Was Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?

[David Floyd]

I believe you mean Kobe, which is part of the Osaka-Kyoto-Kobe triangle in the Kansai area, and a huge port-rail-industrial city, then and now.

Nah, I meant Kyoto. It was INITIALLY proposed, but tossed out in favor of Nagasaki by Henry Stimson.

[Al B. Sure!]

mtg:

concerning the nuclear material i didn't mean that the japanese could have made an atomic bomb. i meant they could have used this material in 'dirty bombs' against the invading marines.

[Al B. Sure!]

what do yall think of the theory that the nagasaki bomb was only dropped to show american dominance in the post-war world and scare the **** out of the soviets?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
what do yall think of the theory that the nagasaki bomb was only dropped to show american dominance in the post-war world and scare the **** out of the soviets?

I think this was one of the reasons the decision to drop the bomb was made. And it was a legitimate, justifiable reason.

[mrmitchell]

Aren't any of you history channel fanatics? One of their shows was great. It said that, in reality, the backup plan after Hiro/Naga was a long, protracted island invasion using a-bombs as advance artillery, which would have resulted in millions more dead on both sides and unbelievable radiation amounts.

[Dom Pedro II]

Well, I feel that the war could've been ended without the droppings of the bombs if communications hadn't gotten garbled in the first place... but since it was......

There was a plan to use poison gas on the Japanese cities for a week before Operation Olympus. The estimated death toll from that? FIVE Million

Then there would be the invasion... expected US casualties? FIVE Hundred Thousand

Japanese casualties would likely be as high if not higher...

So altogether, the US effort to take Japan would've cost the lives of between 5.5-7 million people (American AND Japanese).

I do, however, feel that only one bomb was necessary. Or at the very least, the first bomb should've been used on a military target... should've waited one week, and then used it on a civilian target.

And it certainly bothers me that they made sure to pick pristine cities thus far unaffected by the intense firebombings that most of the other Japanese cities were subjected to. Like it or not, there was some sick puppies in the military (as there are in every military), who wanted to see how much damage these bad boys could do.

And also... there WAS a huge amount of racism towards the Japanese. It was a racist war on both sides. Take a look at the cartoon "Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips" and you'll see what I'm talking about... a study was done on US troops, and it was discovered that on average, an American soldier in the European theater felt bad about killing his enemy. In the Pacific theater, it was just the opposite. Every time one was killed, the soldier wanted to kill more. On the average... this is not to say every soldier was like that. But this also has a lot to do with the ferocity of the fighting in addition to racist opinions of the day.

[Sava]

500 Hundred Thousand

That is 50,000,000 people. I think you mean FIVE Hundred Thousand.

[Dom Pedro II]

Aren't any of you history channel fanatics? One of their shows was great. It said that, in reality, the backup plan after Hiro/Naga was a long, protracted island invasion using a-bombs as advance artillery, which would have resulted in millions more dead on both sides and unbelievable radiation amounts.

Well...... if the Japanese surrendered after two, don't you think they would've surrendered long before nukes could be used as advanced artillery??

[Dom Pedro II]

Thanks Sava! I wrote it out numerically and then I decided to change it to words for more emphasis and I forgot about the first part...

[mrmitchell]

Well...... if the Japanese surrendered after two, don't you think they would've surrendered long before nukes could be used as advanced artillery??

The show also went in further about how Japan's military guys tried to completely rip the Emperor of all power--as the Emperor had announced his intentions to call for surrender to his cabinet. Mind you, Japan had not surrendered in a thousand years AFAIK, so this was quite something. Supposedly if there hadn't been an air raid that night before surrender, they would've been able to successfully complete the takeover and make the Emperor a puppet in his palace. It's a lot of detail, I can't explain it--a 2 hour show, man.

[Al B. Sure!]

Dom Pedro:

where are you getting this info? the US had only one more half completed bomb after Nagasaki...

and it was discovered that on average, an American soldier in the European theater felt bad about killing his enemy. In the Pacific theater, it was just the opposite. Every time one was killed, the soldier wanted to kill more.

i don't think this is solely the result of racism... the fact that the Japanese fought like inhuman killing machines probably also resulted in this attitude. i'm sure the german soldiers felt a little bad fighting americans and british but didn't give a damn about slaugtering the Russian hordes...

[Arrian]

I wouldn't have wanted to be Truman, and be faced with that decision, I'll say that.

In the end, though, I think I would have dropped at least one of them.

Ideally, it would have been nice to have been able to demonstrate the destructive power of the weapon to the Japanese hierarchy w/o razing a city in the process. Realistically, I'm not sure that could have been done (but making the effort would have been nice... perhaps using that Swedish embassy to send a message to the Japanese to the effect of "watch this" and then dropping a bomb out to sea from Tokyo, far enough not to kill everybody, but close enough to see). But the idea that it would have been better to invade Japan conventionally is ludicrous. Yeah, much more humane! Let's get millions killed instead of a couple of hundred thousand. Yay!

-Arrian

[Sava]

Why do people point out Nagasaki and Hiroshima as ultimate major atrocities? The Allies firebombed Dresden using conventional means and killed more innocent civilians. In terms of atrocities in WW2, Nagasaki and Hiroshima are low on the list.

[Dom Pedro II]

the US had only one more half completed bomb after Nagasaki...

I wasn't saying they had more...

And I did make reference to the fact that of the ferocity of the Japanese in their fighting as being one of the other factors involved in why the research came out as it did. Yes, the Japanese did a lot of truly horrible things. There's no denying that...

Well, if anything the reason the Germans didn't care about slaughtering Russians was racist theory. The British were considered a tolerable sub-Aryan. The slavs were considered entirely expendable. Although, much of the army was not nearly as brain-washed as the Party in this drivel.

I wouldn't have wanted to be Truman, and be faced with that decision, I'll say that.

I was going to say something like that earlier. I agree completely. I don't think I could do it... but then, thats why he was President, and I'm not nor will I be...

[Dom Pedro II]

Why do people point out Nagasaki and Hiroshima as ultimate major atrocities? The Allies firebombed Dresden using conventional means and killed more innocent civilians. In terms of atrocities in WW2, Nagasaki and Hiroshima are low on the list.

I think it's the raw power that nuclear weapons offered. True, Dresden killed more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki COMBINED... (excluding death due to radiation exposure years later). But the A-Bomb was basically the ultimate weapon... one that we should try to avoid using at all costs.