SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

08-06-11, 11:47 AM

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.

08-06-11, 11:47 AM	#44
Randomizer Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	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.