August 6, 1945

[JakeYYZ]

66 years ago today, the A bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.
Paul Fussell wrote this important essay, 'Thank God for the Atom Bomb'. 2nd Lt. Fussell commanded infantry in WWII France. Later, he had to sit around waiting to invade Japan and die. That was the general expectation of the vets of the European theater .. they didn't think they'd survive Japan.
You should Read it (11 pdf pages) Keep Fussell's essay in mind when you hear people sigh about the bad thing America did on August 6th, 1945.
http://crossroads.alexanderpiela.com/fi ... God_AB.pdf

[Beefitarian]

I still think they wouldn't have surrendered without it but realize it was horrible. People say Japan tried to surrender before it. There was an awe full lot of other very large cities destroyed before it, they just used more fire bombs to do them.

[System Message]

They surrendered because of the threat of an invasion by the Soviet Union. The nuclear bomb gave the Emperor a way to save face and surrender to the Americans. Just an Idea.

[Siddley Hawker]

They surrendered because of the threat of an invasion by the Soviet Union. The nuclear bomb gave the Emperor a way to save face and surrender to the Americans. Just an Idea.

And an interesting idea. Either way, the A-bomb ended the war in a week.

[Rockie]

Inviting Japanese emissaries to a test blast in the Nevada desert would have accomplished the same thing without having to destroy a single city. If not, well then bombs away. But the effort should have been made.

[mcrit]

Inviting Japanese emissaries to a test blast in the Nevada desert would have accomplished the same thing without having to destroy a single city. If not, well then bombs away. But the effort should have been made.

You're off your tree. Read about Siapain, Iwo Jima, and Nanking.

[Rockie]

Your off your tree.

Why would that be pray tell?

Was the objective to end the war or produce as many Japanese casualties as possible in retribution before they waved the white flag?

[azimuthaviation]

The fact that the Americans were able to coerce a satisfactory political and military outcome for themselves through the use of widescale death and destruction without any military strategy should demonstrate to the world that although terrorism isnt always nice, it does work.

[Beefitarian]

Discussing this seems to get silly now days.

Were the military leaders of the United States just excited to drop a couple of those on people? You'd have to jump in a time machine and develop a close enough relationship to them to ask. Even then I doubt there would be a concensus. I bet some were and others were horrified but felt it had to be done.

Sorry to interupt, I can see everyone has plenty of typing to do. I really think we could have more fun if we met at a place that may or may not have pictures on the menu to chit chat. No booze tough, I think there might be yelling as it is.

[mcrit]

Why would that be pray tell?

Was the objective to end the war or produce as many Japanese casualties as possible in retribution before they waved the white flag?

Have you read anything regarding the context of the decision? I'll answer that question for you; No, you haven't.

[JakeYYZ]

Rockie, here’s the timeline:
July 26 - Potsdam Declaration is issued. Truman tells Japan, "Surrender or suffer prompt and utter destruction."
August 06 – Abomb dropped on Hiroshima
3 days pass
August 09 – Abomb dropped on Nagaski
August 15 – Japan surrenders.
Did you read the essay, Rockie? It’s not written from a rabid right wing perspective..
As I said in another thread: “War is messy and winning it calls for ruthless action.” It’s the ridiculous ROE that have us plodding away in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also emboldens our enemy into a false sense power. Fellows like AA are able to say “the brave muhajadeen fought the great Satan to a standstill.” And don’t tell me of the difficulties of asymmetrical warfare.

[Expat]

They surrendered because of the threat of an invasion by the Soviet Union. The nuclear bomb gave the Emperor a way to save face and surrender to the Americans. Just an Idea.

There are many scenarios still being pondered, but this one also makes sense.
The USSR advance in Europe and Asia, prompted the US to move quickly, to be able to stake claims, after the peace talks.
But I still wonder the why US still occupies Okinawa

[Expat]

Rockie, here’s the timeline:
July 26 - Potsdam Declaration is issued. Truman tells Japan, "Surrender or suffer prompt and utter destruction."
August 06 – Abomb dropped on Hiroshima
3 days pass
August 09 – Abomb dropped on Nagaski
August 15 – Japan surrenders.
Did you read the essay, Rockie? It’s not written from a rabid right wing perspective..
As I said in another thread: “War is messy and winning it calls for ruthless action.” It’s the ridiculous ROE that have us plodding away in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also emboldens our enemy into a false sense power. Fellows like AA are able to say “the brave muhajadeen fought the great Satan to a standstill.” And don’t tell me of the difficulties of asymmetrical warfare.

What ROEs? There are no rules here. You should see what I witness here.

[azimuthaviation]

“War is messy and winning it calls for ruthless action.”

How ruthless can the enemy get and use the same justification.

I wont even mention the fact that whats going on in Iraq and Afghanistan hardly constitutes a war anyways... I dont think anyone here is old enough to remember WW2, but in those days, the entire country deployed, supported their troops, had a real enemy and did what was needed to defeat them, for better or for worse.

These "wars" are scheduled years in advance, 2 year withdrawal timetables, three year training mission, annual rotating heads of Nato missions, schedules handover of power... Sounds like a company's fiscal plans not a plan drawn up in a war room. Given those circumstances, its pretty hard to take those engagements serious enough (ten years on) that justifies the "urgency" of "whatever it takes to win".

[Beefitarian]

With some luck maybe one day they will get Osama Bin Laden so the troops can come home.

[Rockie]

I thought I would repeat my post for some of you to read again, but do it carefully this time.

Inviting Japanese emissaries to a test blast in the Nevada desert would have accomplished the same thing without having to destroy a single city. If not, well then bombs away. But the effort should have been made.

The essay in the first post justifies dropping the bombs on cities in a few ways. It limits the tactical choices between destroying two cities or invading Japan. It suggests the Japanese would never surrender without the destruction of two cities. And there is plenty of justification based on nothing more than payback for the horrors inflicted by Japan in the years previous. Well, there were other tactical choices, nobody knows if the Japanese would have surrendered because no other options were tried, and restitution is a lousy reason to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

The essay refers to the Potsdam Declaration where Japan was given the ultimatum of surrender or complete destruction which of course was ignored by Japan as an idle threat. But what if it was backed up by a demonstration? What if the first bomb was detonated 10 miles offshore from Tokyo harbour for everyone to see? Would they still have dismissed Potsdam as an idle threat?

Nobody knows because it wasn't tried.

The Atomic Bomb was not just a bigger bomb. It changed the world because of its one shot city destroying power even in its very first version. A graphic demonstration in Japan's backyard may not have ended the war, but out of sheer humanity the chance should have been given before dropping on a civilian centre. The Americans knew without a doubt an invasion would not be necessary once they had this weapon so they could afford to be humane.

[YYZSaabGuy]

The fact that the Americans were able to coerce a satisfactory political and military outcome for themselves through the use of widescale death and destruction without any military strategy should demonstrate to the world that although terrorism isnt always nice, it does work.

Huh? I seem to recall that it was an incident at Pearl Harbour in December 1941 that dragged the U.S. into the Pacific war in the first place. They survived the loss of many of their battleships and heavy cruisers, decisively won the air war, and took back the Pacific island by island, frequently with horrific casualties on both sides. Invading the Japanese mainland would've entailed countless more casualties on both sides, many of them Japanese civilians. The nuclear attack, while costly, undoubtedly saved more lives on both sides than an invasion would've cost.

How any of this in your mind equates to being "without any military strategy", or how a military response to a surprise attack equates to terrorism, is mindboggling. Do you even read what you write before you hit "Submit"?

[azimuthaviation]

"What if the first bomb was detonated 10 miles offshore from Tokyo harbour for everyone to see?"

Another side note about the decision to drop the bomb and the reason for it was that they deliberately left several cities untouched by bombing raids, Nagasaki and Hiroshima included, so that they could get a full assesment of the destruction it created. So although dropping the bomb on Tokyo harbour or on the remains of a bomb ravaged city would have had the same psychological effect, the Americans for either of two reasons chose the untouched cities they did. Either to inflict the most massive civilian deaths and destruction as possible as recvenge for PH, or to use the lives of tens of thousands of Japanese in part of some evil experiment to test their new weapon.

[YYZSaabGuy]

Another side note about the decision to drop the bomb and the reason for it was that they deliberately left several cities untouched by bombing raids, Nagasaki and Hiroshima included, so that they could get a full assesment of the destruction it created. So although dropping the bomb on Tokyo harbour or on the remains of a bomb ravaged city would have had the same psychological effect, the Americans for either of two reasons chose the untouched cities they did. Either to inflict the most massive civilian deaths and destruction as possible as recvenge for PH, or to use the lives of tens of thousands of Japanese in part of some evil experiment to test their new weapon.

Wrong again: "Nagasaki was a major shipbuilding city and a large military port. But it was not a favoured target as it had been bombed five times in the previous twelve months and any damage caused by an atomic bomb would have been difficult to assess." (see http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/bo ... gasaki.htm)

[azimuthaviation]

Exactly, nagasaki wasnt favored because they wanted to test the weapon's capabilities. It was not the first choice that day, another city was the intended target that day but for some reason (weather, visibility I believe) Nagasaki was their fallback city. But what you posted also mentions the intent to test the bomb on untouched cities in order to get a better assesment (or maybe inflict the most damage)

[2R]

Anyone know the number of the German cargo submarine that took components that help the Japanese Nuclear weapons programme during WW2 ?
A feat of underwater sailing not matched until the nuclear subs came on line.

[YYZSaabGuy]

I guess the point is that having been bombed five times already, Nagasaki was hardly "untouched", the point of your previous post.

Another side note about the decision to drop the bomb and the reason for it was that they deliberately left several cities untouched by bombing raids, Nagasaki and Hiroshima included....

[iflyforpie]

The firebombing of Tokyo and the firestorm of Hamburg killed far more than either of the two nuclear bombings.

However, any loss of life is always regrettable. It is worthy of note that there were very few bombings of civilian populaces that resulted in capitulation. It didn't happen in London (WWI), Madrid, Warsaw, London (WWII), Berlin, Tokyo, or Pyongyang. A very one-sided bombardment of North Vietnam (Linebacker II) resulted in the de jure American victory, but the de facto North Vietnamese victory.

[5400AirportRdSouth]

Worth mentioning in all this as well is the fact that not only did the US expend massive amounts post-war in rebuilding the country and feeding their people, part of the surrender agreement had the US committing to defend Japan militarily for an indefinite period.

A nuclear bomb dropped on your country sucks, to be sure. However, in the context of the casualties that would have been incurred on both sides with conventional weapons, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki most likely ended up being the lesser of two evils.

A bombing of a civilian target, in the context of a declared war between two states, can hardly be called terrorism. Death by a bullet, a bayonet or an A-Bomb, is still a death.

Regardless of the motivation of those that ordered the bomb drop, the end result, in my opinion, resulted in fewer deaths, civilian or otherwise, given the other scenarios that may have played out. (US / USSR ground invasions)

[Rockie]

A detonation in an unpopulated zone would have demonstrated the truly fearsome and unprecedented destructive power of the weapon just as effectively as incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians of all ages. That would likely have ended the war with even fewer casualties don't you think? If not, then at least the effort would have been made, and the responsibility for those deaths would rest solely with the Japanese government of the day.

The United States knew they possessed a weapon to end all weapons that guaranteed them an unconditional and immediate victory to end the war. An invasion was irrelevant at that point and they did not need to destroy two whole cities to prove their ability to do so.

Incinerating two cities and every man, woman and child in it using the excuse that it ultimately saved more lives would actually mean something if there were no other options. But there were other options.