70th anniversary of atomic bombing of Hiroshima

[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.

[Politenessman]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Yep, that's right. You do.

OK, lets get rid of the assumption. Since you are prepared to condemn 250,000 men to death and 750,000 to be cripples (in a time when prosthetics were little better than wooden legs and hooks for hands) and you state that nothing justifies dropping the bombs, would you volunteer to be first up the beach in the invasion?

Originally Posted by Politenessman

OK, lets get rid of the assumption. Since you are prepared to condemn 250,000 men to death and 750,000 to be cripples (in a time when prosthetics were little better than wooden legs and hooks for hands) and you state that nothing justifies dropping the bombs, would you volunteer to be first up the beach in the invasion?

I thought we're getting rid of assumptions?
Why do you claim I am happily sacrificing anyone?
Why do you claim I did not suggest an alternative, when I did?

It is easy to say "this or that wouldn't have worked" but as I said: Assumptions.
I can only repeat myself, if necessary.
Nothing, in my opinion, justifies the usage of nuclear weapons to end ten-thousands of lives in a heart beat, nothing.
It doesn't matter - at all - if I'd be first on the beach or not, do you understand this point of view?
I do not ask you to agree, I ask you to understand.
Earlier, I said rather clearly that I do indeed understand this war crime, looking at it through the eyes of a General, a President or similar.
Still, I argue that this doesn't make it right.

Call me Ghandi if you wish, but this is my position on nuclear weapons.
As to willingly let them starve - I never said that and honestly I think it is a very different thing to drop 2 bombs, killing thousands, or be passive about it and give things a CHANCE to maybe work out not as bad as we all predict today.
"Hätte, hätte, Fahrradkette."

All these claims about saving millions of lives (by killing ten thousands of civilians) and the quick ending of the war which would have ended in a bloodshed never seen before - is all just speculation.
In the end, I wouldn't drop these bombs because "maybe...".
No.

[Politenessman]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

I thought we're getting rid of assumptions?
Why do you claim I am happily sacrificing anyone?
Why do you claim I did not suggest an alternative, when I did?

It is easy to say "this or that wouldn't have worked" but as I said: Assumptions.
I can only repeat myself, if necessary.
Nothing, in my opinion, justifies the usage of nuclear weapons to end ten-thousands of lives in a heart beat, nothing.
It doesn't matter - at all - if I'd be first on the beach or not, do you understand this point of view?
I do not ask you to agree, I ask you to understand.
Earlier, I said rather clearly that I do indeed understand this war crime, looking at it through the eyes of a General, a President or similar.
Still, I argue that this doesn't make it right.

Call me Ghandi if you wish, but this is my position on nuclear weapons.
As to willingly let them starve - I never said that and honestly I think it is a very different thing to drop 2 bombs, killing thousands, or be passive about it and give things a CHANCE to maybe work out not as bad as we all predict today.
"Hätte, hätte, Fahrradkette."

All these claims about saving millions of lives (by killing ten thousands of civilians) and the quick ending of the war which would have ended in a bloodshed never seen before - is all just speculation.
In the end, I wouldn't drop these bombs because "maybe...".
No.

Unfortunately you are either ill educated (which can be fixed) or unwilling to know the facts (which cannot), the casualty estimates provided are the official estimates that were informed by actual casualty rates invading other islands that the Japanese considered part of the home islands (rather than occupied territory).

The only "alternatives" you have provided simply drag out the war, while civilians die in the occupied countries and, as noted from every blockade and siege in history (including that of Japan in WW2), disproportionately kill civilians of illness and starvation.

BTW, please explain why it is morally acceptable to you to starve a child to death but not blow them up?

You have access to all of this information, yet you choose to maintain an opinion that is demonstrably amoral - all so you can feel good about yourself, you'll starve civilians (it had already started in Japan), let civilians be raped, tortured or murdered in occupied countries and condemn a million allied troops to die or be crippled, and this is where it becomes relevant if you would lead them up the beach or not - since you are prepared to see them die because "nothing justified dropping the bombs" are you prepared to die beside them or do you lack the courage of your stated convictions?

Originally Posted by Politenessman

BTW, please explain why it is morally acceptable to you to starve a child to death but not blow them up?

I never said it is morally acceptable.
But I already explained why I would prefer (for example) a blockade, a demonstration, further tries of negotiations (yes yes, fanatic suicide samurai, all of them, I know...) over directly, instantly and willingly killing a few ten thousand people, favorably civilians.

If you drop these bombs and turn thousands to ashes, you bear the responsibility for that.
If you block the island because a stubborn government is unwilling to accept defeat - the responsibility shifts towards this government.
That makes a huge difference to me.

All I said in the end is that, for me, nothing justifies the usage of nuclear weapons. You start to disappoint me for not understanding this rather simple point of view/opinion, insisting that only because I condemn these actions I therefore have the burden to find a better solution, which is nonsensical actually.

[Catfish]

From what you can read, there was no careful waging of how much japanese civilians would die by a blockade, versus numbers of an invasion and own GIs killed, versus dropping the bomb.
It is all about justification.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

All I said in the end is that, for me, nothing justifies the usage of nuclear weapons. You start to disappoint me for not understanding this rather simple point of view/opinion, insisting that only because I condemn these actions I therefore have the burden to find a better solution, which is nonsensical actually.

I don't understand your point either but I can live with that. We don't have to agree on everything and live still goes on.

To me it's a numbers game. Over all I think the Nukes were the option with the least casualties on BOTH sides. An invasion of Japan would most likely have cost millions of lives considering how the invasions of other home land islands worked (military units fighting to the last man, civilians committing mass suicide, the announcement of executing all POWs, horrific medical situation with shortage of everything). I think a bit over 200.000 lives lost, as tragic and regrettable/disgusting as it is, is the lower price to pay than any alternative that I can think of. So the nukes would actually be my choice to end the war, simply because they allow MORE people to be alive once it's over.

[Wolferz]

Regardless of any assumptions or what ifs in regard to using such a devastating weapon, I try to comfort my tormented id in the knowledge that it only had to be used twice. After Hiroshima was reduced to glass, the Japanese still tried to sue for peace. Stalling tactic? You bet it was. So Nagasaki got the horns of the bull too. It wasn't until the Japanese were overtly informed that Tokyo would be next in line that they finally saw the light.


Edit: Captain hindsight says: Count your lucky stars... We could have dropped both bombs on Tokyo and called it a day.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

Regardless of any assumptions or what ifs in regard to using such a devastating weapon, I try to comfort my tormented id in the knowledge that it only had to be used twice. After Hiroshima was reduced to glass, the Japanese still tried to sue for peace. Stalling tactic? You bet it was. So Nagasaki got the horns of the bull too. It wasn't until the Japanese were overtly informed that Tokyo would be next in line that they finally saw the light.


Edit: Captain hindsight says: Count your lucky stars... We could have dropped both bombs on Tokyo and called it a day.

Tokyo wasn't particularly suitable as a target; much of it was burned to the ground over-night several months before in a firebombing raid that killed more people than either atomic bomb.

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Tokyo wasn't particularly suitable as a target; much of it was burned to the ground over-night several months before in a firebombing raid that killed more people than either atomic bomb.

True, but it was their capital city after all and finishing it off by turning it into radioactive glass would have driven the point home in a big way.
IIRC they immediately cried "uncle" when told of the next target after Nagasaki. They had no defense against it whatsoever.

It created an insurmountable fear in those people. I have conversed with a former GI who was stationed in Japan during the post war occupation. He related a story of an incensed crowd of civilians getting a little uppity with them and all he had to do was make a gesture with his hands and mouth of another huge explosion and they settled down mach schnell.

[Oberon]

Let's just take a moment to consider Tsutomu Yamaguchi



Three kilometers from two nuclear explosions and he lives to the ripe old age of 93.