Very interesting...
It is possible that some individuals saw an opportunities in dropping the A bomb while some objected it.

A lot about this article is a judgment and picking after the fact with speculation based on knowledge which not necessarily was evident during the war.
From what i have red about planned invasion of mainland Japan and how Japanese military prepared for it the outcome could be much worse.
A bloodbath on much larger scale than the a bomb.
Of course it would pass to history as heroic battle in which possibly millions would have died:nope:.
One big Iwo Jima-a fair fight to the last soldier and civilian.
Civilians.... it was Okinawa...

One thing that I find astounding is that Truman stated, and I quote: ""The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."
A military base? :haha: Pearl Harbor was a Military Base.
Hiroshima was a city. It contained military elements, but to state that it was a military BASE is absurd.
On other occasions Truman has stated that it was bombed because it was an industrial centre.
As per the US Strategic Bombing Survey, all the major factories were on the outskirts of the city. Next.
Oh, and he didn't realise what kind of victims they were going to be? Wrong!

And i quote: "The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible," he said; he didn't like the idea of killing "all those kids."
(source: Barton J. Bernstein, "Understanding the Atomic Bomb and the Japanese Surrender: Missed Opportunities, Little-Known Near Disasters, and Modern Memory," Diplomatic History 19, no. 2 (Spring 1995): 257. General Carl Spaatz, commander of U.S. strategic bombing operations in the Pacific, was so shaken by the destruction at Hiroshima that he telephoned his superiors in Washington, proposing that the next bomb be dropped on a less populated area, so that it "would not be as devastating to the city and the people." His suggestion was rejected. Ronald Schaffer, Wings of Judgment: American Bombing in World War II (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 147-48.)
Next, Hiroshima never figured in Bomber Command's list of the 33 Primary targets.
This is true also of Nagasaki.

Thanks for the citations. It helps elevate what is otherwise an emotionally charged discussion.

I probably owe my existence to the droppings of those two bombs. Had the Japs not surrendered so quickly, but the occupation of the Dutch East Indies been allowed to continue for months more or even years, my father would most likely have perished as a baby in a concentration camp in Bandung, Java. He had been on the verge of death multiple times already. So, I cannot regret what happened then. Doing so I would negate myself. I just hope it was once (twice) in the history of mankind that it was used, and that it may never happen again. It's a horrible device. But so are my dad's and his family's memories. I've felt the fallout of that.

......

Not this again.

SSDY :03:

Every year at this time. :03: Second-guess theater.

I wasn't here the other times this has been discussed.
Otherwise i wouldn't have bothered posting it.
And is it such a drag, this being posted?
Seems a few of you think so.
EDIT: seems after reading my post, i may have come across a bit rude, sorry, i'll remember next year :salute:
Just thought it may invite some interesting discussions, t'was my only motif.

Was the bombing necessary? I can't tell, because I was not in the situation to decide that. Afterwards it seems easy to judge about it.

Was the second bomb (that on Nagasaki) avoidable? History shows that Japan did not surrender after the first bomb. So maybe it was not avoidable. The alternatives they had are well-known.

The first atomic bomb was detonated on July 16, 1945 as a test. What they all did not expect was the grade of destruction and the consequences the bombs caused. They even sent scientists to the ground zero after a couple of weeks to investigate. Without any protection against radiation etc. They simply had no idea.

People like Robert Oppenheimer condemned the bomb afterwards, as they learned about the results.

What I like to point out is, that IMHO these two bombs prevented the world from being a - bombed in any other war so far.

yes it was.

Japan was ready to fight on their home island to the last man, woman, and child.
Had we not ended the war with the A-Bomb, the war would have cost us a few more years and probably millions more lives on both sides.

People forget that we killed more civilians in the strategic bombing campaign in the European Front with regular bombs. Dresdin for example. Bombing civilians on a mass scale certainly did not start with the drop of the A-bomb.

It's one of those eternal historical what if questions that pop up on many forums multiple times, including here. And usually the same things are being said time after time. And it can become heated.

I for one enjoy reading this, while can't say enough about the subject to really participate. But I can also see why it's "this again".

Was The Bombing of Hiroshima Necessary?

http://troll.me/images/grandma-finds...-who-cares.jpg

http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon....caresStill.jpg

Ah, the annual August 6th Hiroshima bash America guilt trip.

Yawn.

Short answer. Yes, it was the correct action to take, for many reasons enumerated here and some that have been omitted.

Yes it was fully in line with the strategic air power doctrines in effect at the time and so did and does not meet the criteria as a war crime under the legal framework established at Nuremberg and late repeated in Japan.

Yes Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military target cities by the usages of war in effect in 1945.

It matters not a whit whether Japan was on the ropes, the ability to end the war was solely in the hands of the Japanese junta. They chose not to do so.

So while I believe the evidence shows that the bombing was legally, militarily, politically and strategically correct I also think that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (starting midnight local time 8 August 1945) was the truly decisive blow against Japan. Such were the conditions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki that it was not until after the Emperor's radio broadcast that the scope of the twin atomic disasters became evident to the central Government. On the other hand, the total collapse and defeat of the Kwantung Army was being broadcast to the General Staff in almost hourly situation reports and pleas for reinforcements.

Does anybody not think that the examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped prevent first use later in the Cold War when bombs had become immeasurably bigger? The images of those two ruined cities was burned into the minds of the people who had to implement nuclear policy and manage crisis (as opposed to talking heads running off about "winnable nuclear wars") exercised a moderating hand on the trigger after 1945.

After Nagasaki, Truman saw enough was enough, the third atomic raid scheduled for 19 August against Kokura Arsenal was cancelled and the plutonium core remained in the USA (creating the myth that there was no more bombs*; it would be modified and expended at Bikini in 1946) which casts the theory that the attacks were aimed at giving Stalin a warning into doubt.

To quote Gene Hackman from Crimson Tide. "... drop that sucker. Twice"

*For debunking the "No More Bombs" myth, see Richard Rhodes The Making of the Atomic Bomb.

See you all back here this time next year, same forum, same topic, new thread.

What's really scary is that they were going to use the bombs as a prelude to invasion. They were going to send troops into irradiated areas unprotected. How many of our boys would have died of radiation poisoning in the event of an invasion?