70th anniversary of atomic bombing of Hiroshima

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

What if your hometown were hit by the Hiroshima atomic bomb?

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-08-0...ma-atomic-bomb

Interesting application. The bomb used at Hiroshima was estimated in the 15 kiloton range. The 2nd one used at Nagasaki was estimated to be larger in the 20 kiloton range. According to the model it does significant damage.

Modern thermonuclear or 2 stage devices are approx. at the 150 kiloton range at their smallest if you exclude tactical weapons. These weapons can range in size up to 50 megatons. The former USSR, created the most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated, with a yield of 50 megatons, (50 million tons of tnt).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield


Scary thought

[Oberon]

Scary, but very impractical. The Tsar Bomba was essentially a 'we can build one bigger than you' exercise. Most of the energy of the explosion was vented into the atmosphere rather than out as destructive lateral force, plus it had to be carried in a specially modified Tu-95.
Made a helluva mess of Novaya Zemlya though, and broke windows in Norway and Finland thanks to atmospheric focusing, and the seismic shockwave travelled around the Earth at least three times...and this was the dialed back explosion, the original design called for 100MT, but it was decided that the fallout would be too excessive and the delivery aircraft would probably have been destroyed by its own bomb.

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Scary, but very impractical. The Tsar Bomba was essentially a 'we can build one bigger than you' exercise. Most of the energy of the explosion was vented into the atmosphere rather than out as destructive lateral force, plus it had to be carried in a specially modified Tu-95.
Made a helluva mess of Novaya Zemlya though, and broke windows in Norway and Finland thanks to atmospheric focusing, and the seismic shockwave travelled around the Earth at least three times...and this was the dialed back explosion, the original design called for 100MT, but it was decided that the fallout would be too excessive and the delivery aircraft would probably have been destroyed by its own bomb.

Thanks Oberon. I knew the Tsar bomb was tested but didn't know where or if it had been fielded. I also had no idea the shockwave was as prolific as that either.

[Admiral Halsey]

One of the most necessary evils to have ever been used in war. Most likely saved the Japanese from extinction give what was planned for the Invasion.

[Jeff-Groves]

That's the thing about War.
Your in it to win it.

[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.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

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.

I understand, I too grimace when people talk about 'nuking them mooslems back into the stone age (TM)' because they always neglect to think of the innocent casualties involved in such an act. That being said, our enemies tend to encourage the creation of collateral damage in their actions, making it hard for us to have a 'clean' war, if such a thing actually does exist.
In regards as to whether if we found ourselves in a position the same as August 1945 would it be acceptable to use nuclear weapons again...well, I just hope that we don't find ourselves in that situation.
That being said, I am fairly sure that at some point in the next century, someone, somewhere, is going to use a nuclear device of some form in an aggressive action.

Originally Posted by Oberon

I understand, I too grimace when people talk about 'nuking them mooslems back into the stone age (TM)' because they always neglect to think of the innocent casualties involved in such an act.

Exactly what I had in mind, thank you for putting my thoughts on paper!

For the rest, I agree. I just hope things stay cool for as long as possible.
Looking back at history though... meh.