70th anniversary of atomic bombing of Hiroshima

[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

Originally Posted by Politenessman

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

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

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.

Originally Posted by Oberon

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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. 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.

Originally Posted by Oberon

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.

[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 (February 1945), the Potsdam Declaration (July 1945) and the 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]

Originally Posted by 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 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'! When a reluctant Albert Einstein wrote the letter to President Roosevelt 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.” http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/educators/study-guides/history_decision-to-drop-bomb.htm We didn't have a lot of fissile uranium...but we sure cornered the market in Thinman and Fatman casings! 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... and pointed out to me (crushing my lofty ideals forever) that I wouldn't be posting at if not for the bomb...I'll have a Manhattan on that!with a Hamm's chaser...

[Politenessman]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

Originally Posted by Politenessman

...I assume...

Yep, that's right. You do.