70th anniversary of atomic bombing of Hiroshima

[Commander Wallace]

August 6th, 1945, 8:15 local time, a atomic bomb was dropped from the B-29 bomber Enola Gay on the city of Hiroshima, killing thousands. This date ushered in the nuclear age as both a weapon and as a means of propulsion and peaceful use of generating electricity.

People of Japan marked the solemn 70th anniversary along with delegates of 100 countries. opinions are still divided over whether its deadly destruction was justified.


Let us hope atomic / nuclear weapons are never used in anger again.

[Onkel Neal]

Aye, let's hope that will never happen again.

[BossMark]

^^
Yes never again....

[ikalugin]

Let the nuclear weapons be perfect weapons - the weapons so terrifying that they are never used.

[Stealhead]

ikalugin;2334378]Let the nuclear weapons be perfect weapons - the weapons so terrifying that they are never used.[/QUOTE]

Our sides came within a breath a few times. 1983 was extremely close closer than the Cuban Missile Crisis. I can't recall the Soviet missile commanders name who revived the launch alerts but felt certain that they where incorrect and did not send the alert further. He was right it was not Minute Man missiles but the sun rays fooling the satellite. He based his choice on the fact that he felt the US would launch a full strike and not a handful and on the fact that he had previously seen the detection glitch before.

[Torplexed]

I can't recall the Soviet missile commanders name who revived the launch alerts but felt certain that they where incorrect and did not send the alert further.

Lieutenant colonel Stanislav Petrov.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident

[Stealhead]

Yes that's him he got fired for not not accidentally nuking everyone. Some jobs sheesh.
On some TV interview he said "I was the little bird getting ..... on by the big bird."

[ikalugin]

Meanwhile, French discuss if they should keep their nuclear deterent, British one escaped possible cuts, USN SSBN program is in the funding bind, everyone else is expanding their nuclear forces as much as they could.

Did I miss anything?

[Wolferz]

It is sad that those weapons even needed to be created but, a stubborn foe kind of forces the issue.

sigh..
.alas, sometimes the only way to deal with a bully is to punch his lights out.:/\\!!

[Jimbuna]

I suppose it could be claimed MAD has prevented a WWIII....thus far.

[Oberon]

I suppose it could be claimed MAD has prevented a WWIII....thus far.

Well, a direct confrontation between two nuclear possessing superpowers, although India and Pakistan have had their clashes.

In regards to WWIII, I'd say that we're in one right now in a manner of speaking.

[Jimbuna]

In regards to WWIII, I'd say that we're in one right now in a manner of speaking.

I wouldn't have thought so. A worldwide confrontation with full nuke release would probably lead to the end of mankind.

I don't fancy coming back as a cockroach either :)

[Mr Quatro]

What if your hometown were hit by the Hiroshima atomic bomb?

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-08-04/what-if-your-hometown-were-hit-hiroshima-atomic-bomb


About 66,000 people, mostly civilians, perished, according to a report (http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/index.shtml) prepared by the US Army one year after the attack.
Another 69,000 were injured and tens of thousands more were affected by radiation disease.

But how to show the damage more clearly? We've developed an application that allows you to visualize the damage of the
same atomic bomb on another location in today's world, such as your hometown.

You may be surprised at the extent of the damage.

[Oberon]

What if your hometown were hit by the Hiroshima atomic bomb?

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-08-04/what-if-your-hometown-were-hit-hiroshima-atomic-bomb

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

[Mr Quatro]

Yes, that's a better map you can choose which weapon and everything: http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

I chose the nearest target 150 miles away and lived through the first blast, but I will need more water of course. :o

[Commander Wallace]

What if your hometown were hit by the Hiroshima atomic bomb?

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-08-04/what-if-your-hometown-were-hit-hiroshima-atomic-bomb


Interesting application. The bomb used at Hiroshima was estimated in the 15 kiloton range. The 2nd one used at Nagasaki was estimated to be larger in the 20 kiloton range. According to the model it does significant damage.

Modern thermonuclear or 2 stage devices are approx. at the 150 kiloton range at their smallest if you exclude tactical weapons. These weapons can range in size up to 50 megatons. The former USSR, created the most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated, with a yield of 50 megatons, (50 million tons of tnt).

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


Scary thought

[Oberon]

Scary, but very impractical. The Tsar Bomba was essentially a 'we can build one bigger than you' exercise. Most of the energy of the explosion was vented into the atmosphere rather than out as destructive lateral force, plus it had to be carried in a specially modified Tu-95.
Made a helluva mess of Novaya Zemlya though, and broke windows in Norway and Finland thanks to atmospheric focusing, and the seismic shockwave travelled around the Earth at least three times...and this was the dialed back explosion, the original design called for 100MT, but it was decided that the fallout would be too excessive and the delivery aircraft would probably have been destroyed by its own bomb.

[Commander Wallace]

Scary, but very impractical. The Tsar Bomba was essentially a 'we can build one bigger than you' exercise. Most of the energy of the explosion was vented into the atmosphere rather than out as destructive lateral force, plus it had to be carried in a specially modified Tu-95.
Made a helluva mess of Novaya Zemlya though, and broke windows in Norway and Finland thanks to atmospheric focusing, and the seismic shockwave travelled around the Earth at least three times...and this was the dialed back explosion, the original design called for 100MT, but it was decided that the fallout would be too excessive and the delivery aircraft would probably have been destroyed by its own bomb.


Thanks Oberon. I knew the Tsar bomb was tested but didn't know where or if it had been fielded. I also had no idea the shockwave was as prolific as that either.

[Admiral Halsey]

One of the most necessary evils to have ever been used in war. Most likely saved the Japanese from extinction give what was planned for the Invasion.

[Jeff-Groves]

That's the thing about War.
Your in it to win it.

[mapuc]

Here something I doubt you knew, I didn't

You may have learned from history, Sweden was speculating on getting nukes but didn't after all.

Here is what I have learned yesterday

Sweden had made some(don't know how many) nuke test, only small one(same here don't know the strength on these nukes)

They had planned for about 60 atomic bomb per year in production.

I read in a Swedish news paper or a little bit of it-if I want to read more I had to pay for it. The writing above is what I could read.

Markus

[Politenessman]

Whilst I feel sorry for the civilians who were under the Hiroshima bomb, it is important to put it in perspective, the Japanese were not innocent victims, they did expand a brutal war against China into the other half of a world war, it would also be a little tough to find many nations who were occupied by the Japanese who would have a great deal of sympathy for them.
The Japanese military also were more than a touch atrocity prone compared to WW2 averages and were hardly averse to conducting their atrocities against civilian populations.

The options facing the allies at the end were Atomic Bombs, Blockade and Invasion.

Blockade - Occupied countries continue to suffer, POWs continue to suffer, the old, very young and not "defence valuable" Japanese suffer disproportionately as scarce resources are diverted to the military.

Invasion - Around 1 million allied casualties (estimated), which would be hard to justify when it came out that you didn't play your trump card), almost total Japanese casualties (based on Japanese defence plans and allied invasion planning), Occupied countries continue to suffer, POWs most likely massacred.

Atomic Bombs - ended the war quickly and did not preclude moving on to one of the other options had Japan refused to surrender.

I'm glad they dropped them and, I hope, under similar circumstances, they'd do it again.

[Cybermat47]

Never again :nope:

[Nippelspanner]

I'm glad they dropped them and, I hope, under similar circumstances, they'd do it again.
:/\\!!

[Oberon]

:/\\!!

He does have a point Nippelspanner, I mean look at the plans for Operation Downfall. The casualties on the civilian population of Japan would have been horrendous, seven to fifteen nuclear weapons would have been dropped, biological and chemical weaponry options were available, the bombing would have been vast in scale. It would have been hell, absolute hell.
Now whether the second bomb at Nagasaki was necessary is another matter entirely, it's possible that the Soviet entry into the war would have been enough to eventually bring about a Japanese surrender, once the Emperor and the civilian movements within the Empire had been able to bring the Army to heel, Nagasaki speeded up the progress somewhat.
Now, the firebombings of Tokyo, they likely killed more people than the atomic bombs, and yet they are oft forgotten amidst the spectre of the mushroom cloud. Were they correct measures to use in the war? That I cannot say with as much clarity as I do in regards to Hiroshima, however it is a fact that all parties in the war took part in city bombing with a view to causing maximum civilian casualties. Does this make it right? No, but that is war.

Most importantly though, and I think it is the sole positive legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is that it gave a demonstration of the power of the atom, in more graphic detail than tests in the middle of a desert could do. It gave the world the reason to say 'never again', it helped create Mutually Assured Destruction and in the Cold War that came after it helped scare millions of people, both civilian and military alike, into not using the weapons that they had so carefully created and stockpiled.

[Nippelspanner]

He does have a point Nippelspanner.
I really don't think so and it baffles me when people justify mass murder of civilians. Nothing can justify this for me.
Yes, an invasion would have been a catastrophe. Then again, why not blockade Japan completely, cut it off, wait it out, threaten Japan and drop a bomb off-shore as a demonstration, whatever I don't know but just dropping them? Shocks me.
They dropped the bomb(s) as soon as they could, without warning as far as I know.
The reason was not to prevent millions of dead, the reason was to test the funky new toy and to show the Russian bear who's running the show.

I totally understand this, looking at it from a certain perspective.
But that doesn't make it right in the end.
As I said, for me - nothing - justifies these two bombs.

But I'm just some sissy liberal anyways, who cares about a few thousand fried civilians, as long as they are on the right side.

[Oberon]

I really don't think so and it baffles me when people justify mass murder of civilians. Nothing can justify this for me.
Yes, an invasion would have been a catastrophe. Then again, why not blockade Japan completely, cut it off, wait it out, threaten Japan and drop a bomb off-shore as a demonstration, whatever I don't know but just dropping them? Shocks me.

A blockade would probably have resulted in a mass famine, and more civilian casualties than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I mean, look at how many German civilians died in WWI during the blockade. Somewhere between 400,000 and 700,000 I believe, and that's with a government that's semi-rational. The military government of Japan was anything but rational. Dropping a bomb offshore might have worked, but given the bushido mentality of the Japanese military government it would probably have just been seen as a weakness on behalf of the Americans and emboldened the Japanese government to hold out longer for more beneficial surrender terms.

They dropped the bomb(s) as soon as they could, without warning as far as I know.

There was a fairly vague warning in July, in a set of leaflets dropped on Japanese cities including Hiroshima and Nagasaki including a list of cities which were likely to be bombed, but no mention was made of nuclear weapons. After Hiroshima leaflets were dropped on Nagasaki warning of the destructive power of the new bomb, but not warning the city that they were next. Basically the point of the post-Hiroshima leaflets was to tell the Japanese people to evacuate the cities (which would never have been allowed) and to petition the Emperor to end the war.

The reason was not to prevent millions of dead, the reason was to test the funky new toy and to show the Russian bear who's running the show.

Yes, this is part of it, definitely. Not the whole part, but it was definitely a part of it. If anything I'd wager it was likely one of the main reasons that a second bomb was dropped.

I totally understand this, looking at it from a certain perspective.
But that doesn't make it right in the end.
As I said, for me - nothing - justifies these two bombs.

Nothing justifies war in any manner, but sadly it still happens. One could make the arguement that the dropping of those two bombs has lead to the longest peace that Europe has seen since the Roman Empire, but there are plenty of other factors involved in bringing that about other than Mutually Assured Destruction. That being said, if and when that peace does end, those two bombs will make sure that it will end extremely tragically. It's very much a double-edged sword.

But I'm just some sissy liberal anyways, who cares about a few thousand fried civilians, as long as they are on the right side.

I'm the Chief Commander of the PC police, so you're preaching to the choir here. :O: The thing is though, there was no right solution in August 1945, no way forward that would have avoided civilian casualties because these civilians were subserviant to a government that considered them as much weapons of war as the military. It's difficult to wrap your head around that mindset, the warped mentality of Japan under the military government. Yes, they didn't indulge in the kind of industrial slaughter that Germany undertook, but instead made brutality a norm, made harsh living a cultural fact. Honestly Japan of that era terrifies me, and I'd much rather have been deployed to Europe to fight Germany than in the Asian theatre to fight Japan. At least if you were taken prisoner by German soldiers you had a reasonable chance of not being shot or worked to death (providing you weren't Russian, or on the list of undesirables, of course) but taken prisoner by the Japanese made you automatically subhuman and ready for exploitation in any manner that your guards saw fit.

In short, I agree with you, morally, dropping the bombs was an evil act, but it was only one step in a series of morally dubious acts that saw war break out across the world in the first place. That is, sadly, war.

[Nippelspanner]

In short, I agree with you, morally, dropping the bombs was an evil act, but it was only one step in a series of morally dubious acts that saw war break out across the world in the first place. That is, sadly, war.
I can agree with this.
Still, it boggles my mind when people not only justify (or accept) the usage back then - but also nod their head when we speak about using them again.
It seems as if some have learned nothing at all and make a possibly final decision rather... light hearted.

Not sure how to describe my thoughts and feelings regarding that matter.

[Oberon]

I can agree with this.
Still, it boggles my mind when people not only justify (or accept) the usage back then - but also nod their head when we speak about using them again.
It seems as if some have learned nothing at all and make a possibly final decision rather... light hearted.

Not sure how to describe my thoughts and feelings regarding that matter.

I understand, I too grimace when people talk about 'nuking them mooslems back into the stone age (TM)' because they always neglect to think of the innocent casualties involved in such an act. That being said, our enemies tend to encourage the creation of collateral damage in their actions, making it hard for us to have a 'clean' war, if such a thing actually does exist.
In regards as to whether if we found ourselves in a position the same as August 1945 would it be acceptable to use nuclear weapons again...well, I just hope that we don't find ourselves in that situation.
That being said, I am fairly sure that at some point in the next century, someone, somewhere, is going to use a nuclear device of some form in an aggressive action.

[Nippelspanner]

I understand, I too grimace when people talk about 'nuking them mooslems back into the stone age (TM)' because they always neglect to think of the innocent casualties involved in such an act.
Exactly what I had in mind, thank you for putting my thoughts on paper! :)

For the rest, I agree. I just hope things stay cool for as long as possible.
Looking back at history though... meh. :dead:

[Commander Wallace]

I do see where Politenessman and Oberon make a good point. To be fair, it's a contentious issue where people are sharply divided. Politenessman also pointed out the atrocities with regards to the brutal treatment of people in China and POW's. The bataan death march comes to mind.

it's important to note that the USSR declared war on Japan on August 9th, 1945, some 3 days after the U.S bombed Hiroshima and the same day as the bombing of Nagasaki. The USSR knew the war was essentially over not only from knowing of the atomic bombing of Japan but also because of their spy network penetration of the Manhattan project itself.

It is believed the USSR , in the form of war reparations would give them control of the disputed Kuril Islands. These islands were annexed after WW2 by the USSR
The modern Kuril Islands dispute arose in the aftermath of WWII and results from the ambiguities in and disagreements about the meaning of the Yalta agreement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalta_agreement) (February 1945), the Potsdam Declaration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration) (July 1945) and the Treaty of San Francisco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Francisco) (September 1951). The Yalta Agreement, signed by the US, Great Britain and the Soviet Union, stated: The leaders of the three great powers – the Soviet Union, the United States of America and Great Britain – have agreed that in two or three months after Germany has surrendered and the war in Europe is terminated, the Soviet Union shall enter into war against Japan on the side of the Allies on condition that: [....] 2. The former rights of Russia violated by the treacherous attack of Japan in 1904 shall be restored, viz.: (a) The southern part of Sakhalin as well as the islands adjacent to it shall be returned to the Soviet Union; [....] 3. The Kurile Islands shall be handed over to the Soviet Union.

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

Therefore the USSR risked nothing in declaring war on Japan and gained control of these disputed Islands. They were allies of convenience
who shared a common enemy, not a common goal.

As Nipplespanner states , No one wants to see the horrific results and aftermath of nuclear weapons use.

[Torplexed]

I really don't think so and it baffles me when people justify mass murder of civilians. Nothing can justify this for me.
Yes, an invasion would have been a catastrophe. Then again, why not blockade Japan completely, cut it off, wait it out, threaten Japan and drop a bomb off-shore as a demonstration, whatever I don't know but just dropping them? Shocks me.
They dropped the bomb(s) as soon as they could, without warning as far as I know.
The reason was not to prevent millions of dead, the reason was to test the funky new toy and to show the Russian bear who's running the show.







I suppose Japan could have been blockaded indefinitely. However, it should be noted that according to the Chinese about 200,000 of their civilians were dying every month under Japanese occupation. Not to mention elsewhere in Southeast Asia. So while we might cringe at the horror of the bomb, waiting just ups the overall death toll in WW2. I also find it odd that people wring their hands over civilian deaths in a fireball aren't too perturbed by long drawn out starvation over a period of months.


So, an end to the horror or horror without end.


I seem to recall the question of demonstrating the bomb was put to a former Japanese army officer in the 1960s. He seem to feel that in the cloud-cuckoo land of 1945 Japan, it would have been immediately spun by the militarists into a major propaganda tool. The Americans are so terrified by the prospect of invading Japan and the casualties they will take, that they have taken the unprecedented step of demonstrating a secret weapon. They must also be terrified of the public relations hit they will be taking as well, or they wouldn't be going to all this trouble. I could easily see Japan going on a mini-diplomatic offensive saying they are about to be the guinea pig in the experiment of a new barbaric weapon. Given all the agonizing and suspicion's over the dropping of the bombs since 1945, it would have the ring of truth to it.


It's probably important to recall that even after Hiroshima, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and Nagasaki, the Japanese cabinet was still split 3-3 on the question of surrender. It took the unprecedented intervention of the Emperor to sway things, and even that had to negotiate a coup to work.

[Aktungbby]

There were four known major deposits of uranium in 1940: in Colorado,Canada, in Czechoslovakia, and the Congo.... ore to be purchased at $1.45 a pound So much 'bang 4 the buck'!:O: When a reluctant Albert Einstein (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/biographies/bio_einstein-albert.htm) wrote the letter to President Roosevelt (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/biographies/bio_roosevelt-franklin.htm) that set the American atomic bomb project in motion, he ruefully predicted to his colleagues: “You realize, once the
military have this, they will use it, no matter what you say.”https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/Einstein_tongue.jpg/220px-Einstein_tongue.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Einstein_tongue.jpg) http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/educators/study-guides/history_decision-to-drop-bomb.htm (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/educators/study-guides/history_decision-to-drop-bomb.htm) http://0.tqn.com/d/inventors/1/0/f/Q/einstein_letter.gifhttp://0.tqn.com/d/inventors/1/0/g/Q/einstein_letter_1.gif We didn't have a lot of fissile uranium...but we sure cornered the market in Thinman and Fatman casings! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Thin_Man_plutonium_gun_bomb_casings.jpg I admit to a less-than-impartial-bias here; My dad was scheduled for the invasion of Japan(in B-29's) in WWII; having worked/promoted his way out of expendable beach-assault flame-thrower duty...:dead: and pointed out to me (crushing my lofty ideals forever):wah: that I wouldn't be posting at :subsim: if not for the bomb...I'll have a Manhattan on that!:rock:with a Hamm's chaser...

[Politenessman]

I really don't think so and it baffles me when people justify mass murder of civilians. Nothing can justify this for me.
Yes, an invasion would have been a catastrophe. Then again, why not blockade Japan completely, cut it off, wait it out, threaten Japan and drop a bomb off-shore as a demonstration, whatever I don't know but just dropping them? Shocks me.
They dropped the bomb(s) as soon as they could, without warning as far as I know.
The reason was not to prevent millions of dead, the reason was to test the funky new toy and to show the Russian bear who's running the show.

I totally understand this, looking at it from a certain perspective.
But that doesn't make it right in the end.
As I said, for me - nothing - justifies these two bombs.

But I'm just some sissy liberal anyways, who cares about a few thousand fried civilians, as long as they are on the right side.

The problem with your argument NS is you admit you have no other alternative to offer. You are happy to see 250,000 allied troops die and 750,000 be maimed so you can feel good about yourself.

Why not blockade? as I pointed out in my original post. starvation and starvation of the most vulnerable people in Japan (women, children, the old and infirm) as scarce resources are diverted to the military, plus how many Chinese, Malays, Singaporeans, Koreans and POWs get to die while you dither?

A demonstration of the bomb? the only effects would be take away the shock value and possibly provide propaganda to the Japanese - these were people who wanted to fight to the death, if you read "a glorious way to die", at the end a Japanese naval officer who survived his ship being sunk, was returning to his barracks past a field where school girls were drilling with bamboo pikes.
You assume the bomb was dropped to test a "new toy" (since they already knew it worked, that opinion is ludicrous), Truman was faced with the choice of killing a quarter of a million mostly US troops and maiming 3/4 of a million more, or authorising the use of a bomb.
Can you honestly say that you would sign the death warrant for 250,000 mostly conscripts who it was your sworn duty to protect as best you can?
Since "nothing justifies the two bombs" I assume that you would have been happy to volunteer to be first up the beach had invasion been necessary?

[Nippelspanner]

...I assume...
Yep, that's right. You do. :up:

[Politenessman]

Yep, that's right. You do. :up:

OK, lets get rid of the assumption. Since you are prepared to condemn 250,000 men to death and 750,000 to be cripples (in a time when prosthetics were little better than wooden legs and hooks for hands) and you state that nothing justifies dropping the bombs, would you volunteer to be first up the beach in the invasion?

[Nippelspanner]

OK, lets get rid of the assumption. Since you are prepared to condemn 250,000 men to death and 750,000 to be cripples (in a time when prosthetics were little better than wooden legs and hooks for hands) and you state that nothing justifies dropping the bombs, would you volunteer to be first up the beach in the invasion?
I thought we're getting rid of assumptions?
Why do you claim I am happily sacrificing anyone?
Why do you claim I did not suggest an alternative, when I did?

It is easy to say "this or that wouldn't have worked" but as I said: Assumptions.
I can only repeat myself, if necessary.
Nothing, in my opinion, justifies the usage of nuclear weapons to end ten-thousands of lives in a heart beat, nothing.
It doesn't matter - at all - if I'd be first on the beach or not, do you understand this point of view?
I do not ask you to agree, I ask you to understand.
Earlier, I said rather clearly that I do indeed understand this war crime, looking at it through the eyes of a General, a President or similar.
Still, I argue that this doesn't make it right.

Call me Ghandi if you wish, but this is my position on nuclear weapons.
As to willingly let them starve - I never said that and honestly I think it is a very different thing to drop 2 bombs, killing thousands, or be passive about it and give things a CHANCE to maybe work out not as bad as we all predict today.
"Hätte, hätte, Fahrradkette."

All these claims about saving millions of lives (by killing ten thousands of civilians) and the quick ending of the war which would have ended in a bloodshed never seen before - is all just speculation.
In the end, I wouldn't drop these bombs because "maybe...".
No.

[Politenessman]

I thought we're getting rid of assumptions?
Why do you claim I am happily sacrificing anyone?
Why do you claim I did not suggest an alternative, when I did?

It is easy to say "this or that wouldn't have worked" but as I said: Assumptions.
I can only repeat myself, if necessary.
Nothing, in my opinion, justifies the usage of nuclear weapons to end ten-thousands of lives in a heart beat, nothing.
It doesn't matter - at all - if I'd be first on the beach or not, do you understand this point of view?
I do not ask you to agree, I ask you to understand.
Earlier, I said rather clearly that I do indeed understand this war crime, looking at it through the eyes of a General, a President or similar.
Still, I argue that this doesn't make it right.

Call me Ghandi if you wish, but this is my position on nuclear weapons.
As to willingly let them starve - I never said that and honestly I think it is a very different thing to drop 2 bombs, killing thousands, or be passive about it and give things a CHANCE to maybe work out not as bad as we all predict today.
"Hätte, hätte, Fahrradkette."

All these claims about saving millions of lives (by killing ten thousands of civilians) and the quick ending of the war which would have ended in a bloodshed never seen before - is all just speculation.
In the end, I wouldn't drop these bombs because "maybe...".
No.


Unfortunately you are either ill educated (which can be fixed) or unwilling to know the facts (which cannot), the casualty estimates provided are the official estimates that were informed by actual casualty rates invading other islands that the Japanese considered part of the home islands (rather than occupied territory).

The only "alternatives" you have provided simply drag out the war, while civilians die in the occupied countries and, as noted from every blockade and siege in history (including that of Japan in WW2), disproportionately kill civilians of illness and starvation.

BTW, please explain why it is morally acceptable to you to starve a child to death but not blow them up?

You have access to all of this information, yet you choose to maintain an opinion that is demonstrably amoral - all so you can feel good about yourself, you'll starve civilians (it had already started in Japan), let civilians be raped, tortured or murdered in occupied countries and condemn a million allied troops to die or be crippled, and this is where it becomes relevant if you would lead them up the beach or not - since you are prepared to see them die because "nothing justified dropping the bombs" are you prepared to die beside them or do you lack the courage of your stated convictions?

[Nippelspanner]

BTW, please explain why it is morally acceptable to you to starve a child to death but not blow them up?
I never said it is morally acceptable.
But I already explained why I would prefer (for example) a blockade, a demonstration, further tries of negotiations (yes yes, fanatic suicide samurai, all of them, I know...) over directly, instantly and willingly killing a few ten thousand people, favorably civilians.

If you drop these bombs and turn thousands to ashes, you bear the responsibility for that.
If you block the island because a stubborn government is unwilling to accept defeat - the responsibility shifts towards this government.
That makes a huge difference to me.

All I said in the end is that, for me, nothing justifies the usage of nuclear weapons. You start to disappoint me for not understanding this rather simple point of view/opinion, insisting that only because I condemn these actions I therefore have the burden to find a better solution, which is nonsensical actually.

[Catfish]

From what you can read, there was no careful waging of how much japanese civilians would die by a blockade, versus numbers of an invasion and own GIs killed, versus dropping the bomb.
It is all about justification.

[Schroeder]

All I said in the end is that, for me, nothing justifies the usage of nuclear weapons. You start to disappoint me for not understanding this rather simple point of view/opinion, insisting that only because I condemn these actions I therefore have the burden to find a better solution, which is nonsensical actually.
I don't understand your point either but I can live with that. We don't have to agree on everything and live still goes on.:yep:

To me it's a numbers game. Over all I think the Nukes were the option with the least casualties on BOTH sides. An invasion of Japan would most likely have cost millions of lives considering how the invasions of other home land islands worked (military units fighting to the last man, civilians committing mass suicide, the announcement of executing all POWs, horrific medical situation with shortage of everything). I think a bit over 200.000 lives lost, as tragic and regrettable/disgusting as it is, is the lower price to pay than any alternative that I can think of. So the nukes would actually be my choice to end the war, simply because they allow MORE people to be alive once it's over.

[Wolferz]

Regardless of any assumptions or what ifs in regard to using such a devastating weapon, I try to comfort my tormented id in the knowledge that it only had to be used twice. After Hiroshima was reduced to glass, the Japanese still tried to sue for peace. Stalling tactic? You bet it was. So Nagasaki got the horns of the bull too. It wasn't until the Japanese were overtly informed that Tokyo would be next in line that they finally saw the light.


Edit: Captain hindsight says: Count your lucky stars... We could have dropped both bombs on Tokyo and called it a day.

[Raptor1]

Regardless of any assumptions or what ifs in regard to using such a devastating weapon, I try to comfort my tormented id in the knowledge that it only had to be used twice. After Hiroshima was reduced to glass, the Japanese still tried to sue for peace. Stalling tactic? You bet it was. So Nagasaki got the horns of the bull too. It wasn't until the Japanese were overtly informed that Tokyo would be next in line that they finally saw the light.


Edit: Captain hindsight says: Count your lucky stars... We could have dropped both bombs on Tokyo and called it a day.

Tokyo wasn't particularly suitable as a target; much of it was burned to the ground over-night several months before in a firebombing raid that killed more people than either atomic bomb.

[Wolferz]

Tokyo wasn't particularly suitable as a target; much of it was burned to the ground over-night several months before in a firebombing raid that killed more people than either atomic bomb.

True, but it was their capital city after all and finishing it off by turning it into radioactive glass would have driven the point home in a big way.
IIRC they immediately cried "uncle" when told of the next target after Nagasaki. They had no defense against it whatsoever.

It created an insurmountable fear in those people. I have conversed with a former GI who was stationed in Japan during the post war occupation. He related a story of an incensed crowd of civilians getting a little uppity with them and all he had to do was make a gesture with his hands and mouth of another huge explosion and they settled down mach schnell.

[Oberon]

Let's just take a moment to consider Tsutomu Yamaguchi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi)

http://38.media.tumblr.com/4d0fbc1a71e25a9fdc6b61c7de77c3c5/tumblr_nso7y3gYxz1r83d7lo3_540.gif

Three kilometers from two nuclear explosions and he lives to the ripe old age of 93. :o

[Torplexed]

Tokyo wasn't particularly suitable as a target; much of it was burned to the ground over-night several months before in a firebombing raid that killed more people than either atomic bomb.

I guess the direction of war is never a task for the squeamish and it's easy to pontificate 70 years later, when you're not caught up in the pressure of events. The U.S. had already participated in a massive bombing campaign which had killed about three-quarters of a million German and Japanese civilians, and to which public opinion had raised few objections. It is much easier to justify the the decision to drop the atomic bombs than the continued fire-raising offensive of the Twentieth Air Force in Japan. The preoccupation of debate with the necessity of using using the bombs had meant that it always gets judged strategically against the looming invasion of the Home Islands, rather than the actual air bombardment underway at the time and with which it was unavoidably linked in the minds of the policy-makers at the time.

Cold as it may seem, General Curtis LeMay regarded the Hiroshima and Nagasaki raids as merely an addition ( and a redundant and unwelcome addition) to a campaign he felt his B-29s had already decisively won. If anything he was annoyed that they diminished the credit given his conventional bombers for flattening Japan.

[Oberon]

I always find it...amusing is perhaps the word, that Le May would receive the Japanese Order of the Rising Sun after the war, perhaps for his services in city redesigning? :doh:

[Torplexed]

I always find it...amusing is perhaps the word, that Le May would receive the Japanese Order of the Rising Sun after the war, perhaps for his services in city redesigning? :doh:

Yeah, that's kind of like enshrining General Tecumseh Sherman on Stone Mountain, Georgia for burning Atlanta. :O:

[Aktungbby]

that I wouldn't be posting at :subsim: if not for the bombFrom what you can read, there was no careful waging of how much japanese civilians would die by a blockade, versus numbers of an invasion and own GIs killed, versus dropping the bomb.
It is all about justification.
Quite the contrary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall)
It wasn't until the Japanese were overtly informed that Tokyo would be next in line that they finally saw the light.


In Nipponese that's "Saw the Right" They can't say L...:x

[Oberon]

Of course, that's not forgetting the possibility that the Allied invasion force would have been scattered to the four winds by Typhoon Louise which smashed into Okinawa as a Cat. 3 (185kmh/115mph winds) around about the time that the invasion was due to begin. This in turn would have given extra support to the Japanese who would have seen it as a sign from the Shinto gods in the same manner that the Mongolian fleets were scattered by the 'Kami-kaze' at Koan and Bun'ei. :dead: Their resistance would have increased even more. :nope:

[Torplexed]

One of the great fears of the Joint Chiefs was that historically no Japanese government had ever surrendered or, even if one did, that Japan's armed forces would comply with that surrender. Had Downfall gone ahead, the emperor might at some point been spirited away for "his safety" possibly squelching the only spark of hope for any sort of organized capitulation. If there was no organized surrender, the Joint Chiefs warned in a policy paper that they foresaw "no alternative to annihilation" of the between four and five million Japanese combatants in the home islands, on the Asian continent, and across the Pacific.

So, you have naval blockade that might result in starvation and disease for the millions on Japan with maybe millions more dying in China, the Netherlands East Indies and other Japanese occupied areas as the protracted conflict drags on.

You have a costly invasion pending that could take months if not years, might even entail the tactical use of atomic weapons and would reduce what was left of Japan to cinders.

And then you have the dropping of the two atomic bombs, which along with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria just might shock someone in authority in Japan into surrender.

The atomic bombs were awful. The alternatives seem much worse.

[Commander Wallace]

Having read all the posts here , it's seems clear everyone is saying basically the same thing. War, especially in a nuclear context is an ugly thing and maybe that's a good thing.

Hopefully that ugliness will make war something to be avoided. We have more important things to consider such as environmental and climate issues anyhow. I think it will take the collective intelligence of all people in the world to work that one out.

[danasan]

I was born post WWII, but not that far after WWII. My parents had witnessed WWII. My father was officer in the Waffen SS and proud of that.

From what I've learned during all my years about history, when it comes to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the possibility of bombing Germany with nukes, Robert Oppenheimer comes to mind:

"We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita; Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I suppose we all thought that, one way or another."

Let's just hope NEVER again.

[Alex]

It is much easier to justify the the decision to drop the atomic bombs
:hmm2: :o99 !


And yesterday, the West commemorated the Nagasaki bombing.

A plutonium bomb delivered from the skies, leaving 74.000 people dead in a fraction of a second - not counting wounded people, most of whom did not survive.

http://b8.uk.icdn.ru/c/compdrag/5/44361925hnn.jpg

Hm... Well, fair enough ! :)

Raising another matter now. According to the official version of the event - which I'll admit to be true for now -, what happened on June 10, 1944 in Oradour ? :hmm2:
Waffen SS destroyed a village and massacred its inhabitants to make an example out of it. Their goal ? People say it was to terrorize the population so that the resistance stops harassing german troops going northward on their way up to la Normandie. So, the SS is said to have acted that way at Oradour in order to put an end to the kleinkrieg, the resistance's war - that was indeed supposed to allow members of the resistance to avoid more difficulties and disasters, as well as to save many lives.

http://b8.uk.icdn.ru/c/compdrag/6/44361926glr.jpg

Ah ? And can you enlighten me on what basis it is any different, please ?
Both wanted to put an end to a war, didn't they ? :hmm2:

Look carefully, dig a bit deeper into the subject.
The final excuse will always be the same : "Allies were fighting for civilization, while Germans for their part were fighting for the bad side : the cause of criminal nazism".
I'll respond to that through some answer from Hjalmar Schacht. Acquitted at the end of the Nuremberg trials, during the hearing he said :

[...]
From the proceedings in this Court so far, I have not gained the impression that the opinion of the Prosecution concerning the criminal character of the Party program is a uniform one. I am unable to see in the Party program, as such, any sign of criminal intentions.

Federation of all Germans, which always plays a great role, is always claimed, only on the basis of the right for self-determination. A position for Germany in foreign politics is demanded as constituting equality of the German nation with the other nations; that this involved the abolition of the discriminations which were imposed upon the German people by the Versailles Treaty is quite clear.

Land and soil was demanded for the nutrition of our people, and the settlement of our excess population. I cannot see any crime in that, because after land and soil was expressly added, in brackets, the word "colonies." I have always considered that as a demand for colonies, which I myself supported a long time before National Socialism came into existence. Rather strange and, in my opinion, going somewhat beyond the limits, were the points concerning the exclusion of Jews from civil rights but, on the other hand, it was reassuring that the Jews were to be under the protection of the Aliens’ Law, that is, subject to the same laws which applied to foreigners in Germany. I would have wished, and always demanded, that this legal protection should under all circumstances be given to the Jews. Unfortunately, they were not given that protection. For the rest it was emphasized that all citizens should have equal rights and duties. Promotion of popular education was stressed as being beneficial, and also gymnastics and sports were demanded for the improvement of public health. The fight against deliberate political lies was demanded, which Goebbels afterwards conducted very energetically. And, above all, demand was made for the freedom of all religious denominations, and for the principle of positive Christianity.

That is, in essence, the content of the National Socialist Party program, and I cannot see anything criminal in it. It would, indeed, have been quite peculiar if, had this been a criminal Party program, the world had maintained continuous political and cultural contact with Germany for two decades, and with the National Socialists for one decade. [...] Let's remind you that the british ambassador in Germany Sir Nevile Henderson, in his april 20th 1939 report, admitted :

Many of Herr Hitler's social reforms, in spite of their complete disregard for personal liberty of thought, word and deed, were on highly advanced democratic lines.
The 'Strength through Joy' movement, the care of the physical fitness of the nation, and above all, the organization of the labour camps, are typical examples of a benevolent dictatorship. [...] Much of its legislation in this respect will survive in a new and better world.It is indeed interesting to take note that, in order to persuade the German People of the criminal nature of the national-socialist ideology, winners of this war showed them photos taken at the liberation of concentration camps, saying things like "Here lies what Nazism led to".
However, that propaganda was quickly refuted - on march, 11th 1946, Rudolf Höss, once inspector of concentration camps, basically said :

The catastrophic situation. at the end of the war was due to the fact that, as a result of the destruction of the railway network and of the continuous bombing of the industrial plants, care for these masses--I am thinking of Auschwitz with its 140,000 internees--could no longer be assured. Improvised measures, truck columns, and everything else tried by the commanders to improve the situation were of little or no avail ; it was no longer possible. The number of the sick became immense. There were next to no medical supplies; epidemics raged everywhere. Internees who were capable of work were used over and over again. By order of the Reichsfáhrer, even half-sick people had to be used wherever possible in industry. As a result every bit of space in the concentration camps which could possibly be used for lodging was overcrowded with sick and dying prisoners.So, in fact, in order to demonstrate the allegedly criminal aspects of national-socialism, the Allies did nothing less than relying on a situation in Germany they were themselves largely responsible for - when it comes to cynicism, you can't do better than that. http://b8.uk.icdn.ru/c/compdrag/0/41904500Ulv.jpg

As soon as 1948, Maurice Bardèche clearly posed the problem :

What proves to us that National-Socialism was not also the truth ? What proves to us that we did not take for its essence what were just contingencies, inevitable accidents of combat [...] And what if National-Socialism had actually been truth and progress or, at least, a form of truth and of progress ?Today, however, converging repressive laws and significant social pressure prevent all free and open debate and discussion around this question. Disregarding laws and breaking the taboo about this subject actually can be a threat to anyone. And what if National-Socialism had actually been truth and progress or, at least, a form of truth and of progress ?..

Authorities don't want anyone to ask this question to himself, since only the negative response is allowed. But what lies ahead, behind that will to prevent open discussion related to the subject ? :hmm2:

The answer to that question especially can be found at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, among other places. Thousands of dead people in a fraction of a second, as well as horrendously mutilated people...

http://b8.uk.icdn.ru/c/compdrag/6/44362636Wko.jpg

[Oberon]

Did he just defend Hitler? :hmmm:

August, I believe you have an Indiana Jones picture to post... :yep:

[Bilge_Rat]

interesting discussion.

I read in "Wages of Destruction", that by early 1942, both Speer and Friedrich Fromm (of Valkyrie fame, but at that time chief of Army Armament) had both been briefed by German scientists and well understood the potential of the atomic bomb, but both came to the conclusion that Germany could not afford to spend billions on a weapon that would take years to develop.

[Betonov]

interesting discussion.

I read in "Wages of Destruction", that by early 1942, both Speer and Friedrich Fromm (of Valkyrie fame, but at that time chief of Army Armament) had both been briefed by German scientists and well understood the potential of the atomic bomb, but both came to the conclusion that Germany could not afford to spend billions on a weapon that would take years to develop.

One documentary I saw once, when Discovery was still about documentaries, was that they found out after the war, that the Germans went about building the bomb completely wrong and would never had worked.


@Alex: you realise that the Nazi eguenics principle would not let you live ??
Jews, gypsies and Slavs were not the only ones on the list. Mental cases were also on the kill list.

[Aktungbby]

http://b8.uk.icdn.ru/c/compdrag/6/44362636Wko.jpg


Did he just defend Hitler? :hmmm:

August, I believe you have an Indiana Jones picture to post... :yep: ...but the firebombing campaign against Japan, directed by LeMay between March 1945 and the Japanese surrender (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_surrender) in August 1945, may have killed more than 500,000 Japanese civilians and left five million homeless. Official estimates from theUnited States Strategic Bombing Survey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Strategic_Bombing_Survey) put the figures at 220,000 people killed. Some 40% of the built-up areas of 66 cities were destroyed, including much of Japan's war industry. The remaining Allied (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II)prisoners of war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war) in Japan who had survived imprisonment to that time were frequently subjected to additional reprisals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reprisals) and torture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture) after an air raid. The massive bombing also hit a number of prisons and directly killed a number of Allied war prisoners LeMay was aware of the implication of his orders. The New York Times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times) reported at the time, "Maj. Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, commander of the B-29s of the entire Marianas area, declared that if the war is shortened by a single day, the attack will have served its purpose."The argument was that it was his duty to carry out the attacks in order to end the war as quickly as possible, sparing further loss of life. He also remarked that had the U.S. lost the war, he fully expected to be tried for war crimes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes).. [wiki]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Firebombing_leaflet.jpg
A "LeMay Bombing Leaflet" from the war, which warned Japanese civilians that "Unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives." :timeout: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/SunIII.jpg/300px-SunIII.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SunIII.jpg)after the war Lemay received the Order of the Rising Sun Grand Cordon...go figure!:salute: "PoRitics as usuar" including what really happened to aircrews imprisoned at Hiroshima and Nagasski...http://www.us-japandialogueonpows.org/HoroshimaPOW.htm (http://www.us-japandialogueonpows.org/HoroshimaPOW.htm)

[Aktungbby]

interesting discussion.

I read in "Wages of Destruction", that by early 1942, both Speer and Friedrich Fromm (of Valkyrie fame, but at that time chief of Army Armament) had both been briefed by German scientists and well understood the potential of the atomic bomb, but both came to the conclusion that Germany could not afford to spend billions on a weapon that would take years to develop.

One documentary I saw once, when Discovery was still about documentaries, was that they found out after the war, that the Germans went about building the bomb completely wrong and would never had worked.



Fortunately time ran out on the Nazi Nuke but something sure happened at Rügen in the Baltic... http://english.pravda.ru/history/10-05-2011/117849-atomic_bomb-0/ (http://english.pravda.ru/history/10-05-2011/117849-atomic_bomb-0/) http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/the-third-reich-how-close-was-hitler-to-the-a-bomb-a-346293.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/the-third-reich-how-close-was-hitler-to-the-a-bomb-a-346293.html) Better 'us badguys' than 'Them badguys' :shucks:

[Oberon]

Careful we don't stray into Wolfenstein territory here, especially if we start talking about 'Die Glocke' :haha:

In regards to the Nazi bomb, IIRC their first major project was to build a reactor, like the Allies 'Tube Alloys' and 'Manhatten' but IIRC the reactor, if indeed it was ever built, suffered a problem and was shut down.
What didn't help was that whenever the Allies got wind of anything that could be used in the making of a nuclear bomb or reactor by Germany they sent a load of Lancasters or B-17s over to bomb it into the dirt.
That being said, I wouldn't have been surprised if they were close to creating at the very least a dirty bomb.

[Stealhead]

Didn't the Germans have that pile reactor deal? Also the heavy water plant in Norway they had that. So I'd agree they likely could have produced a dirty bomb. The Japanese also considered a dirty bomb attack on California using the I-400 submarine launched M6A Seiran aircraft.

[Aktungbby]

Didn't the Germans have that pile reactor deal? Also the heavy water plant in Norway they had that. So I'd agree they likely could have produced a dirty bomb. The Japanese also considered a dirty bomb attack on California using the I-400 submarine launched M6A Seiran aircraft.
Dis explain dat::D http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/reichblacksun/chapter04.htm (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/reichblacksun/chapter04.htm)

[Politenessman]

:hmm2: :o99 !


And yesterday, the West commemorated the Nagasaki bombing.

A plutonium bomb delivered from the skies, leaving 74.000 people dead in a fraction of a second - not counting wounded people, most of whom did not survive.

http://b8.uk.icdn.ru/c/compdrag/5/44361925hnn.jpg

Hm... Well, fair enough ! :)

Raising another matter now. According to the official version of the event - which I'll admit to be true for now -, what happened on June 10, 1944 in Oradour ? :hmm2:
Waffen SS destroyed a village and massacred its inhabitants to make an example out of it. Their goal ? People say it was to terrorize the population so that the resistance stops harassing german troops going northward on their way up to la Normandie. So, the SS is said to have acted that way at Oradour in order to put an end to the kleinkrieg, the resistance's war - that was indeed supposed to allow members of the resistance to avoid more difficulties and disasters, as well as to save many lives.

http://b8.uk.icdn.ru/c/compdrag/6/44361926glr.jpg

Ah ? And can you enlighten me on what basis it is any different, please ?
Both wanted to put an end to a war, didn't they ? :hmm2:

Look carefully, dig a bit deeper into the subject.
The final excuse will always be the same : "Allies were fighting for civilization, while Germans for their part were fighting for the bad side : the cause of criminal nazism".
I'll respond to that through some answer from Hjalmar Schacht. Acquitted at the end of the Nuremberg trials, during the hearing he said :

Let's remind you that the british ambassador in Germany Sir Nevile Henderson, in his april 20th 1939 report, admitted :

It is indeed interesting to take note that, in order to persuade the German People of the criminal nature of the national-socialist ideology, winners of this war showed them photos taken at the liberation of concentration camps, saying things like "Here lies what Nazism led to".
However, that propaganda was quickly refuted - on march, 11th 1946, Rudolf Höss, once inspector of concentration camps, basically said :

So, in fact, in order to demonstrate the allegedly criminal aspects of national-socialism, the Allies did nothing less than relying on a situation in Germany they were themselves largely responsible for - when it comes to cynicism, you can't do better than that. http://b8.uk.icdn.ru/c/compdrag/0/41904500Ulv.jpg

As soon as 1948, Maurice Bardèche clearly posed the problem :

Today, however, converging repressive laws and significant social pressure prevent all free and open debate and discussion around this question. Disregarding laws and breaking the taboo about this subject actually can be a threat to anyone. And what if National-Socialism had actually been truth and progress or, at least, a form of truth and of progress ?..

Authorities don't want anyone to ask this question to himself, since only the negative response is allowed. But what lies ahead, behind that will to prevent open discussion related to the subject ? :hmm2:

The answer to that question especially can be found at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, among other places. Thousands of dead people in a fraction of a second, as well as horrendously mutilated people...

http://b8.uk.icdn.ru/c/compdrag/6/44362636Wko.jpg


Its pretty simple, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets (look up the list of Military HQs, Industry, naval docks, munitions factories etc) that were in both cities as noted below. the civilian deaths were collateral casualties in a legal air raid in both cases (the laws of war allow this, the onus is on the defender to site legit targets away from civilians).

Hiroshima - During World War II, Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops and was a major naval base.

Nagasaki - The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The narrow long strip attacked was of particular importance because of its industries.

Massacring civilians in reprisal as per the Waffen SS in Normandy is a war crime and punishable by death.

RE the defence of Nazism, I won't even bother refuting the idiocy.

[Politenessman]

I never said it is morally acceptable.
But I already explained why I would prefer (for example) a blockade, a demonstration, further tries of negotiations (yes yes, fanatic suicide samurai, all of them, I know...) over directly, instantly and willingly killing a few ten thousand people, favorably civilians.

If you drop these bombs and turn thousands to ashes, you bear the responsibility for that.
If you block the island because a stubborn government is unwilling to accept defeat - the responsibility shifts towards this government.
That makes a huge difference to me.

All I said in the end is that, for me, nothing justifies the usage of nuclear weapons. You start to disappoint me for not understanding this rather simple point of view/opinion, insisting that only because I condemn these actions I therefore have the burden to find a better solution, which is nonsensical actually.


"As to willingly let them starve - I never said that and honestly I think it is a very different thing to drop 2 bombs, killing thousands, or be passive about it and give things a CHANCE to maybe work out not as bad as we all predict today."

You state, as quoted above, that it not immoral to let the children starve,
as long as you have the option of "being passive" to pretend that you didn't cause their deaths. 2 things come from this,

1. you don't know what a blockade is, it is actively sinking or turning back all shipping, so your moral cover is gone - you are killing them, just on delay.
The other thing that comes out of the discussion is that it is all about your feelings rather than facts - Chinese, Malays, Singaporeans being raped, tortured or murdered and you can stop it, but it's no problem as long as you don't do anything that makes you feel bad about yourself.
POWS tortured, starved and murdered, all good as long as you feel good.
Millions of Japanese men women and children to starve in the blockade, no problem as long as you don't do anything "active" that makes you feel bad about yourself, no matter how farcical the excuse that you didn't do it to them.

I also note you have still failed to answer the question, if, since nothing justifies the atomic bombs, the invasion is necessary - would you volunteer to be in the first wave up the beach and die with the other 250,000 or so allied troops you'd condemn to that fate? yes or no will do.

[Nippelspanner]

Its pretty simple, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets (look up the list of Military HQs, Industry, naval docks, munitions factories etc) that were in both cities as noted below. the civilian deaths were collateral casualties in a legal air raid in both cases (the laws of war allow this, the onus is on the defender to site legit targets away from civilians).
All cool then! :yeah:

With this sort of thinking, you can nuke every single country on this planet you are at war with - since it is totally 'lega'l and that justifies everything.
Hell, and I'm breaking my head here, it is all so easy in the end! :up:

[Politenessman]

All cool then! :yeah:

With this sort of thinking, you can nuke every single country on this planet you are at war with - since it is totally 'lega'l and that justifies everything.
Hell, and I'm breaking my head here, it is all so easy in the end! :up:

It would help if you were prepared to think rather than try to be a smart arse as all you've done is demonstrated your ignorance.

Precision guided weapons have removed the need for massive bombs (or masses of bombs as per WW2 conventional air raids) to destroy relatively small targets (in fact many countries are now using smaller bombs [and in some cases concrete filled weapons] to reduce collateral damage) because the massive blast effect is not needed to compensate for a basic lack of accuracy any more.

Also, I note you are still dodging the question I asked, which suggests that you lack the courage of your convictions.

[Nippelspanner]

"As to willingly let them starve - I never said that and honestly I think it is a very different thing to drop 2 bombs, killing thousands, or be passive about it and give things a CHANCE to maybe work out not as bad as we all predict today."

You state, as quoted above, that it not immoral to let the children starve,
as long as you have the option of "being passive" to pretend that you didn't cause their deaths.
What? Are you fantasizing now?
That is not even remotely what I said and I have a completely different point of view on this issue.
Being passive is not actively killing them.
In case of a blockade the responsibility for the casualties (especially in the scenario we speak of) goes towards the Japanese government.
They can make this end any day, any moment - hence any casualties are on their account.

Dropping a nuclear bomb and accepting the instant death of some 70.000 civilians is nothing but murder, you can try to sugarcoat this as much as you want, it doesn't change its very nature.


2 things come from this,

1. you don't know what a blockade is, it is actively sinking or turning back all shipping, so your moral cover is gone - you are killing them, just on delay.
Just read the above... and just stop trying to make me a villain with some hidden agenda using a "moral cover". I start to wonder what you're actually on about... :hmmm:

The other thing that comes out of the discussion is that it is all about your feelings rather than facts - Chinese, Malays, Singaporeans being raped, tortured or murdered and you can stop it, but it's no problem as long as you don't do anything that makes you feel bad about yourself.
POWS tortured, starved and murdered, all good as long as you feel good.
Millions of Japanese men women and children to starve in the blockade, no problem as long as you don't do anything "active" that makes you feel bad about yourself, no matter how farcical the excuse that you didn't do it to them.
Ok, at this point you start to massively piss me off.
How twisted are you actually?
My point of view is rather simple, so I must assume you simply deny to understand it at this point and feel the need to take what I said and twist it in a way it suits your own point of view?
Sorry, won't be a apart of this crap.


I also note you have still failed to answer the question, if, since nothing justifies the atomic bombs, the invasion is necessary - would you volunteer to be in the first wave up the beach and die with the other 250,000 or so allied troops you'd condemn to that fate? yes or no will do.
I also note that you must have reading comprehension problems and reading what you just said while I was writing this gives me the feeling that I hit some nerve as you now retreated to use personal attacks and passive aggressive behavior instead of addressing the topic.

Also, I note you are still dodging the question I asked, which suggests that you lack the courage of your convictions.
Are you serious right now?
You were the one not posting in two days after I addressed you.
This is not how debates work. You can't just pick what you like and demand answers, you gotta answer for your own crap as well and you so far never addressed what I said/asked, you just tried to find 'something' that somehow suits your point of view even if it means to twist my words or make the wildest assumptions.

Doesn't matter at this point, I am completely done with you and won't pursue this debate any longer. Days ago, I clearly made my point, as did others. You are the only one here blaming others of being ignorant while failing to accept different view points.

Way to go!

[bismark141]

I don't know... On the one hand, i see all the invasion evidence and all the reasons for believing it was right, and on the other, it feels like a monstrous act of cruelty. I just don't know...:shifty:

[Catfish]

Well.. cities as legitimate military targets?
IMHO bombing any civilian target or threaten to do so, is taking civilians as hostages.
There is almost no city which would not be a legitimate military target nowadays, from chocolate bars to ball bearings, all help to support the evil enemy, right?

So London was also a legitimate target, for all those ammunition factories, headquarters a.s.o. in WWI, and II ?
Ironically, the bombing of civilians in WW2 began with a tragic error, inviting Churchill to do what he and the military wanted to do all along. The order or parole sent to the armed forces was "Total Germany", which meant the declaration of a total war, right from the beginning.

On the other hand as things developed, such bombings of civilians would have happened sooner or later anyway, after the declaration of war. They had already taken place in WW1.. (started with the french i think though i may be wrong, to bombing cities in the Ruhr area, Friedrichshafen, and then, of course, England), and especially the german bombing raids in Poland at the begining of WWII.
You cannot see the bombing between England and Germany, without looking at Poland.

They did it first, so we are just doing what they did. Justification, not much better morally, but a reason.


As i said before, there were political reasons to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki and maybe rightly so, to prevent more dying, but imho the military really wanted to try out their new toys (as Einstein wrote) and see the real effect. And we should not forget that japanese people were effectively dehumanized, in propaganda. Not too much people protesting, if the population knew about it at all.
Real military reasons to bomb a city's population? I doubt it.

[Oberon]

Didn't the Germans have that pile reactor deal? Also the heavy water plant in Norway they had that. So I'd agree they likely could have produced a dirty bomb. The Japanese also considered a dirty bomb attack on California using the I-400 submarine launched M6A Seiran aircraft.

Pile reactor, that's the bugger. In a beer cellar, of all places. :haha:
Yeah, they had the plant at Vemork, although we managed to break it sufficiently that they declared it too much of a security risk to develop heavy water in Norway and moved production into Germany. :yep:
I've heard of the Japanese plans, also IIRC they considered sending out the plague to California, or something similar that Unit 731 would have cooked up during their human experimentation. :nope:

[Oberon]

Ironically, the bombing of civilians in WW2 began with a tragic error, inviting Churchill to do what he and the military wanted to do all along.

Incorrect, the Luftwaffe was bombing civilians long before London.

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

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

Oh, and the first bombing of a city, was from a German Zeppelin onto the city of Liege on the 6th August 1914.

[Betonov]

Hiroshima was a war crime, Nagasaki was a war crime, London bombings was awar crime, Dresden bombings was a war crime, the sacrifice of Coventry was a war crime, firebombing Tokyo was a war crime, Katyn forest was a war crime, Auscwitz was a war crime, Japaneese occupation of China was a war crime, German retaliation against resistance was a war crime, resistance no prisoner policy was a war crime, Dražgoše was a war crime....

WAR IS A CRIME

But I wish it was as simple as that.
We will sooner leave this behind if we just accept that it was wrong but done.
That's it. Shamefull display of violence and disregard for human life that was done and the only thing that can be done about it is not being repeated.

And not to go on a moral crusade here, I should be honest and say i'd done the same. If I can win the war with fever of my losses but at a great cost to the enemies nation, I'd do it. The people gave me a mandate to serve and protect and I'd do it even if I have to damn my soul.

[Oberon]

Coming back to the Blitz, briefly, Catfish does have a small point, although I don't think he realised it.

Initially, London targets outside of airfields was off bounds, on orders by Hitler, I think the two main reasons for this was fear of retaliation since he knew that the RAF had its own dedicated strategic bombing wing which was protected by the English Channel, so unlike the French strategic bombing wing (which wasn't that brilliant, tbh) it couldn't have its airfields overrun, and the second main reason was that it wasn't necessary to the goal of destroying the RAF. The main targets were RAF airfields, and Kent infrastructure as a prelude to the infamous sea mammal.
In return, the RAF was bombing primarily coastal cities along the French and German coastline as well as industrial targets in the Ruhr. Then came the famous Croydon cock-up, and as a response Bomber Command went after Tempelhof airfield in Berlin. The damage was minimal, but it made the Luftwaffe change targets from RAF airfields to London.
This much most people know, but one must take a look at London to see what the Luftwaffe were after. Fortunately, we have a device for that:

http://bombsight.org/#15/51.5050/-0.0900

Now, it's often said that the East End of London suffered the worst in the Blitz and it's not incorrect, because the East End were the primary compenents of Londons industry were located. Gas stations, the docklands, railway yards, it was all around there, and it was all bombed on a regular occasion throughout the Blitz. The other targets were mainly symbolic at first, and usually the bombs missed. Generally speaking though, the Luftwaffes targets were industrial in nature, but bombing accuracy as it was in 1940 meant that the factories plus everything around them were hit.
Even Coventry, the infamous attack which destroyed the cathedral, the main targets were industrial in nature, but since it was done at night and with incendiaries, then accuracy was minimal. Likewise the RAF raids on Germany were aimed at industry and generally failed miserably at achieving anything of value.
So, as the wikipedia article on the Blitz puts it:

Although official German air doctrine did target civilian morale, it did not espouse the attacking of civilians directly. It hoped to destroy morale by destroying the enemy's factories and public utilities as well as its food stocks (by attacking shipping). Nevertheless, its official opposition to attacks on civilians became an increasingly moot point when large-scale raids were conducted in November and December 1940.

The Luftwaffe switched from trying to accurately bomb industrial targets to just blanketing the whole area with bombs and hoping that one of them actually hit the target. If the homes of industrial workers were hit, then that was all the better too since it would help disrupt industrial activity.

The RAF took a not dissimilar objective in their attacks against coastal cities and industrial targets in the Ruhr, but officially was not aiming against clusters of civilian housing until 1942 and the Raid on Lubeck.
1942 was when things changed, 'Bomber' Harris became head of Bomber Command, and the 'Area Bombing Directive' was issued, and RAF Bomber Command decided to go down the same failed route as the Luftwaffe had tried. :/\\!! As a result the Luftwaffe launched their Baedeker Blitz which focused on cultural rather than industrial targets, but with most of the Luftwaffe tied up in the Soviet Union it didn't really have much of an effect.

Personally, I think that Strategic bombing of cities in an attempt to undermine civilian morale was a pointless and failed objective. Even trying to bomb industries in an accurate manner was a difficult proposition but we were working on methods to increase night bombing accuracy and had more effort been put into them and the Pathfinder force then we might have been able to avoid the whole tactic of flattening entire cities just to destroy twelve factories, thus giving the enemy free propaganda. :nope:

Still, as Betonov put it, war is a crime, a crime against humanity, and sadly that's a lesson that we still haven't fully learnt as a race. :/\\!!

[Catfish]

Incorrect, the Luftwaffe was bombing civilians long before London.

Yes, i mentioned that further down, however here i meant the bombings solely between England, and Germany. This is why i wrote you cannot see these bombings without looking at Poland (and Guernica).
But the bomb dropping on houses at London near the harbour by a Ju87, was done unintentionally. I am sure either side would have soon found another pretext though.


Oh, and the first bombing of a city, was from a German Zeppelin onto the city of Liege on the 6th August 1914.

Oh, yes: http://www.luftfahrtarchiv-koeln.de/Angriff_Luettich.htm
Germany was the only power at that time, to have a possibility to do that at all. The Entente would certainly have held back later with their bombings, had not Germany bombed Liège. :-?

[Oberon]

Yes, i mentioned that further down, however here i meant the bombings solely between England, and Germany. This is why i wrote you cannot see these bombings without looking at Poland (and Guernica).
But the bomb dropping on houses at London near the harbour by a Ju87, was done unintentionally. I am sure either side would have soon found another pretext though.

I believe by then the Ju87s weren't in the battle because they'd be shredded so badly. IIRC it was one of the big three level bombers (Do-17, Ju-88 or He-111) that bombed London by mistake whilst looking for Croydon airfield.
That being said, both sides were bombing industrial targets up until 1942, it's just that the method of bombing meant that civilian targets were hit as well. However, like we've both seen, the first to actually deliberately target civilian populace was the Luftwaffe...in Europe anyway. Pretty sure the Japanese were bombing cities, towns, villages, anything that moved in China pretty much from the start.


Oh, yes: http://www.luftfahrtarchiv-koeln.de/Angriff_Luettich.htm
Germany was the only power at that time, to have a possibility to do that at all. The Entente would certainly have held back later with their bombings, had not Germany bombed Liège. :-?

Was I arguing that? :03: Just pointing out that it wasn't the French that started the bombing, although they did have one of the first official strategic bombing wings, but the Germans had the first unofficial bombing wing, the 'Ostend Carrier Pigeon Detachment' which was formed within the first month of the war, whereas the French 'Group de Bombardment No. 1' was created in September 1914. The first Entente bombing of a city, was conducted by GB1 in December 1914.

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

[Aktungbby]

it feels like a monstrous act of cruelty. I just don't know...:shifty: bismark141! :Kaleun_Salute: I Was just watching the 100 greatest weapons on the history channel: #1 =The BOMB! Bottom Line: My dad didn't invade Japan and here we are at :subsim:...what a splendid day!perspsective-wise:up:

[Catfish]

^ Yes, and after all that i am glad we are all here :)

[Wolferz]

The Japanese are irradiating themselves with no outside help.:timeout: