Hiroshima A-bomb 70th Anniversary

[Dry Rot]

Seventy years on, is it any clearer whether the A-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to end the war?

Over the years, various archives are newly available - is there any new evidence either way?

And was Gen McArthur ahead of his time wanting to use nukes in the Korean war?

 

[awaremind]

Well I heard an interview with a historian who said that the japanese were going to execute all pow and the Bombs may have saved these prisoners from that fate. That's almost able to justify the cooking of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

 

[Thrawn]

I've always thought that it was a show of strength against the Soviets, and may have even stopped their advance further west.

Weren't the Japanese going to surrender as soon as the Soviets invaded one of their territories?

 

[Dry Rot]

Here's a Nukemap. Blow up the city of your choice with your nuke of choice

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

 

[The_Reaper]

Sucks for the individuals but Japan copped what it deserved (arguably some people got off way too easy) for WWII.

New Tokyo mayor yet again proves how insincere Japanese government apologies for WWII are.

Too many people in Japanese politics who want to pretend that grandaddy wasn't a ******* war criminal

 

[The_Reaper]

I've always thought that it was a show of strength against the Soviets, and may have even stopped their advance further west.

Weren't the Japanese going to surrender as soon as the Soviets invaded one of their territories?

Japan's 'surrender' involved getting to keep all their conquests in China and Korea.

And more people would have died in a land invasion of Japan than from the bombings.

 

[telsor]

I've always thought that it was a show of strength against the Soviets, and may have even stopped their advance further west.

Weren't the Japanese going to surrender as soon as the Soviets invaded one of their territories?

July 26th, Potsdam declaration calling on Japan to surrender unconditionally or face "prompt and utter destruction".
Aug 6th Hiroshima bomb.
Aug 8th Russia declares war and invades Manchuria.
Aug 9th Nagasaki bomb.
Aug 14th Japan surrenders.

It's hard to say they would/wouldn't have, but they certainly didn't do so 'as soon as'.


I always figured there were multiple reasons...Ending the war, Show of strength to the Russians, a field test of their new toy...Not sure why people seem to think it needs to be 'only' one reason.

That said, with the information they had at the time, I think they pretty much had to drop it. Best intel was that the Japanese were going to keep fighting....No matter how many casualties they were expecting on their side, they had a chance to end it sooner at far less cost to themselves...They had to try it. That said, if they understood the long term effects (radiation and the cold war scenarios) they might have made another decision entirely.

 

[little graham]

Seventy years on, is it any clearer whether the A-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to end the war?

Only dickheads believe the official story. These people are sheep, have no ability to think for themselves, rely on the states pr campaigns for their view of history.

Probably second only to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, as far as war crimes go.

 

[little graham]

Ralph remembers the Japanese attempts to surrender before the dropping of the bombs. He recalls that they were trying to save their emperor; they sought a way out that would allow them to save face. He believes that President Harry Truman did not have to order the bombing, that the demonstration that bomb developer Robert Oppenheimer wanted would have been enough to persuade Japan to surrender. But this was easy to see in hindsight.

At the time, the U.S. government sold the bombings to the American people as necessary in order to “save American lives.” Ralph’s second wife, Diana Beliard, a student at Radcliffe during the war, told me, “You have to understand: We were so afraid. It was us versus them.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_vice_admiral_and_wwii_hero_condemns_nuclear_20150808

Now 98, Ralph is one of the few remaining American World War II veterans who remember the true cost of nuclear war. Over the course of his career he received the Navy’s highest award, the Navy Cross, for his actions as a pilot of a carrier-based dive bomber and commanding officer of bombing Squadron 16 in the east Philippine Sea; he received two Legion of Merit badges and four Flying Cross badges for “extraordinary achievement” in aerial combat in WWII and the Korean War.

In the course of his 35-year career he commanded squadrons, air groups and ships; he was commander of the Iceland Defense Force and on the staff of the chief of naval operations and the secretary of defense for internal security affairs.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_vice_admiral_and_wwii_hero_condemns_nuclear_20150808




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-06/hiroshima-survivor-junko-morimoto-talks-about-that-day/6675110

I woke up — who knows how many seconds, minutes or hours it had been. What I saw around me was just unimaginable. My second sister had collapsed over me. My brother had glass pieces all over his body. My older sister had a chopstick struck through her lips. Our house was gone. I saw fire everywhere. We quickly ran towards the water. I saw people with (what I thought were) stockings hanging down from their limbs and body.

I didn't understand at that time that this was in fact their own skin. There were soldiers around; they too were burnt everywhere, but they were busily brushing oil (vegetable oil) on people's skin to treat the wounds.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

And more people would have died in a land invasion of Japan than from the bombings.

Surprising people still say this as if it was an either/or situation... Allies could have blockaded and embargoed Japan into surrender. Might have taken some months but it would've worked and wouldn't have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. Japan itself knew the war was winding down. "We had to do this or it would've been a big * off invasion" is what the perpetrators said to help themselves sleep at night but it's false. Atomic bombings happened because America wanted a quick ending and to show the Soviet Union and anyone else what they could do.

 

[The_Reaper]

Surprising people still say this as if it was an either/or situation... Allies could have blockaded and embargoed Japan into surrender. Might have taken some months but it would've worked and wouldn't have killed hundreds of thousands of people. "We had to do this or it would've been a big **** off invasion" is what the perpatrators said to help themselves sleep at night but it's false. Atomic bombings happened because America wanted a quick ending and to show the Soviet Union and anyone else what they could do.

The Japanese ministers intended to fight until the end.

The Japanese idea of surrender included keeping Korea and Manchuria. Probably so they could continue raping and enslaving the locals

 

[Malifice]

The Japanese ministers intended to fight until the end.

The retention of the Emperor was the main sticking point.

Also, they didnt fight till the end did they? It's not like the situation was completely non-negotiable.

The Japanese idea of surrender included keeping Korea and Manchuria. Probably so they could continue raping and enslaving the locals

Nice try but fail. The A bombings were clear war crimes. The only justification that makes any sense to me is that the nukes stopped WW3 from breaking out in China and Europe in '45-46.

A second consideration is the nukes themselves also stopped the continuing aerial bombardment of Japan, that was costing as many innocent lives than the nuclear attacks did.

As bad as the destructive power of the nukes were (and leaving aside the fact they were war crimes) people seriously underestimate the damage that was being caused by conventional fire bombing (itself a terrorist attack, and a war crime). 80-100,000 people were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo alone.

Of course the fallacy of the latter argument is that two major war crimes (WMB attacks on civilians) doesnt justify the the perpetuation of daily war crimes (firebombing civilians) by the same aggressor.

 

[little graham]

You've seen this Malifice ?



Evidence that American lives didn't matter to americans...

 

[The_Reaper]

The retention of the Emperor was the main sticking point.

Also, they didnt fight till the end did they? It's not like the situation was completely non-negotiable.



Nice try but fail. The A bombings were clear war crimes. The only justification that makes any sense to me is that the nukes stopped WW3 from breaking out in China and Europe in '45-46.

A second consideration is the nukes themselves also stopped the continuing aerial bombardment of Japan, that was costing as many innocent lives than the nuclear attacks did.

As bad as the destructive power of the nukes were (and leaving aside the fact they were war crimes) people seriously underestimate the damage that was being caused by conventional fire bombing (itself a terrorist attack, and a war crime). 80-100,000 people were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo alone.

Of course the fallacy of the latter argument is that two major war crimes (WMB attacks on civilians) doesnt justify the the perpetuation of daily war crimes (firebombing civilians) by the same aggressor.

They didn't fight to the end because they were bombed and the Soviet Union declared war.

More people would have died (including Japanese civilians) in the event of a land invasion of Japan.

Japan wanted to keep Manchuria and Korea. America rightfully wanted an unconditional surrender.

Blame the Japanese government for what happened.

 

[Tasmaniac]

The Japanese were dead meat any which way you want to cut it.

1) Nuke's.
2) Fire Bombing (although this was almost wrapped up, almost all large cities had been firebombed, death tolls were in excess of the nukes).
3) Invasion: Bad option. Okinawa would have put everyone right off.
4) Total sea embargo, compassionately starve as many millions of humans to death as necessary to get it through to the thick headed campaigners running the show that it was all over, how long would it have taken? Also, this wouldn't have intimidated the commies.

So probably back to option 1. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone. Or 2 birds with 2 nukes.

 

[Dry Rot]

Allies could have blockaded and embargoed Japan into surrender.

They were doing that from Sept 1944. Worked a treat, didn't it?

 

[Dry Rot]

Only dickheads believe the official story. These people are sheep, have no ability to think for themselves, rely on the states pr campaigns for their view of history.

Um, Ok, what really happened then?

 

[Catfish Alley]

Only dickheads believe the official story. These people are sheep, have no ability to think for themselves, rely on the states pr campaigns for their view of history.

Probably second only to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, as far as war crimes go.

Second? Are you a holocaust denier?

 

[little graham]

A very well educated rational view of perhaps the biggest act of terrorism ever

 

[kfc1]

A very well educated rational view of perhaps the biggest act of terrorism ever

Would bang / 10

 

[Fletched]

Saved millions of lives, cut the war short and of course decisively won the war. Japan still had some fighting power left in the war had a large control over south east Asia that still had to be cleared out and back home the kamikaze attacks were giving hope of at least a better peace offer. Now Kamikaze "divine wind" comes from when 2 separate Mongolian fleets were wiped out by 2 separate typhoons thus saving Japan from invasion. The American invasion of Japan wasn't going to kick off until October and on October 4 a typhoon unexpectedly turned and hit Okinawa can you imagine the rise in morale this would then give the Japanese?

The Japanese by this stage would have to have every beach heavily fortified by now which I'm sure would need landings of a larger scale than even D-day to take. By August Japan had over 12000 aircraft far higher than earlier Allied estimates. They had constructed dozens of underground airfields and were planing a massive charge once the invasion was launched to wipe out the fleet.

Japan were also preparing to launch a biological attack against the United Sates with estimated casualties in the tens of thousands.

It seems entirely possible that Japan could have forced the allies to some sort of peace terms

 

[Todman]

Imagine the risk to the occupying armies if the Japanese didn't unconditionally surrender because of the bombs. All those ninjas running around knock off military personnel. Sounds a bit like Iraq, more soldiers died after Saddam was deposed than before. It would be the same, insurgents killing occupying forces. But than didn't happen thanks to the two atomic bombs.

 

[manboob]

A very well educated rational view of perhaps the biggest act of terrorism ever

You do realise what RT is yeah?

 

[Power Raid]

I've always thought that it was a show of strength against the Soviets, and may have even stopped their advance further west.

Weren't the Japanese going to surrender as soon as the Soviets invaded one of their territories?

I'm sure it was the US's way of flexing there muscles and highlighting to the world what happens if you attack our soil. That's a pretty good warning to the world including Russia and the thick headed europeans who couldn't help but start war after war across the continent.

Japan would have been a good testing ground given it was an island and full of "yellow" people (a time of racism).

 

[Partridge]

I've always thought that it was a show of strength against the Soviets, and may have even stopped their advance further west.

Weren't the Japanese going to surrender as soon as the Soviets invaded one of their territories?

There's a very good book called The Day of the Bomb, that basically said it was a combination of things. One was the very real risk of massive casualties from a land invasion. Another, far lesser known, was the pending congressional investigation into why two billion dollars (in 1945 value don't forget) was spent on a weapon they weren't going to use.