All I can say was that I watched a show on the History channel regarding the dropping of "The Bomb" on Hiroshima. We had good reason; invasion would have been far more dreadful for both sides, despite the horrible results of the dropping of Little Boy.
The pictures of the shadows burned into concrete are just creepy...
Originally posted by Dogbert
What on Earth am I talking about? Because it *could've* easily been new york that got removed from our planet. Either you don't understand what I'm saying, or you simply don't care >.>
BTW, what I'm saying is what if we never used them... I am fairly sure, they would've (When they eventually got them).
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Actually alot of modern historical work, such as that done over the last five to six years, shows that the civilian population of Japan was to a large extent ignorant of the state of the war, and while it is purely theoretical it is coming to be believed that if the US had invaded the entire nation wouldn't have turned against them. It is misleading propaganda of the day that it was a nation of samurai prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child.Rather more disturbing is the fact that in the months before the bombing Japan had actually been negotiating is surrender with the main powers. However they said they would not surrender unless the Emperor could remain in power. The US flat out said no to this, the surrender had to be unconditional. However at the time of the bombings the Japanese were reasonably advanced in surrender negotiations with the USSR, who were prepared to allow the Emperor to remain in power. Then the atomic bombs were dropped a short time later, and Japan surrendered a short time later, however the US then allowed the Emperor a kind of amnesty, the very thing the Japanese wanted to begin with that could have led the way to a *peaceful* surrender.
Likewise, in the lead up to the bombings there was alot of discontent in the American leadership ranks. A number of prominent scientists joined together to protest the use of the bomb, while high ranking men like Eisenhower advocated if the bomb had to be used, it should be used on a neutral ground with low human losses, that there was no need to actually use it on a populated area, as the affect would have been sufficient regardless of where it was dropped.
Really it is hard to judge the validity of the bomb as a *last resort* when it might not have needed to be. There sufficient evidence available today that shows it could have been handled quite differently, that the bombing was more to scare Russia and the world, and as an act of revenge, rather then winning a war which level headed military experts of the day, from Gen. Douglas MacArthur to Gen. Dwight Eisenhower believed to be already basically won.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Have you not read anything that anyone else has written on this thread? I understood what you wrote it just didn't make sense. What if we never used them? Rather than quote myself..."It could've been New York." Is false. "Japan could've nuked us to impunity." Is false. Neither the Japanese nor Nazi Germany were anywhere close to developing a viable nuclear weapon. You're assuming that having developed the nuclear weapon they would actually use it and that they would target civilians and they would specifically target New York. Your comment is based entirely on assumption without fact.
Would I care if New York was attacked by an atomic bomb? Of course I would. Don't ask fatuous questions.
Your "better them than us" remark followed by a smiley is flippant and disrespectful to those hundreds of thousands of civilians who died.
history is written by the victors dear, despiste what their propoganda machines say.
I think this is a very telling piece of evidence, from the declassified Target Committee meeting where potential targets were discussed:
Psychological Factors in Target SelectionA. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.
B. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value.
It also speaks of the poor logic of the use of the weapon as a tool of retribution. Pearl Harbour was a terrible event, although it was the bombing of a military target. Yes, it's natural to want to get ones own back, but it shouldn't be assumed the common Japanese citizen at the time was somehow implicit in this. Japan, like Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy employed propaganda and forms of dictatoship. The Japanese people had little to no say in what the Government or army did. I am not saying they are innocent, but they were still civilians. The fact that Hiroshima was chosen in part because the terrain would make the bomb even more terrible seems rather harsh, especially as the people who invariably suffered were civilians, and who suffered years and years up to today with the side affects. In fact it really does sound like something a terrorist would consider, symbolic targets, the best place to attack in order to do the most damage, kill the most civilians, and to have the biggest possible media effect on the world.....
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I think this is a very telling piece of evidence, from the declassified Target Committee meeting where potential targets were discussed:It also speaks of the poor logic of the use of the weapon as a tool of retribution. Pearl Harbour was a terrible event, although it was the bombing of a military target. Yes, it's natural to want to get ones own back, but it shouldn't be assumed the common Japanese citizen at the time was somehow implicit in this. Japan, like Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy employed propaganda and forms of dictatoship. The Japanese people had little to no say in what the Government or army did. I am not saying they are innocent, but they were still civilians. The fact that Hiroshima was chosen in part because the terrain would make the bomb even more terrible seems rather harsh, especially as the people who invariably suffered were civilians, and who suffered years and years up to today with the side affects. In fact it really does sound like something a terrorist would consider, symbolic targets, the best place to attack in order to do the most damage, kill the most civilians, and to have the biggest possible media effect on the world.....
I never said they weren't innocent. I said they wouldn't forget. Although, your statement above indicates why they are pissed.
Yes, I agree with you. Nations have long, long memories, as Japan is returning to the world as a major economic player. They are an ancient nation, who are believed to be very honorable. I have no doubt they haven't forgotten, and it's possible many haven't forgiven, seeing as how there are still people today who feel the effects.
Through a new post-WWII consyitution Japan established itself as a pacifist democratic nation. A provision in the constitution states Japan renounces war as a sovereign right of the nation. The Japanese SDF is not an army per se. It's unlikely they would ever instigate a World War.
Also as the only country to have ever experienced a nuclear assault, Japan is intrinsically opposed to the acquisition and development of nuclear weaponry.
Modern Japan is (if I recall correctly) the world's second largest economy, as Imperial Samurai said that is where it's power lies. (U.S. gross federal debt to Japan was $679 billion at the end of March, 2005.)
I don't think dropping the atom bomb was ment to be anything other than an offensive tool. It was made to end the war. To do something so completly distructive and moral destroying that it would kill the will to fight.
Its the same reason that we bombed Berlin, and why Germany V1 and V2ed London, along with London bombings.
This was not a new concept. The Hun's used it to build their empire. They would attack a village and burn it to the ground, so that surrounding villages would pay them tribute.
We just took it to the extreme.
And Germany WAS very close to a working nuke. But luckly the Allied troops hit Berlin first.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a terrible act from the past...300,000 dead and countless others since...but given the death toll of WW2 was 90,000,000 and 11,000,000 of which were killed in the Nazi death camps...50,000,000 of the total number dead were Russians...there were other terrible acts during ww2...the bombing of dresden...some sources say the magnesium phosphorus and napalm used killed over 100,000 with conventional weapons
i say the only benefit (and i am sure im repeating myself as i remember having this debate on KMC before) is that we say the awful power of nuclear weapons while they were at there weakest and most crude...a typical H-bomb(1 megaton) is 10,000 times more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima...and the most powerful bomb detonated (the tsar bomba of Russia) was estimated between 58 and 100 megatons which is upto a million times that of the Hiroshima bomb
we can consider Hiroshima...a lesson learned
Originally posted by Tptmanno1
And Germany WAS very close to a working nuke. But luckly the Allied troops hit Berlin first.
After the bombing of Hiroshima, Dr. Otto Hahn, when a colleague expressed disappointment that the Manhattan Project was a success was quoted as saying. “Are you upset we did not make the uranium bomb? I thank God on my bended knees we did not make the uranium bomb.” Post-war he became an advocate against nuclear weapons.
The original intention (of the scientists at least) was to create a nuclear weapon before Germany as a deterrent. Many warned of the destruction that would be caused if the bomb was ever used (to no avail). Many questioned why the project continued after Germany surrendered. Many were opposed to its use.
Japan never seriously tried to create or properly funded a nuclear weapon project.