Hiroshima bombed today
 

http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoND...eature=related


The beginning of the end happened today. I have seen very little news on it today. They did have the standard peacenik group holding a peace vigil today:roll: on the radio. I think I turned the interview off when they wanted us to apologize for nuking Japan. Whatever. I'd say dropping those 2 bombs was the best thing that ever happened to humanity.

1. We saved thousands of US and Japanese lives by ending the war w/o an invasion of the mainland.

2. Mankind has never used this weapon again, we know better.

Nikimcbee,

your reactionary attitude seems to be in overdrive lately

you would, would you?

Better even than the discovery of penicillin and the modern medical revolution. Better even than the invention of spectacles, or fire, or the agricultural or industrial or internet revolutions, or the discovery of electricity...we have the celebration of the instant incineration of tens of thousands.

You are getting confused between the lesser of two evils and greatest benefit to humanity

and finally here's a well-written academic article for you all to enjoy

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/...hiroshima.html

I see McBees point. If the first use of nuclear weapons had occurred later, say during the 1950s or 60's, when the technology had been improved perhaps the death toll from it would have been a couple hundred million instead of a couple hundred thousand.

You have the right answer.:know: We came this close {............} to starting a nuclear war over the Cuban missle crisis. The weapons used in this battle would have been H-bombs, not the inefficant a-bombs dropped on Japan. Mankind now knows how horrible these weapons are, and we haven't used them since.

But it sounds like you like to learn the hard way.

And that academic professor obviously wasn't slated for invasion, was he. I've interviewed vetrans who were next in line to die for our country. And they were all for the dropping of the bombs.:hmm: I respect their opinion much more than some armchair professor.

"Better even than the discovery of penicillin and the modern medical revolution. Better even than the invention of spectacles, or fire, or the agricultural or industrial or internet revolutions, or the discovery of electricity...we have the celebration of the instant incineration of tens of thousands."


And none of this matters much if the whole world is radioactive.:nope: I am thankful for all of the vetrans who gave their lives so we could be free today.

Plus we'll never know what Japan would have done. The basis for my decision, was the Battle of Okinawa, where Japanese were fighting to the death (what else is new) families throwing themselves of cliffs to avoid capture. That war needed to end now, and those weapons help expidite that. I think a lot of lives were saved by not invading Japan by force.

Looking at the plans for the invasion of Japan, I would have to agreee with dropingthe bombs. The deaths would have been massive on both sides if it had gone ahead.

The bombing of tokyo, which caused a firestorm, cost more lives and distruction than droping the bomb ( dicounting the longer lasting effects of radiation)

Annihilating cities was nothing new by the time of the Hiroshima bombing (Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg...), it was just a new more efficient way of doing it

I agree, dropping the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ultimately saved millions that would have died had they gone through with Operation Downfall (And probably saved us from nuclear war)

Well the debate on whether it was "good or bad" to drop the atomic weapons on Japan has been going on since 1945 and will probably continue.

One thing I do want to point out is the fallacy that there were only two exhaustive and exclusive options.

1. Use Atomic weapons
2. Invade Japan.

There were other options being considered that warrant mentioning

1. Blockade and contain Japan. The islands of Japan were never "officially" blockaded. But through normal military anti-shipping operations, submarine and air forces effectively blockaded the islands of Japan. One option was to step up this blockade and contain the Japanese forces and influence until capitulation.

2. Invade Korea. This option would have been used in conjunction with the blockade option. Many of the heavy military industries, to include a nascent nuclear weapon program, were located in Korea. Invading and controlling Korea would paralyze what was left of the Japanese military industry and could have lead to capitulation.

3. Invasion and occupation of the island of Hokkaidō. Hokkaidō was less populated than the island of Honshū as well as less defended. An occupation of Hokkaidō would have allowed the US forces to post land based bombers and extensive fighter support for nonstop conventional bombing.

It is quite correct that the Japanese were ready to "fight to the death" but that would only apply if we allowed the war to go in that direction. It is most difficult for Japanese military and citizens to "fight to the death" if we don't directly fight them (classic Sun Tzu).

Invading the island of Honshū would have incensed the population and would have greatly boosted the influence of Prime Minister Tojo. It is worth noting that while Tojo enjoyed great popularity at the start of the war, by 1944 he had fallen out of disfavour with the government and the military.

A war of isolation, containment, and starvation without the patriotic fever of defending the motherland from direct invasion might have lead to the Prime Minister stepping down or being removed.

I won't get into whether it was good or bad to drop the atomic weapons on Japan. I just wanted to point out that there were other options other than

1. Invading Honshū
2. Dropping the Atomic weapons.

However, from the United States standpoint, there was one good reason for using the Atomic weapons on Japan.

People in the United States were getting real tired of the war. It was costing the US mucho money and lives and people were tired. FDR recognized that after almost five years, the citizens were losing patience with the government. If you review the newspapers of the time, it is surprising at how unpopular the war was in 1945. Things were not all that swell back home politically. The Democratic party, while willing an unprecedented fourth term, was garnering less and less popular votes every term. The use of the Atomic weapons were a viable way of bringing the war to a quick end.

It is possible that the decision to use the Atomic bombs was more political vice military.

One comment Platapus, Tojo was no longer PM in 1945 but an Admiral Suziki IIRC.

We may have saved many, but we also killed many including civilians.

This has been debated many times here.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...ight=Hiroshima

What - again...? :huh:

I'll be a rotten pig and say I can't feel myself into an event that happened without me being aware of it, even less if it happened before my birth. That's sentimentality, and some people find that heart-warming. Am I sad for Peking being conquered by the Mongoles? No. But that we are moving closer to using nukes again and that I see little argument how that can be prevented - this affects and troubles me much more.

There was also a very real desire to conclude the war before uncle Joe could get too involved.
By ending the war quickly the US and England could effectively keep Russia from claiming any of the "spoils of war".. which undoubtedly is a good thing.
Look what the situation was in Germany after the war (West/East Berlin etc..), Imagine what the situation could have been like in Japan!
The US knew that the Soviets were going to be one of the biggest problem in the post war world, and ending the war before the Russians were invested in the Pacific theater was a deliberate agenda.

Not to be callous, but too bad. I intentionally avoided the revenge factor of the bomb. We all know war is nasty, and ever since the evolution of "total war," civilians will be targets. There will always be war, I just hope we never use these nasty weapons again, mainly because when the war is over, you don't just clean up after them and re-build. I had a military history class, back during the first Gulf War. There were a bunch of "blowhards" that were serious about using tacticle nukes in Iraq.:nope:

You are exactly right!:know: That was one of the other factors of using the bomb, was to keep the Russkies out of the region.