Hiroshima bombed today

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

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.

Yup, right you are. Civilians will always suffer in the time of war. In most cases, they are caught in the crossfire, catch a bomb missing it's original target etc. etc.

Hiroshima & Nagasaki were 2 civilian targets and the bombs were dropped on purpose. It's just an expensive way to kill civilians, instead of the traditional bullet to the back of the head execution. Being on the "good" side doesnt make it any different nor the method on which the civilians are killed.

Nikimcbee opens the door to an aspect of the atomic bombings that is almost entirely ignored when discussions about the 'rights' and 'wrongs' are conducted. I think that some major issues tend to be overlooked or merely given lip-service.

1. The stratigic bombing of cities was considered a legitimate military operation in a total war setting. The Allies placed the morality of the policy on the back-burner as it were, and I believe that at that time and place, they were entirely correct in doing so. By extension, the use of the Bomb on Hiroshima an Nagasaki constitued a more efficient application of firepower and was fully in accordance with the doctrine in effect at the time. The events should be considered in that light.

2. The awful examples from 1945 acted as a vivid reminder to leaders whenever a finger got itchy on the nuclear trigger throughout the Cold War. How much of a deterent would there have been at say Berlin or Korea or Cuba without the world having the images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki burned into it collective consciousness. What would have happened in subsequent crisis' without the lessons of the atomic bombing's placing a restraining hand on the decision makers? Employing the small and dirty Fat Man and Little Boy probably prevented first use from being later, thermonuclear and hundreds of times larger. No one nuclear test shot (and there were some 800+ surface tests) comes to mind when one thinks about using nuclear weapons but the images from Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly do.

3. One of the great myths of the event was that there was no third bomb. Several Fat Man assemblies were at Tinian and the fissil material for the next bomb (target Kokura Arsenal for 15 August) remained in the United States when Pres. Truman forbid the next attack. This happened before the formal acceptance of Potsdam by the Japanese and is evidence that the nuclear weapons paradox has already started to kick in. The paradox is that this most powerful of weapons is essentially useless and employing them at all constitutes an excellent example of a zero-sum decision.

Every year about this time the use of the Bombs comes under scrutiny using contemporary morals, rhetoric and 20/20 hindsite and this will likely continue until somebody nukes another city. I do believe however that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were big, although greatly understated factors in the Cold War not turning hot.

Good Hunting

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

Nikimcbee opens the door to an aspect of the atomic bombings that is almost entirely ignored when discussions about the 'rights' and 'wrongs' are conducted. I think that some major issues tend to be overlooked or merely given lip-service.

1. The stratigic bombing of cities was considered a legitimate military operation in a total war setting. The Allies placed the morality of the policy on the back-burner as it were, and I believe that at that time and place, they were entirely correct in doing so. By extension, the use of the Bomb on Hiroshima an Nagasaki constitued a more efficient application of firepower and was fully in accordance with the doctrine in effect at the time. The events should be considered in that light.

2. The awful examples from 1945 acted as a vivid reminder to leaders whenever a finger got itchy on the nuclear trigger throughout the Cold War. How much of a deterent would there have been at say Berlin or Korea or Cuba without the world having the images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki burned into it collective consciousness. What would have happened in subsequent crisis' without the lessons of the atomic bombing's placing a restraining hand on the decision makers? Employing the small and dirty Fat Man and Little Boy probably prevented first use from being later, thermonuclear and hundreds of times larger. No one nuclear test shot (and there were some 800+ surface tests) comes to mind when one thinks about using nuclear weapons but the images from Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly do.

3. One of the great myths of the event was that there was no third bomb. Several Fat Man assemblies were at Tinian and the fissil material for the next bomb (target Kokura Arsenal for 15 August) remained in the United States when Pres. Truman forbid the next attack. This happened before the formal acceptance of Potsdam by the Japanese and is evidence that the nuclear weapons paradox has already started to kick in. The paradox is that this most powerful of weapons is essentially useless and employing them at all constitutes an excellent example of a zero-sum decision.

Every year about this time the use of the Bombs comes under scrutiny using contemporary morals, rhetoric and 20/20 hindsite and this will likely continue until somebody nukes another city. I do believe however that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were big, although greatly understated factors in the Cold War not turning hot.

Good Hunting

I'm glad you understand my point. i think the dropping of these bombs made all sides think twice before they moved during the Cold War. Dropping H-bombs would have been much worse.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Skybird

What - again...?

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.

I just don't want anybody to forget.

[FIREWALL]

Since most if not all weren't even born yet when WWII was going on and the BOMB was used it's easy to say how it should have been done differently.

There was a different mind set then.

And when the Politics card is played as posted above I see the Racism card not brought up.

The Japanese at that time were thought to be subhuman just like the negro in the fortys.

Hindsight is always 20\20

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

Since most if not all weren't even born yet when WWII was going on and the BOMB was used it's easy to say how it should have been done differently.

There was a different mind set then.

And when the Politics card is played as posted above I see the Racism card not brought up.

The Japanese at that time were thought to be subhuman just like the negro in the fortys.

Hindsight is always 20\20

You have a good point firewall, I didn't really think of the race side of it. I wanted to avoid the "the Japanese got what they deserved" debate.

You are also right on the money with the hindsight point. Every veteran I've ever interviewed or seen interviewed were all for dropping the bomb, as they were spared the Mainland invasion meat grinder.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by joea

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

Ach you are right it was 44 when he was forced to resign

Good catch

[Sailor Steve]

Not to belittle the discussion or make light of it, but when I saw the title I did a double-take. My first thought was "WHAT! Not again!"

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

You have a good point firewall, I didn't really think of the race side of it. I wanted to avoid the "the Japanese got what they deserved" debate.

You are also right on the money with the hindsight point. Every veteran I've ever interviewed or seen interviewed were all for dropping the bomb, as they were spared the Mainland invasion meat grinder.

It's a sad thing to think race was a part of the decision as well as money.

But most importantly it saved alot more lives on both sides at the time.

And hopefully we as well as the rest of the world won't be put in a position to use them again.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Not to belittle the discussion or make light of it, but when I saw the title I did a double-take. My first thought was "WHAT! Not again!"

Yeah, I wish we could edit titles.

Not convinced that race had any significance in the decision to drop the bomb and am sure that there would have been no hesitation on Pres. Truman's part to use it on Nazi Germany had it been required. Playing the race card in retrospect ignores the huge cultural gulf between the American and Japanese ways of warfare in WW2. One can forgive the American's for having open disdane for Japanese civilians since the advent of the Special Attack forces was pretty graphic evidence that the Japanese had little regard for their own people's lives. The horrific mass suicide of civilians on Saipan was ample proof (at the time) that civilians and soldiers were one and the same as far as the Japanese were concerned.

Why should US planners ignore the junta in Tokyo openly threatening to meet any invasion with "100-Million Bayonets" and school girls being trained to fight with bamboo spears? Adm Halsey's 1942 injunction to "Kill Japs, Kill Japs and Kill More Japs" made solid military sense as did the dehumanizing propaganda practiced on both sides. When faced with an enemy that is culturally predisposed to fight to the death your choices become kill them or quit. By Summer 1945, quitting was not an option for the USA.

There was ample bigotry on both sides but I do not think that it was a factor in the decision to use the Bomb. There were too many legitimate reasons for and few compelling arguments against employing it as they did.

"I believe that we must use any means possible to end this terrible War. Then we can all be friends."
attributed to MGen U.S. Grant, 1862

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

Not convinced that race had any significance in the decision to drop the bomb and am sure that there would have been no hesitation on Pres. Truman's part to use it on Nazi Germany had it been required. Playing the race card in retrospect ignores the huge cultural gulf between the American and Japanese ways of warfare in WW2. One can forgive the American's for having open disdane for Japanese civilians since the advent of the Special Attack forces was pretty graphic evidence that the Japanese had little regard for their own people's lives. The horrific mass suicide of civilians on Saipan was ample proof (at the time) that civilians and soldiers were one and the same as far as the Japanese were concerned.

Why should US planners ignore the junta in Tokyo openly threatening to meet any invasion with "100-Million Bayonets" and school girls being trained to fight with bamboo spears? Adm Halsey's 1942 injunction to "Kill Japs, Kill Japs and Kill More Japs" made solid military sense as did the dehumanizing propaganda practiced on both sides. When faced with an enemy that is culturally predisposed to fight to the death your choices become kill them or quit. By Summer 1945, quitting was not an option for the USA.

There was ample bigotry on both sides but I do not think that it was a factor in the decision to use the Bomb. There were too many legitimate reasons for and few compelling arguments against employing it as they did.

"I believe that we must use any means possible to end this terrible War. Then we can all be friends."
attributed to MGen U.S. Grant, 1862

We studied that in a military history class (each sides stereotypes). I think it's quite interesting to see how little we understood about each other. Yamamoto understood and he was right. We were talking about this at work this morning.

If you follow the data trend back then, dropping the bomb was the only option to end the war quickly. The hindsight data is nice, bet the generals didn't know that till after the fact. Plus, there was a coup, where the hardcore Japanese generals were not going to surrender. The Germans were whipped, and their leaders knew it was pointess to go on. The japanese were still fighting like they were going to win the whole thing.