By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - What's your point of view in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb?

here are several points you have to take into account to make up your mind :

- Most of the Japanese big cities like Tokyo, Osaka, Kobe or Nagoya had already been greatly destroyed by six months of intense bombing (day and night) with inciendary and napalm bombs (The Tokyo night raid of March 9, 1945 alone killed 120'000 people).

- Five cities were selected for their georgaphical area and pruposedly left untouched by bombings : Kyoto (because of the symbol and because the city is 3/4 surrounded by mountains and constructions were mostly made out of wood), Hiroshima (a large circular and flat city), Kokura (situated in a strait), Nagasaki (situated in a basin),  and Niigata (an elongated coastal city)

- Japanese army, airforce and navy were decimated, the economy and agriculture was dismantled, and the US and allied controled Japan territorial waters and had maintained an embargo on the country.

- Japanese people was starving.

- Taking account all of the above invading Japan by foot wasn't a necessity, Allied could have continued the incendiary bombings and waited for surrender instead.

BUT : 

- Russians were about to declare war to Japan by entering by the north. If the Russians had entered before Japan surrender they would have claimed a part of the territory. 

- The US and Russia were already engaged in a political and psychological war that became the Cold War.

- The US had a new kind of weapon but didn't knew what  damage it could inflict to a real city.

- The US thought of using the Bomb not only to test it life-size but at the same time to give a warning to the Soviets and show the world their military might.

- The city of Kyoto was taken out of the list by Henry L. Stimson, not out of kindness but because he new that destroying the cultural heritage of the city would damage US reputation.

- The two bombs dropped were very different in mechanism, Little boy was an gun-type uranimum fission bomb that had never been tested before it was droped on Hiroshima, while Fat man was an implosion-type plutonium bomb. The fact they used two different weapons is another proof they were actually testing which method was more devastating.

- "Scientific planes" were taking part in both bombings (Great Artiste and Necessary Evil, in Hiroshima) their task was to collect several data, mesurements like air pressure, temperatures and radiations, etc. and take pictures and videos.

- After the Bombings the US have censured for seven years any article regarding the consequences of the explosions on the Japanese population, denying that the exposure to the weapons had any long term effects on human health.

- But US doctors and scientists were sent to Hiroshima and Nagasaki throughout this seven year period to study those alleged non-existent effects.

- Even worst they created the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC) in Hiroshima  were irradiated people were said to be treated but in fact they weren't, and were actualy left to die. The goal was only for scientists to collect blood, skin samples, make analysis and study the symptoms of exposure.



Around the Network

^^  

D: 



 Tag (Courtesy of Fkusumot) "If I'm posting in this thread then it's probally a spam thread."                               

Quite an interesting review of some of the historiography:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hamby.htm

It has an orthodox air, but is of interest nonetheless. Hints at the various attempts of the Japanese to create a conditional surrender.



Yes.

www.spacemag.org - contribute your stuff... satire, comics, ideas, debate, stupidy stupid etc.

SleepWaking said:
bazmeistergen said:
Kantor said:
hallowedbeeddie said:
Kantor said:
Lostplanet22 said:


What you are saying is that when someone murders someone we should murder his daughter?

Yeah sorry I am confused...

You can't compare a country of 100 million people to a single man. The country does something, you punish the country. But again, the atomic bombs weren't punishment; war is war. The atomic bombs were a means of forcing Japan to surrender. Not ideal, but the best America could have done, given the circumstances. Do remember that they had no idea what this bomb did, except cause a massive explosion. Which is why they never used it again.

it doesnt matter if you kill person or 100 thounds, you would still be a murderer. just 1 life is unique and irreplaceable

Ideally, you kill nobody.

But if you have a choice between killing 300,000 and killing over a million, you choose the lower number. Whether they are civilians or soldiers isn't really relevant.

That's assuming that there was that choice in the first place, of course.

Perhaps the decision-makers (subconsciously) didn't care about the Japanese overtures for peace (which were significant) because they had already in their minds decided that the Japanese weren't serious - probably because (subconsciously) they wanted to use the bomb - after all, they had just invested a lot of money in it and had several 'good' reasons to use them. The orthodox/revisionist/post-revisionist debate over this is quite interesting, but it is clearly more complex than just saying they did it to save lives.


I do indeed think there were people in America thinking that way, but  can't believe the decision to drop the bomb was because it cost them a lot of money to develop it.


It wouldn't be a key reason, no!



Yes.

www.spacemag.org - contribute your stuff... satire, comics, ideas, debate, stupidy stupid etc.

It was definitely right.The Japanese had plenty of chance to surrender,made no visible effort in doing so,and if the war had continued it would have undoubtedly resulted in a much higher loss of life.



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

Around the Network
Videogirl said:

here are several points you have to take into account to make up your mind :

- Most of the Japanese big cities like Tokyo, Osaka, Kobe or Nagoya had already been greatly destroyed by six months of intense bombing (day and night) with inciendary and napalm bombs (The Tokyo night raid of March 9, 1945 alone killed 120'000 people).

- Five cities were selected for their georgaphical area and pruposedly left untouched by bombings : Kyoto (because of the symbol and because the city is 3/4 surrounded by mountains and constructions were mostly made out of wood), Hiroshima (a large circular and flat city), Kokura (situated in a strait), Nagasaki (situated in a basin),  and Niigata (an elongated coastal city)

- Japanese army, airforce and navy were dceimated, the economy and agriculture was dismantled, and the US and allied controled Japan territorial waters and had maintained an embargo on the country.

- Japanese people was starving.

- Taking account all of the above invading Japan by foot wasn't a necessity, Allied could have continued the incendiary bombings and waited for surrender instead.

BUT :

- Russians were about to declare war to Japan by entering by the north. If the Russians had entered before Japan surrender they would have claimed a part of the territory.

- The US and Russia were already engaged in a political and psychological war that became the Cold War.

- The US had a new kind of weapon but didn't knew what  damage it could inflict to a real city.

- The US thought of using the Bomb not only to test it life-size but at the same time to give a warning to the Soviets and show the world their military might.

- The city of Kyoto was taken out of the list by Henry L. Stimson, not out of kindness but because he new that destroying the cultural heritage of the city would damage US reputation.

- The two bombs dropped were very different in mechanism, Little boy was an gun-type uranimum fission bomb that had never been tested before it was droped on Hiroshima, while Fat man was an implosion-type plutonium bomb. The fact they used two different weapons is another proof they were actually testing which method was more devastating.

- "Scientific planes" were taking part in both bombings (Great Artiste and Necessary Evil, in Hiroshima) their task was to collect several data, mesurements like air pressure, temperatures and radiations, etc. and take pictures and videos.

- After the Bombings the US have censured for seven years any article regarding the consequences of the explosions on the Japanese population, denying that the exposure to the weapons had any long term effects on human health.

- But US doctors and scientists were sent to Hiroshima and Nagasaki throughout this seven year period to study those alleged non-existent effects.

- Even worst they created the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC) in Hiroshima  were irradiated people were said to be treated but in fact they weren't, and were actualy left to die. The goal was only for scientists to collect blood, skin samples, make analysis and study the symptoms of exposure.


There is an argument that Stimson had been on holiday to Kyoto and thus removed it from that point of view... which I think is great.



Yes.

www.spacemag.org - contribute your stuff... satire, comics, ideas, debate, stupidy stupid etc.

NKAJ said:

It was definitely right.The Japanese had plenty of chance to surrender,made no visible effort in doing so,and if the war had continued it would have undoubtedly resulted in a much higher loss of life.


Yeah, the debate has moved on since that point. Endlessly repeating the same standard, orthodox opinion is not that exciting.



Yes.

www.spacemag.org - contribute your stuff... satire, comics, ideas, debate, stupidy stupid etc.

another example of why even justifiable wars have moments of great evil in them from both sides, its why war should be a last resort always, especially in the nuclear age, the weapons if ever used again will surely spell doom for the human race.

and my word does the UK need to get over the war, be damned if a day goes by here without some media bullshit about it, 65 years ago, get the fuck over it please, honestly I despise my countries obsession with the military and conflicts at times, almost makes me think I should move overseas, that and the Capitalist slime that is polluting Westminster for 31 years and counting....

(OT rant I know, lol)



USA can make bombs, drop them on innocent people and kill thousands of them, but if Iran even attempts to make one, it will be invaded.



babuks said:

USA can make bombs, drop them on innocent people and kill thousands of them, but if Iran even attempts to make one, it will be invaded.

 

So your logic is based on the "two wrongs make a right" philosophy?  A fascinating point of view when millions of lives are at stake.  Well done!