice afterward. The Japanese government did not decide what terms, beyond preservation of an imperial system, they would have accepted to end the war; as late as August 9, the Supreme War Council was still split, with the hard-liners insisting Japan should demobilize its own forces, no war crimes trials would be conducted, and no occupation of Japan would be allowed. Only the direct intervention of the emperor ended the dispute, and even then a military coup was attempted to prevent the surrender. Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings themselves were not even the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories in Manchuria that forced the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945. Victimele supraveţuitoare a ataculului: copii, femei, bătrăni, civili, toate mutilate de mâinile "iubiţilor noştri" americani: Editat de către BlackCross la 2007-08-05 15:12:06 Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte 1 2 3 4 5 << Precedenta      Următoarea >> #1 by Mercy (User) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 15:17:52 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] am privit cu vreo 2 ore in urma un documentar pe aceasa tema .... tragic :'( Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #2 by eXtaZy (Don`t try to fix me, i`m not broken) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 15:19:52 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] saracii oameni! Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #3 by SunBoy (Дама лёгкого поведения | Путана де ла Рома) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 15:21:41 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] Vorbele cred ca sunt de prisos aici, ar trebui pur si simplu sa pastram un minut de reculegere in cinstea celor ce au murit fara a avea vre-o vina Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #4 by BNQ (End of an Era) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 15:25:54 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] #3 SunBoy, +1 Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #5 by AzerothX (†ranœ ºverdosed) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 15:46:53 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] FEAR THE AMERICAN ANGER! Nu uitatzi de Pearl Harbor shi de cine a pornit razboiul , shi-au facut-o cu mana lor , nimeni nu i-a rugat sa atace. Atunci au murit mai multzi oameni , inchipuitziva cite familii americane au fost distruse! Long live the pure american spirit! Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #6 by DoooM (User) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 15:51:03 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] Quote: De fapt, pentru preşedintele Truman, bomba atomică a fost un super-as în mâneca diplomaţiei care a permis Statelor Unite să îşi arate capacitatea de dominaţie şi puterea militară Quote: Iata ce transmitea reporterul BBC Tom Fleming pe 15 august 1945, de la New York : "Pe străzi, în spatele meu, imaginile sunt de-a dreptul incredibile. Oamenii parcă au înnebunit de fericire, cântă, dansează, suflă în trompete de hârtie, aruncă cu confetii!" NO COMMENT #5 AzerothX, "...Long live the pure american spirit!..." - eu tac, ca daca zic zbor de pe tracker. Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #7 by Capilleary (Патлатый) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 16:30:56 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] #6 DoooM, Japonia a fost agresorul. SUA a ganit cu bomba. In ambele cazuri au fost victime inocente. Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #8 by TerrorSquaD (http://) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 16:38:08 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] #5 AzerothX, #7 Capilleary, +1 Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #9 by BlackCross (Raging Lunacy) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 16:59:11 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] #5 AzerothX, hopşaşa, pe Pearl Harbor civili n-au murit + americanii ştiau de atac din timp, doar că n-au luat nici o măsură. Aici două oraşe întregi au fost şterse de pe faţa pământului şi oamenii au tot murit de cancer zeci de ani mai târziu... Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #10 by Umbreakko (User) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 17:01:43 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] Japonia a fost nevoită să atace SUA la Pearl Harbor, ştiţi de ce ? Nu deoarece era pentru ei o plăcer ci pentru a scăpa de controlul neoficial al statelor, la istorie se învaţă, pur şi simplu trebuie de citit printre rînduri Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #11 by Capilleary (Патлатый) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 17:18:58 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] #9 BlackCross, bomba care trebuia sa cada deasupra la Nagasaki nu a nimerit unde trebu. A nimerit intr-o campie de la marginea orashului. Victime au fost mai putzine deshi bomba matink era mai puternica. Oroarea cea mai mare era anume in Hirosima. Cind am fost sediul ONU din NY, am vazut muzeul in care erau aduse lucruri din Hirosima de dupa bomba. Lucruri situate la 1km de epicentru (statui din piatra, vesela din ceramica), care s-au topit de la lumina emanata in timpul exploziei. Ce m-a frapat shi mai tare a fost o fotografie - umbra unui om pe scarile unei cladiri situate la mai putzin de 100 metri de epicentru. Omul a disparut, s-a vaporizat, a ramas doar umbra lui pe scari shi mai mult absolut nimic. Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #12 by Umbreakko (User) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 17:20:39 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] #11 Capilleary, "... Omul a disparut, s-a vaporizat, a ramas doar umbra lui pe scari shi mai mult absolut nimic. ..." - aghhh Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #13 by Capilleary (Патлатый) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 17:21:02 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] #9 BlackCross, Japonia era prea slaba. Dar ea era agresorul in al doilea razboi mondial. Consideri ca japonezii au procedat corect cind au bombardat orashe chineze cu bombe care aveau in focoasa nishte capsule din ceramica pline cu purici care purtau ciuma? Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #14 by BlackCross (Raging Lunacy) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 17:26:52 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] #13 Capilleary, atac cu purici, u must be kidding, arată-mi sursa de unde ai citit. Dar oricum, noi vorbim de masacru civililor nevinoveţi nu de metodele de război. #11 Capilleary, "... umbra unui om pe scarile unei cladiri situate la mai putzin de 100 metri de epicentru. Omul a disparut, s-a vaporizat, a ramas doar umbra lui pe scari shi mai mult absolut nimic. ..." - da am văzut şi fotografia asta X( Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #15 by Capilleary (Патлатый) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 17:48:15 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] #14 BlackCross, doar un random search pe google http://www.worldhealth.net/p/646,1704.html Quote: Qiu testified that residents fled Quzhou after the attack, unwittingly helping to spread the diseases to surrounding rural areas. He added that Quzhou had never experienced bubonic plague in its history, yet around 50,000 people died from the disease in the years following the attack. Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #16 by BlackCross (Raging Lunacy) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 17:53:42 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] #15 Capilleary, astea-s prostii, propagandă post-belică, Japonia nu avea cum să răspândească long-term virus pe PROPRIUL teritoriu al imperiului. Gândeşte-te. Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #17 by Capilleary (Патлатый) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 18:00:39 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] #16 BlackCross, nu e virus. Bacterie la care ei aveau leac. In plus, poate erau shi ei natzishti, vroiau sa scape de celelalte popoare, inferioare. Japonia nu neaga aceste afirmatzii. Acestea sunt gresheli ale trecutului, care nu trebuiesc savirshite iarashi. Shi nu noi trebu sa invinuim sau sa iertam, ci victimele acelor actziuni, din care atit de putzine pot sa ne vorbeasca. Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #18 by BlackCross (Raging Lunacy) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 18:12:57 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] #17 Capilleary, uhh, looks like a fictional conspiracy to me, gândeşte mai puţin global. Logica e putere. Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #19 by SunBoy (Дама лёгкого поведения | Путана де ла Рома) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 18:18:07 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] Fetelor, nu va certati, ca acusi va dau cite o bombonica Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #20 by Capilleary (Патлатый) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 18:20:18 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] #18 BlackCross, "... uhh, looks like a fictional conspiracy to me, gândeşte mai puţin global. Logica e putere. ..." - de ce conspiratzie? Nimani nu neaga acest fapt. Sunt dovezi - schemele bombelor. Sunt cunoscute locurile unde se faceau, numele specialishtilor, conducatorii lor, experimentele fara de succes (puricii mureau totzi), precum shi datele exacte cind au plecat avioanele sa arunce bombele. Pur shi simplu acestea nu se mediatizeaza atit de tare caci Japonia shi asha a suferit de la razboi. Pe Japonia nimeni nu urashte, pe SUA insa la fiecare pas auzi pe cineva vorbind de rau. Shi ce a facut Japonia? a aruncat citeva bombe mititele pe care nimeni nu le-a observat, care shi-au facut efectul cu timpul lung. Lumea s-a speriat de bomba atomica, care in citeva secunde a distrus orashul. Dupa mine, mai bine sa mor deodata decit sa ma chinui de vreo boala citeva saptamini dupa care sa mor in chinuri. Daca insa consideri ca asta e Concpiracy theory, n-ai decit sa te interesezi mai amanuntzit. Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #21 by Dinka (Power User) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 18:21:11 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] :'( Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #22 by BlackCross (Raging Lunacy) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 18:23:35 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] #20 Capilleary, Japonia nu suferă? De la japonezi chinezii şi azi vor banii pentru nişte atacuri ficţionale. Dimpotrivă all love USA. Mai pe scurt avem viziuni diferite, şi nu vreau să prefac această temă tragică de comemorare în nişte dezbateri tâmpite. Ajunge. Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #23 by Capilleary (Патлатый) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 18:25:44 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] http://www.sunshine-project.org/pingfan/ citeshte Sorry pentru offtopic, pur shi simplu deschid o ampla perspectiva la problema armelor de distrugere in masa. Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #24 by orlistul (Power User) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 19:15:19 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] #20 Capilleary, sorry dar daca mori in citeva săptămâni asta e partea "bună", căci fie că mori în chinuri peste câteva săptămâni oricum nu se compară cu efectul de lungă durată al iradierii : adică dacă rămâi viu , tu, copii tăi, nepoţii ..... stră---nepoţii vor avea şanse enorme de a avea o patologie oncologică. !!!!!! Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte #25 by Capilleary (Патлатый) (0 mesaje) at 2007-08-05 19:22:53 (871 săptămâni în urmă) - [Link] #24 orlistul, hai sa nu incepem sa discutam care a fost o crima mai mare. Ambele au distrus vietzi, ambele pot fi clasificate ca crime de razboi. Am incercat sa aduc un mesaj impotriva tuturor armelor de distrugere in masa, dar nu suntetzi gata sa primitzi acest mesaj. Mesaj util ?   Da   0 puncte

1 2 3 4 5
<< Precedenta      Următoarea >>

Forum Index > Chat > 6 August - Aniversarea atacului de la Hiroshima

Această temă este închisă. Nu puteţi posta mesaje noi.