Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[Finnegan III]

This came up in another topic, so I thought I might make a fred about it (As does QuicksilverD)

So here it is, I'm not too good at starting these off but I'll do my best.

Do you think that the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified?

The bombings were successful in getting the Japanese to surrender, however there are several sources as to say the Japanese were already planning to Surrender before the bombings themselves, and they also caused many innocent japanese civilians to die.

What say you all on this?

 

[QuickSilverD]

Well well all know basic stuff about this but here is some info to base your arguments in:

The United States, with assistance from the United Kingdom and Canada, designed and built the first atomic bombs under what was called the Manhattan Project. The project was initially started at the instigation of European refugee scientists (including Albert Einstein) and American scientists who feared that Nazi Germany would also be conducting a full-scale bomb development program (that program was later discovered to be much smaller and further behind). The project itself eventually employed over 130,000 people at its peak at over thirty institutions spread over the United States, and cost a total of nearly US$2 billion, making it one of the largest and most costly research and development programs of all time.

Over 3½ years of direct U.S. involvement in World War II, approximately 400,000 American lives had been lost, roughly half of them incurred in the war against Japan. In the months prior to the bombings, the Battle of Okinawa resulted in an estimated 50,000–150,000 civilian deaths, 100,000–125,000 Japanese or Okinawan military or conscript deaths and over 72,000 American casualties. A commonly provided justification for the bombings is that an invasion of the Japanese mainland was expected to result in casualties many times greater than in Okinawa.

The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10–11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized. The committee felt Kyoto, as an intellectual center of Japan, had a population "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon." Hiroshima was chosen because of its large size, its being "an important army depot" and the potential that the bomb would cause greater destruction because the city was surrounded by hills which would have a "focusing effect".

Estimating the death toll from the attacks, there are several factors that make it difficult to arrive at reliable figures: inadequacies in the records given the confusion of the times, the many victims who died months or years after the bombing as a result of radiation exposure, and the pressure to either exaggerate or minimize the numbers, depending upon political agenda. That said, it is estimated that as many as 140,000 had died in Hiroshima by the bomb and its associated effects, with the estimate for Nagasaki roughly 74,000.[4] In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the deaths were those of civilians.

Plans for more atomic attacks on Japan

The United States expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October.[33] On August 10, Major General Leslie Groves, military director of the Manhattan Project, sent a memorandum to General of the Army George Marshall, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, in which he wrote that "the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August." On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, "It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President."[34] There was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs in production until Operation Downfall, the projected invasion of Japan, had begun. "The problem now [13 August] is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer the tactical use rather than other use.

Militarily unnecessary

Those who argue that the bombings were unnecessary on military grounds hold that Japan was already essentially defeated and ready to surrender.

One of the most notable individuals with this opinion was then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

"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

It is my personal opinion that the war could have been ended without the necessity of using the bombs, (see military unnecessary), Nuclear Bomb should never have been invented in the first place if you ask me, they do not give power to a country, they only spread fear over all the ones that have then and the ones that do not have them.

I don’t think they were justified

 

[Raptorg]

This came up in another topic, so I thought I might make a fred about it (As does QuicksilverD)

So here it is, I'm not too good at starting these off but I'll do my best.

Do you think that the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified?

The bombings were successful in getting the Japanese to surrender, however there are several sources as to say the Japanese were already planning to Surrender before the bombings themselves, and they also caused many innocent japanese civilians to die.

What say you all on this?

Justified? no
Essential? yes,
if the Allied troops didn't throw those bombs, they would've lost the war, since Japan actually was winning, but after they saw the Devastation of the atomic bomb, they raised the white flag

and who knows what would've happened there...

also, are you aware Hitler made an atomic bomb much much earlier in the 2nd world war? thanks to the norwegians this bomb never got "ready" otherwise we couldn't have talked about great brittain this day...
the bomb was being made in Norway, but Norwegian spies gave info about this through to the brittish, who infiltrated the factory and dismantled the whole crap...
also, this destroyed the plans for the atomic bomb if i'm not mistaken, so the credit for designing the actual atomic bomb can't go to the Nazi, eventhough they did (almost) make the first one

but i'm again going off-topic here

 

[Juke]

From what I know, Japan had already surrendered before the bombings. One was enough but a second one was clearly not justified nor necessary. Also, the blast weren't the only things that were lethal. The nuclear fall-out, which I strongly think is much more dangerous, was the cause of the health problems experienced by the survivors and their descendants. I once read a translated quote of a Japanese survivor that after the blast it rained black rain. Sadly, inside those rain drops were nuclear-radiating dust particles.

Did you know that a more devastating weapon was created/patented before the nuclear bomb? It was a weapon created by Nikola Tesla. An energy weapon or better yet, a laser cannon. This weapon has extremely long range. I don't know if he actually made a working prototype. This was around the early 1900's.

 

[Davey Gaga]

To be honest, I've never really studied World War II, so I don't know an awful lot about it, but I'll try to keep up. First, before I get into anything; was the bombing of the Japanese a retaliation to their attack on Pearl Harbour? If I can have that answered, I'll give a small rant =].

 

[K_Unit]

well, pearl harbor was the very first japanese attack on the U.S., as you know, and the nuclear bombings by the U.S. was the last attack on japan. so i don't think that dropping the nuclear bombs on japan was necessarily just a retaliation for pearl harbor. although, the U.S. probably woundn't have gone to war with japan if not for that, so yes and no.

the theory behind dropping the bombs was that it would in fact make the japanese surrender more quickly thus saving more lives.

i think dropping one of the nuclear bombs would have been sufficient, but my view of war is a little different than others. the point of war is to destroy the enemy as quickly as possible. if this means destroying their homeland, even if there are innocent people there, then that needs to be done, but i think the second bomb was overkill, no pun intended.

 

[Juke]

My Naval Instructor once made a point that the use of the atomic bomb was necessary to end the war with Japan. His logic was that the Japanese were stubborn people and wouldn't surender easily due to their pride and patriotic spirits. Not only that but the Japanese were sacrificing many lives of their soldiers in kamikaze attacks or suicide attacks. So the use of the atomic bomb would also help spare anymore unnecessary bloodshed.

Of course it was unnecessary bloodshed because the U.S. and its allies were on gaining the upper-hand.

 

[K_Unit]

well, in a war you try to get the upper-hand, right, i mean a stalemate is not what you go for.

the japanese were very patriotic and i think one of the only ways to convince them otherwise is to bring it home, if you bring it to the people, most often they will want to end the war. although like i said before, one bomb might have been enough to end the war.

 

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Out of curiousity, have any of you ever seen the effects of nuclear fallout and radiation?

Humans' hair and teeth fall out, and their gums start bleeding. Their eyes usually bug out of their heads, and they bleed profusely out of their various orifices. Usually their organs start to fail, and they die within a few days to a few weeks. Others go on to be consumed by tumours and lesions, and their suffering is dragged out for weeks to months before death finally releases them from their living torture.

And let's not forget, these were not military targets, they were civilians. Densely populated cities, full of innocent men, women and children, incinerated into ash, horribly burned and left to die, or wandering amidst the radioactive fallout until their eyes popped out of their skulls. Imagine that, if one day, you saw a second sun and a blinding light before you rise from the West, and then half the city you knew was gone, and all the people in it. And those that did survive, your friends, your families, you cried over them as their poisoned blood invented new torments for them with each passing day. I'm sure you would find it plenty justified, after all, it avoided bloodshed, did it not?

I find it interesting that the United States condemned the crashing of two planes into two buildings killing a couple thousand on September 11th, 2001, as an act of terrorism, when they had sixty years earlier dropped two atomic weapons on entire metropolitan areas vaporing, maiming and poisoning hundreds of thousands. But justice works in such mysterious ways, I suppose.

 

[PoliStud]

Welcome to the problem of hindsight, which is always 20/20.

At the time, there was no indication to the Allies that the Japanese had any plans to surrender, despite the war starting to turn against them. There was also plenty of evidence that the Japanese would be unwilling to surrender without first losing a land battle on their home islands...an invasion which would be devastating and costly (in lives and material).

Given this, I tend to side with historians who conclude that the bombings ultimately killed fewer people than any of the known alternatives would have.

 

[Eidolon]

Justified? no
Essential? yes,

Well put. The effects of Nuclear fallout is devastating, and can never be justified. However, if you were an American commander would you have dropped the bomb? I think so.

The simple thing is (I study History by the way) that the Japanese would not surrender as long as their homeland remained intact. This would leave three options - either an invasion or a lot of bombing or the nuclear bomb. The invasion was out of the question. The USA estimated it would lose over 100000 soldiers if it were try to invade by land. Bombing was OK, but Japan had sufficient AA defences to destroy the low-flying aicraft that would carry bombs with a large enough payload to do major damage. Also bombing campaigns have been known to fail (see Operation Rolling Thunder), and even if it was working, could take months to complete. The war needed to be ended quickly.

Another HUGE reason for using the bomb was that it was a show of power to the USSR. You must remember that this was the start of the Cold War, and America wanted to show, not just to the USSR but the rest of the world it's power. There were many countries which had not yet "chosen sides" as such, and the Nuclear bomb would have been in America's favour. It was also a warning to the USSR.

So really the use of the nuclear bomb was the right choice by the American government. However on a moral level, I'm not sure it can be justified.

 

[Strife]

I don't think that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were at all nessicery. Most information shows that the japanese where on the verge of giving up long before the dropping of the bombs. And even if the Americans truely believed that more "encouragment" was needed, just 1 atomic bomb would have been more than enough.

 

[PoliStud]

I don't think that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were at all nessicery. Most information shows that the japanese where on the verge of giving up long before the dropping of the bombs.

The same information typically shows that the allies had no way of knowing that, and exploiting it.

 

[Crash]

Whenever I hear people suggest the atomic bombs should not have been dropped I can't but feel they are misguided.

My first car was built in Hiroshima! Nagasaki too is a working, functional city. Nuclear fallout for those cities was no big deal. The type of world-freezing nuclear fallout environmentalists scream about did not happen in those cities. These were tiney bombs, barely the size of modern tactical nuclear weapons. World-ending nuclear effects involve the use of tens of thousands of bombs each individually ten thousand times as powerful as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. They weren't that radioactive, not compared to the Earth's natural radiation, nor compared to the radiation the Earth receives from the sun.

People died, true. But more died from the incendiary bombs dropped on tokyo. What, is a vast inferno less impressive than a mushroom cloud? Have we gone so far as to decide a bomb's aesthetic effect defines the morality of its use? Were the atom bombs unnecessary because of their efficiency, ie, is there a magic ratio of bombs dropped-to-death and destruction at which point it becomes "unneccessary" or "immoral?" Bah.

Really the only case that can be made against the dropping of the bombs is based in translation. The Americans thought the Japanese would make them invade and conquer the home islands. Were they not going to, but just being picky over the language of "unconditional surrender?" This requires historical homework, not sophistry.