Your opinion on the ATOM bomb

[ihatepop]

I watched a documantary on the history of the atom bomb attack on Hiroshima during WORLD WAR 2, and I'm starting to figure that the Japs are not the only cruel ones, the Americans are too. Yes, yes, give me all that crap on ending the War earlier but have the Americans ever thought about the innocent ones in Japan?

Theres another thought. If the Americans had not bombed Japan, would more people die in the killing than the time when the bomb fell?

I'm confused...

Were the Americans just power-hungrey?

Don't agree with me? Think about this:

How would you feel if your homeland was bombed by the power of 67 000 000 sticks of dynamite?

How would you feel if you were in Hiroshima during that time? (Too dead to respond, I expect)

How would you feel if your piano was bombed?(OK, lets not go that far...)

Think about it!

ihatepop

[zheer]

  Well exactly, its not a good idea to think about it too much but yeah its horrific ,if you read or watch current world events you notice more and more acts of terror by the Americans ( am sure many dont agree with it ). Anyway haw do you think nations built such power, usually through force terror and agression.As the saying goes two wrongs dont make a right. I will say no more, simple because i will be labed as the bad guy, anyway say goodnight to the bad guy .

[prometheus]

The bomb was only dropped to show the effect to the USSR and to see the actual damage it caused on a city.

Every major figure, except for at least one of the pilots that dropped on of the bombs, I think he died a year ago, later sad that the bombs was unnecessary.


Also, the bombing of Tokyo killed more people.

About an invasion of mainlaid Japan: Hushu, Shikoku, Hokkaido and Kysushu. It was 'needed' not to defeat Japan but to create the conditions that would reflect into the terms of surrender. You don't need someone to surrender to have someone defeated. And you don't need to surrender someone unconditionally either.

The US had cracked pretty much all Japanese communications so they knew the even the fanatic Japanese general knew they had lost the war. What they wanted is to make a final stance to avoid unconditional surrender, occupation, disarmament by the US army, etc.

Late summer 1944, about a year before the first bomb was dropped, the japanese War Journal of the Imperial Headquarters concluded: "We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight."

At this point Japan was still neutral with USSR. But The US and the USSR, Roosefelt loved Stalin, had agreed that USSR would declare war against Japan as well. Of course there was a gain for the USSR here as well. They must have hoped to snatch land from Japan; Korea, Mongolia, parts of China, Islands.

So we have the plans for Operation Downfall. If you look into what would have happened when it came that far then it is shocking.

But before it happened the US dropped a bomb on Hiroshima. The reason it was dropped on a city was to cause as much destruction as possible. Hiroshima was selected for its size and for the army depots it had. The Americans hoped for the psychological effect.

Ironically, Kyoto was removed as a target. This was because Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson had helt his honeymoon there. It was the cultural and intellectual center of Japan. So Stimson made the argument that the people of Kyoto would be better able to appriate the significance of the weapon. General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project opposed Stimson, but Stimson helt the higher position, of course. So we have to thank Stimson for Kyoto...


Then the USSR declared war on Japan. The sovjets had an experienced and battle hardened army of one million and launched it against Japanese occupying forces in Asia. Japanese forces were very quickly defeated. Some Islands were captured and the northern part of Korea was captured.

Then the second atom bomb was dropped. Target was Nagasaki. It was chosen because it was a because of its large sea port. Nagasaki was much less an industrialised city then Hiroshima. Japanese had mostly wooded houses and almost all buildings in Nagasaki were traditional japanese buildings. Also, Nagasaki was barely bombed during the war so one would be able to observe the actual effect, without the effect of previous bombings, of the atom bomb.


Then we go back to Operation Downfall. There were two more cities on the list for a 'strategic atom bomb'. Kokura and Niigata.

Then there were going to be two stages. A landing at Kyushu. And then the landing at Hushu, capturing Tokyo.

The naval fleet would be the largest ever. The japanese had many many kamikaze, a reference to the storm that destroyed the Mongol invading fleet, fighters ready. They would try to hit transporters and estimated they could destroy 2/3 part of the fleet and make then invasion fail. Then they had a new negociation position and they could avoid an occupation.

The americans expected the civilians to resist fanatically. They were ready to use chemical weapons; poison gas. And the planners had suggested the use of nukes for tactical reasons. They were promiced seven bombs. Their soldiers would have been told not to enter the fallout area before 48 hour had passed.

The USSR would be invading Hokkaido as part of their August Storm campaign. This would probably happen before the US invasion of Kyushu.

The americans didn't Japan to surrender to their terms after two atomic bombs.


If you look at the discussion and the power struggle then things get even more complex. We have the emperor and six others. The six were split three to three. One side wanted to accept roughly the american terms. The other three wanted to avoid an occupation at all cost. They wanted to fight on to create better terms of surrender.
For both of them it was very important that the emperor remained the head of state.

So if you draw out the worst scenario of Operation Downfall then you realise that it was accurately named. It would have been terrible. Americans might have ended up walking through the fallout of their own bombs, destroying their bodies, while trying to slaughter woman and children armed with primitive weapons.

So I think the invasion would have been a total disaster. I think they should have tried for negociations. Japan wanted to surrender, just not to american terms. I don't see how the killing of that many was outweighted by an unconditional surrendern and occupation of Japan.


"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."-then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower, The White House Years.

    "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

    "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.


"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."-The United States Strategic Bombing Survey


But this is just pragmatic military perspective. What about moral reasons or justifications. I think that it would be a very gross crime against humanity to destroy a whole city. If it is the fire bombing of Dresden, Tokyo, V2's on London, Atom Bombs. Or Rotterdam. Actually, I saw an article a few days ago. It was about german tourists in Rotterdam. The tourist information center got one question many many times from german tourists: "Who ist die Altstadt?"

Anyway, it is gross indiscriminate mass murder. There is no doubt about it that if the US or the UK had lost the war those who were responsible would have been hanged. And just as rightly so as the germans and japanese leaders being hanged. They were hanged for losing the war. Not for committing war crimes. And then we don't even consider the effect of the radiation. And then the degradation of the genes. Genes are very very very important to humans.

But of course we also have 'our friend' John Bolton:

"A fair reading of the treaty [the Rome Statute concerning the ICC], for example, leaves the objective observer unable to answer with confidence whether the United States was guilty of war crimes for its aerial bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan in World War II. Indeed, if anything, a straightforward reading of the language probably indicates that the court would find the United States guilty. A fortiori, these provisions seem to imply that the United States would have been guilty of a war crime for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is intolerable and unacceptable."-John Bolton.


So paraphrase: "International law sucks and must de disregarded. Because our honourable and goodly act of dropping the atomic bomb would have violated international law. Surely if this is true something has to be wrong with international law."

Haha, amazing.

The current mayors of Hiroshim and Nagasaki have a hard time trying to get the world leaders of the nuclear armed countries to disarm them completely. It has to be done. There are nuclear weapons in my country. American stores several ones in secret. If nuclear war breaks out then that will be a viable target for someone elses nuke.


According to Nobel Peace Prize winner ElBaradei, head of the IAEA. If we don't do what the two Japanese majors urge us the do nuclear war will be imminent.


So yes, there are two threats in the world today. One on the short term, 20 to 50 or many 100 or 200 years; more nuclear prolifiration. And then nuclear war, probably accidenal.

And the other on the long term 200 to 500 to 10,000 and more. Climate Change.

Terrorism is totally irrelevant. It is important for politics. Because that is what the target of terrorism is. Terrorism has political or sociological goals. The innocent civillians are 'collateral damage'.


No, world leaders talk about terrorism, while they actually increase it. And they ignore climate change and nuclear proliferation. And they actually increase it.

[thalbergmad]

Short and to the point.

Thal

[lisztisforkids]

Wow, what a bunch of crap, will post tonight I have to go bus tables for rich tourist now. 

[jre58591]

and the winner for longest posts ever goes to prometheus.

btw i didnt read one sentence of that. its just too much.

[bella musica]

Hey, at least the Americans had already declared war against Japan when they dropped the bomb...

[le_poete_mourant]

In its most basic form, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were payback for Pearl Harbor.  And I am in no way saying that as justification, simply as an explanation of what the government/military felt was necessary to avenge the Japanese attack and satisfy the American people's desire for revenge. 

Equally as horrible were the firebombings of Dresden (incinerated the entire city) and Tokyo.  And in fact, more German civilians (between 305,000 and 600,000) were probably killed immediately than Japanese civilians (we are still feeling the effects of radiation of course). 

It's the truth of war: the innocent usually pay the dearest for the sins of the guilty. 

[prometheus]

Revenge? I never heard that argument before. Who claimed it was revenge?

Unsually countries don't need to take revenge. Countries have no emotions and thus hold no grudges. People may.


Furtermore, Pearl Harbor was a military base in 'occupied' Hawai since Hawai was colonized and the resistance killed off. Also, wouldn't one think the US had revenge enough by destroying the Japanese fleet as well? And then fire-bomb their cities? And then the atom bomb on top of that? How many japanese lifes equal one american life?

[mephisto]

Revenge? I never heard that argument before. Who claimed it was revenge?

Are you serious

That is the most common argument and it is featured in almost every history book on earth.....

[prometheus]

Seriously? I mean it would be so political incorrect because it nears racism.


The argument you hear over and over is to get Japan to surrender. Not revenge. To me the question would be why they claim revenge rather than the other instead of if it was really revenge or not.

[timothy42b]

Furtermore, Pearl Harbor was a military base in 'occupied' Hawai since Hawai was colonized and the resistance killed off.

That is a good point.  Most people don't remember that Hawaii was not a state in 1941, it wasn't part of the US.  Though there was a military base there. 

[prometheus]

It was an act of agression. But only later during the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials it was established that the agressor is responsible for all the atricities of war that follows, committed by everyone against anyone. So the Japanese were responsible for the atom bombs being used against their own people.

It also means that the US is responsible for the Al Quaida-like insurgents in Iraq beheading journalists and NGO workers.

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."- Chief US prosecutor Robert H. Jackson

Of course this judgement did come after the war and after the US had won. But wouldn't it apply today?

Well, according to Jackson:

"If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us."

And,

 "We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well."

This means that if Jackson knew how the world was today he wouldn't have hanged the Nazi's. Quite shocking.

[gruffalo]

regardless if it was to show off power to the soviets or whatever arguments are made, i will give you one fact to think about and if you do some research, you will find out why the atom bomb was a good thing.

It took an average of 25000 casualties to take one japanese island. The maximum amount of casualties in the worst islands exceeded far beyond this.

I leave you to it.

Gruff

[ahinton]

and the winner for longest posts ever goes to prometheus.

btw i didnt read one sentence of that. its just too much.

Ah, well - that let's me out - except in the minds of those who, even if only subconsciously, measure length of posts in terms of irritation content rather than actual numbers of words posted...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

It took an average of 25000 casualties to take one japanese island. The maximum amount of casualties in the worst islands exceeded far beyond this.

Gruff

Like I said before, this is only true if you assume you need to take the Japanese mainland by force. For one you didn't even have to take them, through force or not. And one could have taken them through negociations. The japanese already knew that they were losing and that they had to surrender. It was just that the Americans demanded an unconditional surrender. The Japanese feared for their emperor. And this is an issue of religious proportions. That's why they wanted the US to try to invade and give them a real battle to get them to realise it wasn't worth the fight. And then they could secure demands like keeping the emperor and disarming the imperial army themselves.

Also note that the Japanese at this point in time, or rather the politicians, are trying to find a way to get rid of their pacifist constitution that doesn't allow them to have a real army. Sending troops to Iraq was a first step since clearly this wasn't an act of self defence. Actually, Bobby Fischers comments on this absurdity, evemthough they were absurd too, were enjoyable.

[Barbosa-piano]

 I will tell will this: The United States bombing Japan with the two atomic bombs (while bluffing that there were more than two) is a whole lot better than Germany using it on us, which would probably make us (the Allies) surrender, with the same psychological effect we tried to cause in Japan.
       In fact, there is evidence that Nazi Germany actually tested a small atomic weapon (far weaker than the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
    
       Nazi Germany already had the V-2 Rocket, and the only thing missing was the bomb. Germany had the capacity of being the first country to maintain a true "atomic ballistic missille", maybe of small range, from my point of view. If this went on, depending on their production speed, they could certainly threat France, England, and even the U.S.S.R.- We could lose part of the Allied force, and maybe even lose the war.

      One of Hitler's last shots to show to the rest of the world that Germany had a chance, was the Amerikabomber. This was a prototype of a large bomber sized airplane, which would cross the Atlantic Ocean a certain distance, and then release a smaller bomber, which would most like attack New York City.

       The United States used the bomb, but I hope that no country ever has to use it again.
       Having nuclear bombs is, in my opinion, a factor which avoided a war between the "New Allies" and the Warsaw Pact Nations, during the Cold War. The fear of world destruction is terrifying for all.

[Barbosa-piano]

  Also note that the Japanese at this point in time, or rather the politicians, are trying to find a way to get rid of their pacifist constitution that doesn't allow them to have a real army. Sending troops to Iraq was a first step since clearly this wasn't an act of self defence. Actually, Bobby Fischers comments on this absurdity, evemthough they were absurd too, were enjoyable.

 I think that Japan, being a modern nation, with new concepts, freedom, and an impecable infrastructure, should be able to have a "real military": For the defense and counter attack- Especially taking into account some of the neighbors it has.

[prometheus]

I will tell will this: The United States bombing Japan with the two atomic bombs (while bluffing that there were more than two)

Actually, they had more bombs. I know my posts are very long but they do contain information; I pointed this out before. Also, and this, I think, was also in my posts, the Japanese believed the US would not have more or that much more atom bombs. So they wouldn't have been bluffing and still Japan didn't fall for it. So even if it is true or justified; it didn't actualyl work out that way

...is a whole lot better than Germany using it on us, which would probably make us (the Allies) surrender,

That was why the project was started. I talked about this in the 'favorite scientists' post so I won't continue here. It would make my post unnessecarily even longer.

In the end the germans didn't have an atom bomb. The US continued. If the germans had one it would be a really really big challenge to drop it on the US. On England, ok. It could be feasable. But even then I think the Uk would continue since they had utter air superiority. They would have very good chances of preventing german planes from dropping their nukes. The nukes would be destroyed and wasted.
The V2 could not carry a nuke. At least not the nukes of those days.

Even if the nazi's dropped nukes on every UK city I doubt the US would stop the war. Why would the US surrender to Germany? The idea of germany conquering the US in WWII is silly. Also, we have the USSR in there as well.

with the same psychological effect we tried to cause in Japan.

Did it really have a big effect?

In fact, there is evidence that Nazi Germany actually tested a small atomic weapon (far weaker than the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

Really, no way? As far as I know the Nazi nuclear project was a civillian project, because when the project was started they calculated the war would be long won before they could expect any results. Also, it was sabotaged. For example the german heavy water plant in Norway.

Also, getting back to the things I said in the other topic I mentioned. Heisenberg may have intentionally provided the nazi's with false calculations, sabotaging their nuclear project. He then met with his teacher Bohr trying to tell him this to get him to do the same thing to avoid any atom bomb being constructed. Though this is a lot of speculation,  it actually has some evidence for it.

Nazi Germany already had the V-2 Rocket, and the only thing missing was the bomb.

Ok, this is false. It couldn't carry a primitive nuke because those were too big.

If this went on, depending on their production speed, they could certainly threat France, England, and even the U.S.S.R.- We could lose part of the Allied force, and maybe even lose the war.

This was only if they developed a special missile for nukes. If they managed that then they would have a really dangerous weapon. But why don't you look back in history to find the point where this was actually achived? Putting a nuke in a ballistic missile?

One of Hitler's last shots to show to the rest of the world that Germany had a chance, was the Amerikabomber. This was a prototype of a large bomber sized airplane, which would cross the Atlantic Ocean a certain distance, and then release a smaller bomber, which would most like attack New York City.

The nazi's had a long long list of amazing and silly projects. That was their style. King Tiger, amazing tank for its time. But a total failure because the production was totally ineffective. Same for the Me-112 or whatever their jet fighter was called.

The nazi's never managed to drop a single bomb on the US. Same for the japanese, though they almost succeded using balloons.

The United States used the bomb, but I hope that no country ever has to use it again.

Uuuh... I must say this argument is really bizzare. If you don't want others to do something wrong then you don't do it by showing what they shouldn't be doing. I mean, this is the world on its head. You usually lead by example. To suggest it works the other way around is, well I don't know.

Also, only they had the bomb. So who where they trying to get not to use the bomb? They didn't expect anyone else to have one. Do you mean they wanted to teach themselves, or their successors, not to use it?
In the end it failed totally. Because the US had the bomb and were willing to use it now many countries have it. The information to build it is on the black market for sale to anyone with enough money.
Actually, most of this information came from the US. USSR spys got it from the US. Israeli spies did the same. Same for the N-Korean and Pakistani bombs.

Furtermore, eventhough they did test the bomb they did not realise its power. Like I said before in my long posts, they calculated that it would take only 24 hours for the area hit by the bomb to be safe for their troops.

Having nuclear bombs is, in my opinion, a factor which avoided a war between the "New Allies" and the Warsaw Pact Nations, during the Cold War. The fear of world destruction is terrifying for all.

When they developed the bomb they developed it because of nazi germany probably having a similar problem. Feynman says that they should have stopped the moment Germany surrendered but that no one even considered reconsidering what they were doing. Let alone that they could have forseen the creation of the Warsaw Pact or the USSR.

Furtermore, the cold war almost turned hot when JFK gave Khrushchev a deadline, threatening nuclear war. It was pure luck or coincidence that there was no nuclear war.

On top of that you can add the events where US generals called for the use of nuclear weapons. And the near-accidental launches of US missiles. These problems would have been and are greater in the USSR/Russia though we don't hear about them.

There are other things can trigger nuclear war as well. Imagine an astroid hitting earth by suprise, and I am talking about a serious impact, though not a very big one. It could be mistaken for a nuclear attack and trigger a reaction.


About the military ambitions of modern day Japan. Well, I don't think they don't have the right to have an army. I was just pointing out a significant event/trend in contemporary time.

[rimv2]

Actually, they had more bombs. I know my posts are very long but they do contain information; I pointed this out before. Also, and this, I think, was also in my posts, the Japanese believed the US would not have more or that much more atom bombs. So they wouldn't have been bluffing and still Japan didn't fall for it. So even if it is true or justified; it didn't actualyl work out that way

That was why the project was started. I talked about this in the 'favorite scientists' post so I won't continue here. It would make my post unnessecarily even longer.

In the end the germans didn't have an atom bomb. The US continued. If the germans had one it would be a really really big challenge to drop it on the US. On England, ok. It could be feasable. But even then I think the Uk would continue since they had utter air superiority. They would have very good chances of preventing german planes from dropping their nukes. The nukes would be destroyed and wasted.
The V2 could not carry a nuke. At least not the nukes of those days.

Even if the nazi's dropped nukes on every UK city I doubt the US would stop the war. Why would the US surrender to Germany? The idea of germany conquering the US in WWII is silly. Also, we have the USSR in there as well.

Did it really have a big effect?

Really, no way? As far as I know the Nazi nuclear project was a civillian project, because when the project was started they calculated the war would be long won before they could expect any results. Also, it was sabotaged. For example the german heavy water plant in Norway.

Also, getting back to the things I said in the other topic I mentioned. Heisenberg may have intentionally provided the nazi's with false calculations, sabotaging their nuclear project. He then met with his teacher Bohr trying to tell him this to get him to do the same thing to avoid any atom bomb being constructed. Though this is a lot of speculation,  it actually has some evidence for it.


Ok, this is false. It couldn't carry a primitive nuke because those were too big.

This was only if they developed a special missile for nukes. If they managed that then they would have a really dangerous weapon. But why don't you look back in history to find the point where this was actually achived? Putting a nuke in a ballistic missile?

The nazi's had a long long list of amazing and silly projects. That was their style. King Tiger, amazing tank for its time. But a total failure because the production was totally ineffective. Same for the Me-112 or whatever their jet fighter was called.

The nazi's never managed to drop a single bomb on the US. Same for the japanese, though they almost succeded using balloons.

Uuuh... I must say this argument is really bizzare. If you don't want others to do something wrong then you don't do it by showing what they shouldn't be doing. I mean, this is the world on its head. You usually lead by example. To suggest it works the other way around is, well I don't know.

Also, only they had the bomb. So who where they trying to get not to use the bomb? They didn't expect anyone else to have one. Do you mean they wanted to teach themselves, or their successors, not to use it?
In the end it failed totally. Because the US had the bomb and were willing to use it now many countries have it. The information to build it is on the black market for sale to anyone with enough money.
Actually, most of this information came from the US. USSR spys got it from the US. Israeli spies did the same. Same for the N-Korean and Pakistani bombs.

Furtermore, eventhough they did test the bomb they did not realise its power. Like I said before in my long posts, they calculated that it would take only 24 hours for the area hit by the bomb to be safe for their troops.

When they developed the bomb they developed it because of nazi germany probably having a similar problem. Feynman says that they should have stopped the moment Germany surrendered but that no one even considered reconsidering what they were doing. Let alone that they could have forseen the creation of the Warsaw Pact or the USSR.

Furtermore, the cold war almost turned hot when JFK gave Khrushchev a deadline, threatening nuclear war. It was pure luck or coincidence that there was no nuclear war.

On top of that you can add the events where US generals called for the use of nuclear weapons. And the near-accidental launches of US missiles. These problems would have been and are greater in the USSR/Russia though we don't hear about them.

There are other things can trigger nuclear war as well. Imagine an astroid hitting earth by suprise, and I am talking about a serious impact, though not a very big one. It could be mistaken for a nuclear attack and trigger a reaction.


About the military ambitions of modern day Japan. Well, I don't think they don't have the right to have an army. I was just pointing out a significant event/trend in contemporary time.

Powerful governments are evil...






We get it already...







Sheeesh


No matter what country dropped them bomb, the bomb was gonna be dropped. Twas only a matter of who would drop it first.

If anyone is to be admonished, it is the damned scientist most responsible for the creation of these dreadlful weapons

Nite Nite

[lisztisforkids]

No matter what country dropped them bomb, the bomb was gonna be dropped. Twas only a matter of who would drop it first.


Nite Nite

 True talk from a genius.