Hiroshima

[R.N7]

Yesterday was the 65th anniversary of the bombing.

If USA hadn't dropped the bombs, with an eventual invasion of the Japanese mainland in sight, how long could the war have continued?

Was the Nagasaki bomb really necessary?

 

[Kaos]

No, the US didn't want to lose any more lives fighting a stubborn, yet defeated Japanese army so they took the easy way out and nuked them to kingdom come. And I also don't buy this "we saved more lives than we killed" bollocks - you nuked two cities ffs, hardly a humane alternative to continuing the fighting.

That's just my view though, some will fiercely criticise it no doubt.

 

[kietotheworld]

The first one was morally ambiguous, the second one was an atrocity.

 

[CircusMonkey]

Nobody can really defend the use of such a devastating weapon and the terrible loss of life. But Japan committed horrendous war crimes against the Chinese.
The civilian deaths suffered by the Chinese far out way the casualties inflicted on the Japanese. Another sad and shameful part of human history.
But after learning of Japans notorious Unit 731 i really find it difficult to feel a tremendous amount of sympathy.

 

[Alex]

Japan will never ever dear to attack American soil again. I think that that the second one was unnecessary. Umm redkaos it def saved more American lives

 

[Kaos]

Japan will never ever dear to attack American soil again. I think that that the second one was unnecessary. Umm redkaos it def saved more American lives

I wasn't talking about American lives, the argument was that it saved more Japanese people than it killed, which is obviously bollocks.

 

[Alex]

Well I don't know anyone who buys that argument.

 

[Kaos]

Really? It's the main reasoning the Americans used (that and putting an immediate end to the war) for justifying it. It was obviously going to save American lives since it would have prevented a land invasion on the Japanese mainland, which would have obviously been met with fierce resistance.

It did it's job alright (stopping the war, not saving more Japanese lives) but it sets an extremely dangerous precedence if we accept as having been the right thing to do.

 

[Raoul]

Hopefully the legacy of the bombings is that all nations come to terms with the absurdity of using them in the future.

 

[Adzzz]

There was an element of revenge in the second bomb, and several political statements being made:

1.) Revenge for Pearl Harbour
2.) Russia are you watching?
3.) Revenge for the atrocious conditions of the Japanese prisoner of war camps and the horrendous torture allied soldiers suffered therein.

It hasn't really set any precedent and it's impossible to say it has because the situation has never happened since. So how would you know?

 

[Raoul]

There was an element of revenge in the second bomb, and several political statements being made:

1.) Revenge for Pearl Harbour
2.) Russia are you watching?
3.) Revenge for the atrocious conditions of the Japanese prisoner of war camps and the horrendous torture allied soldiers suffered therein.

It hasn't really set any precedent and it's impossible to say it has because the situation has never happened since. So how would you know?

They probably thought the 2nd one was necessary, particularly as an astonishing 6 days elapsed before Japan finally surrendered.

 

[Kaos]

Hopefully the legacy of the bombings is that all nations come to terms with the absurdity of using them in the future.

If it's long term effects are to deter anyone from initiating a nuclear war then in a strange way it might have paid off, somehow I doubt it though.

 

[Alex]

If it's long term effects are to deter anyone from initiating a nuclear war then in a strange way it might have paid off, somehow I doubt it though.

Considering the USSR and US didn't come to blows it was fairly effective for that period of time b

 

[Kaos]

Considering the USSR and US didn't come to blows it was fairly effective for that period of time b

Yes but how close were they? The Cuban missile crisis for one would have initiated something terrifying had it not been for a few individuals deciding not to bite back.

 

[711]

Ignoring the moral questions and thinking about how long the war would have continued:

The Hiroshima bomb intially killed 80,000 people and obviously destroyed the city. The British (and American) bombing of Dresden killed 25,000 and also destroyed the city.

At the end of 1945 large numbers of bombers would have been transferred East and I think conventional bombing would have ended the war within a year, at a cost of more lives on both sides. I suspect the need to retain forces in Europe to counter the Russians would have slowed the process down more than the Japanese. Lancasters alone being able to bomb wooden crowded cities in daylight would have forced the Japanese out of them, as they just didn't have the air defences that the Germans had, until near the end.

 

[711]

Yes but how close were they? The Cuban missile crisis for one would have initiated something terrifying had it not been for a few individuals deciding not to bite back.

The Cuban missile crisis began when the US installed medium-range nuclear missiles in Turkey and Russia prepared to counter that by installing it's own medium-range missiles into Cuba.

The significance of medium-range nuclear missiles being that they might for the first time allow 'first-strike', that is they were close enough to destroy the enemy's ICBMs before they could be launched in retaliation.

The Cuban missile crisis ended when the US agreed to withdraw their medium-range missiles from Turkey and the Russians then turned back the delivery of their own medium-range missiles from Cuba.

The US missiles were indeed then withdrawn from Turkey.

Incidentally I am not pro-Russian, I've just always found it strange that so many people are unaware of this simple chronological course of events. I suppose that is a testimony to US spin-doctors.

 

[Team Brian GB]

I wasn't talking about American lives, the argument was that it saved more Japanese people than it killed, which is obviously bollocks.

Japan lost over 100,000 men defending Okinawa, if you believe the Japanese would have surrendered their homeland if the Americans didn't drop the bomb twice then you are very much mistaken. The estimates of total deaths at Okinawa range from 200,000 to 300,000 - far in excess of the atomic bombs that ended the war.

Following the Hiroshima bomb there was a coup attempt in Tokyo, the hardliners wanted to carry the war on and tried to overthrow the Emperor, it wasn't until after the second bomb that Japan was willing to stop fighting.

 

[Cal?]

The 2nd one was definitely an atrocity.

The Japanese were willing to conditionally surrender (as long as the Emperor wasn't tried in court) after Little Boy, but the Americans weren't going to have any of that. So they went ahead with Fat Man, forcing Japan to unconditionally surrender.

Then they did't try the Emperor in court anyway.

 

[711]

At least someone in the thread gets it! Unfortunately both bombs were somewhat justified.

BTW - The Japanese were also stepping up the torture and executions of the POWs.

I think most posters understand that more people would have died if they hadn't been used, on both sides.
Whether the second bomb was necessary is another question, and one that would require some study of the negotiations to answer, study that I haven't done at any rate.

 

[mjs020294]

I think most posters understand that more people would have died if they hadn't been used, on both sides.
Whether the second bomb was necessary is another question, and one that would require some study of the negotiations to answer, study that I haven't done at any rate.

I actually removed my posts because I couldn't be arsed arguing TBH. I have a relative that spent a couple of years in a Japanese POW camp, and the stories he told were awful. The Japanese would have fought to the bitter end resulting in hundreds of thousands of fatalities. I doubt any POWs would have got out alive and tens of thousands of allied life's would have been lost.

Personally if it saved an handful of allied life's and ended the war early it was the right thing to do.

 

[adexkola]

It definitely saved more American lives, Okinawa and Iwo Jima were bloodbaths, and those were just minor prizes compared to the Japanese mainland. Maybe the second bomb was unnecessary, but considering the atrocities they committed in East and Southeast Asia... I can"t be arsed

 

[marcus agrippa]

Maybe the second bomb was unnecessary, but considering the atrocities they committed in East and Southeast Asia... I can"t be arsed

Yep. Those little kids in Nagasaki had it coming imo. And their children as well.

 

[skeeta]

Japan was already on the verge of surrender; the decision to drop the bomb was taken primarily to gain diplomatic advantage against the Soviet Union.

 

[I_live_cement]

It definitely saved more American lives, Okinawa and Iwo Jima were bloodbaths, and those were just minor prizes compared to the Japanese mainland. Maybe the second bomb was unnecessary, but considering the atrocities they committed in East and Southeast Asia... I can"t be arsed

What a lovely person you are.

 

[maniak]

I still think the main reason was to give a demonstration of power to the Russians, because otherwise Stalin probably would´ve continued his expansion. And the reason for the second was to tell "we can do it, but most important, we have no problem with doing it". Don´t forget Stalin saw western democracies as weak because of their false sense of morality and accountability to the people, therefore the US felt the need to show that they could also play dirty if needed be.

I can´t back this up with anything, it´s just me interpretation of the events.

 

[peterstorey]

They were desperate to wrap up the war in the East before the Russians got involved and grabbed a share of the spoils.

 

[mjs020294]

Its amusing many want to remember the end of the war because it ties in with their anti-US biased. Lets just forget the US had nothing to do with the start of the war, and never mind the 60+ million others that perished......fecking veil yanks.

The Japs were torturing and murdering POWs at alarming rates. No way any of those guys would have got out alive if the war had been taken to mainland Japan. If it had taken another twenty bombs to avoid a mainland invasion and save the POWs so be it.

Sad tragic event in human history but the circumstances dictated the events unfortunately.

 

[dumbo]

Mcnamara on proportionality and the events leading up to dropping the first bomb:

 

[skeeta]

Lets just forget the US had nothing to do with the start of the war

Prescott Bush worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power which ended with under him getting into problems regarding the Trading with the Enemy Act.

 

[Excal]

Prescott Bush worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power which ended with under him getting into problems regarding the Trading with the Enemy Act.

And history has clearly shown that he and his whole family should've been executed.

 

[mjs020294]

Mcnamara on proportionality and the events leading up to dropping the first bomb:

Very thought provoking and poignant clip. Although McNamara is somewhat critical on the events leading up to and including the release of the bombs he still concedes it needed to be done.

Hopefully mankind learned a valuable lesson during and at the end of WW2, and none of us will ever witness WW3.

 

[marcus agrippa]

The Japs were torturing and murdering POWs at alarming rates. No way any of those guys would have got out alive if the war had been taken to mainland Japan. If it had taken another twenty bombs to avoid a mainland invasion and save the POWs so be it.

My abiding memory of those bombs is the images I recall seeing of kids badly burnt in the aftermath. I won't even go into the fallout legacy that poisoned the land/populace for generations afterward.

If there was an equation to be balanced re: Japanese atrocities, then it has been balanced with ample interest.

 

[mjs020294]

Prescott Bush worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power which ended with under him getting into problems regarding the Trading with the Enemy Act.

He was a director at a bank than had business dealings with Fritz Thyssen. Lots of companies had pre-war relations with German companies.

 

[mjs020294]

My abiding memory of those bombs is the images I recall seeing of kids badly burnt in the aftermath. I won't even go into the fallout legacy that poisoned the land/populace for generations afterward.

If there was an equation to be balanced re: Japanese atrocities, then it has been balanced with ample interest.

It wasn't about payback. It was about ending the war as quickly as possible, and with minimum loss of life, especially allied life's.

More people were dieing each night in the carpet bombing than died in the two nuclear attacks. They may be a little more indiscriminate but all bombing is devastating.

 

[marcus agrippa]

It wasn't about payback. It was about ending the war as quickly as possible, and with minimum loss of life, especially allied life's.

More people were dieing each night in the carpet bombing than died in the two nuclear attacks. They may be a little more indiscriminate but all bombing is devastating.

Just have a look at what adexkola said up there.

My comment was directed at such stupidity, and specifically at people saying things like: "Well, the Japs were committing atrocities up and down the Pacific, so they had it coming, really."

That is absurd, and hollow.

The Allies fought for a good cause, no doubt, but no one can claim the moral high-ground here. I recall reading about what some American military leader said about it during the Nuremberg Trials: 'If we'd lost, it'd have been us out there' or words to that effect.

I'll just never forget those pictures of burnt-up kids. They had nothing to do with it, and boom! - We visit that on them.

And the true horror of a nuclear bomb is not felt at the time it is dropped, but in the aftermath. That's what makes it such a very terrible weapon.

 

[ILBB15]

I think the reason for dropping the bombs besides saving Allied lives had much to do with forcing the Japanese to an unconditional surrender to US forces before the Russians got involved. It was probably the right decision considering the Red Army crushed the 1.2 million strong Kwantung army in just 11 days in Operation August Storm reaching Korea and capturing the Kuril islands. They could very well have invaded the Japanese home islands and established a long-lasting presence there.

Stalin was well aware of the A-bombs and their purpose before they were dropped thanks to his spies, so I don't think the bombings had much to do with scaring off the Russians.

 

[maniak]

Stalin was well aware of the A-bombs and their purpose before they were dropped thanks to his spies, so I don't think the bombings had much to do with scaring off the Russians.

They knew but maybe they thought "they´ll never use them".

 

[Mick1991]

I watched a documentary on it last night, truly terrifying stuff.

I don't think that the American's would have been too worried about invading mainland Japan but the real key to it was the sheer amounts of tiny islands around Japan that would have to be cleared out. The Japanese are fiercely proud and would have defended every last Island to the death causing in the process huge amounts of casualties on the American side.

In the cold light of day one has to look at it and say was it the right thing to do? Although America was the dominant power it he world and seen as a leader of other nations at the end of the day one has to look after themselves, they saved huge amounts of soldiers lives, invading Japan would have been a disaster as the precedent for guerilla warfare was already set(Pearl Harbour) and initial success would in all probability end in failure ( an early Vietnam).

 

[CircusMonkey]

Yep. Those little kids in Nagasaki had it coming imo. And their children as well.

But you could say the same for the tens of thousands of civilian/farmers that were gassed, given Cholera or Bubonic plague.
The list of experiments carried out on women and children is sickening.

Chinese civilian casualties (1939-1945) estimated 8.5m-11.4m
Japanese civilian casualties (1939-1945) estimated 350k-420k

 

[Team Brian GB]

The invasion plans for Japan were codenamed 'Operation Downfall', it would be a two phase invasion that would have seen landings on Kyushu - the southern most of the four main islands with the objective to take and secure 10,000 square miles or so of territory and to use this as a launch pad for a second invasion six months later in and around Tokyo Bay, both using twice as many divisions as was used to invade Normandy.

Most estimates of US dead from the campaign were in the 250,000 to 750,000 area whilst forceasts of Japanese dead range from 3 million to 8 million. These numbers are certainly in keeping proportionally with the major pacific battles - Japanese losses on Okinawa were 110,000 soldiers and up to 150,000 civilians which was a third of the population and to put it into perspective Okinawa is slightly larger than Central London.