60th anniversary of Nagasaki

[rasmack 0]

So, today is the 60th anniversary of the bomb over Nagasaki. Was it necessary? 74.000 killed. 75.000 wounded. Was it worth it?

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[mnealtx 0]

Compared to the projected costs of invading the Japanese mainland, it was considered worth it by military experts.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Botellines 0]

Considering that Japan´s military forces were crippled, I don´t believe that droping two nuclear bombs over civilians was necesary.

Now, if the U.S wants to look like the goos guys who err on the side of life, it is necesary to make some excuses up for that deed.

[Mike111 0]

I think its very hard to answer that - from the American point of view it saved their solderi's lives, but it killed thousand of innocent civilians.

Overall it was probably worth it although there are veyr serious consequences.

A veyr trajic and unfortunate incident though to happen

Mike

[mr2mk1g 10]

Why on earth do you think Japan's military forces were crippled? That statement has no basis in historical accuracy.

Yes their fleet and their air forces had been decimated and British forces were rapidly pushing up through continental Asia... but their army was still a hugely powerful fighting force, especially on mainland Japan.

Kaiten, Shinyo and Kamikaze pilots would have inflicted crippling losses on any approaching fleets before anyone ever stepped foot on the island. Occupying mainland Japan through conventional arms would have taken years and hundreds of thousands of lives. Japan was far from beaten.

[Botellines 0]

Agreed, but why do you think ocuppying mainland japan was necesary?

To win a war you do not need to either use nukes or a standard occupation, there is other options. My guess is that having lost good part of the air force and the navy their ability to succesfully attack the U.S would be slim. On top of that, you still would have the nukes to use it on any boat that tries to cross the pacific. I very much doubt there would be civilians on a war ship.

I think other option weighted heavily on the decision like testing the effects of the nukes in population.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I think other option weighted heavily on the decision like testing the effects of the nukes in population.

Why does this not surprise me?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[markd_nscr986 0]

Yes..........it was worth it..........

I commemorated the occasion by watching
Tora Tora Tora

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[juanesky 0]

It doesn't surprise me either.....all his "expert" advice

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[juanesky 0]

And I did a barbecue!!!!

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Quote

I think other option weighted heavily on the decision like testing the effects of the nukes in population.

Why does this not surprise me?

So let me get this straight - we lose 3000 civilians in a terrorist attack and that's unacceptable (we agree there). BUT "74.000 killed. 75.000 wounded" (Don't know if those are the real numbers) are acceptable civilian losses because they are of another nationality or because we were at war with them? Somehow I don't think you'd be singing the same tune if you were from Japan OR if they'd struck here first (civilian nuclear attack I mean). Do unto others....

Did the action have the desired result: Yes
Was it worth the price of our souls: No

IMO, civilian attacks (intentional) of any kind be it terrorism/war/whatever are unacceptable and cowardly. Yes, maybe it's a bit naive, but morally I have no doubt it's right.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[wmw999 2,178]

In hindsight, dunno, probably not. That's a huge cost in people.

At the time, it probably seemed like the best option, particularly to save American lives. And war is about saving your own side's lives.

We know more now about what the Japanese had left than we did then.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

why do you think ocuppying mainland japan was necesary?

A fair question I suppose.

Lets look at the situation as a whole. Japan was occupying large swaths of China. Approx 200,000 civilians were dieing per week in this area. They also occupied large areas of the British Empire in the east although this was rapidly being recovered during fierce jungle fighting with the British and Indian armies. There were also more than half a million westerner civilians interned in Japanese camps who were dieing at a significant rate, not to mention the many thousands of military prisoners who were also dieing off rapidly.

This all meant winning the war quickly was of concern (and that's before you even get into the financial cost of running a world war). Therefore simply fighting our way up the coast of china and destroying the Japanese army in Asia over the next year or two while we waited out the starvation of mainland Japan was not exactly a practicable proposition... hell it might never have happened at all.

Besides which, we have to consider the domestic political situation within Japan. While it is true that certain civilian members of the wartime government wished to sue for peace and indeed made covert moves towards contacting the Allies in this respect, the government as a whole was dominated by a significant militaristic faction.

The military as a whole was completely opposed to any idea of surrender and the exerted a significant amount of power within Japan. Remember it was only 50 years since the Maji restoration when Japan was an entirely feudal, military ruled nation. The government simply didn't wish to surrender and wouldn't have done without a major trigger.

It took the bombs before this state of affairs moved on, and then only after direct intervention from the Emperor. If the bombs had not fallen the only other thing which could have precipitated the mustering of enough domestic political will to surrender would have been the wholesale occupation of a large proportion of Japan. Japan simply didn't believe that could happen. They believed the Kamikaze would save them again as it had from the Mongols centuries before. They were probably right to a good degree, any invasion attempt would have been exceptionally bloody.

Now remember that a full mainland invasion wasn't even scheduled till March 1946 and even this date was dependant first on the successful invasion of the southern island tip during the winter of 1945.

We can therefore see that if you remove the bombs from the equation you have a Japan that does not want to surrender, does not believe it can be defeated on home soil, and is currently killing millions while we wait. That is why a swift invasion of Japanese soil was necessary without the bombs.

There are many arguments against the use of Fat-Man and Little-Boy, but I'm affraid that the contention that Japan was defeated and there was no need to invade certainly aren't among them.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

To win a war you do not need to either use nukes or a standard occupation, there is other options. My guess is that having lost good part of the air force and the navy their ability to succesfully attack the U.S would be slim. On top of that, you still would have the nukes to use it on any boat that tries to cross the pacific. I very much doubt there would be civilians on a war ship.

I think other option weighted heavily on the decision like testing the effects of the nukes in population.

It's an extremely arrogant position that you are taking. It's 60 fucking years later. Was it really necessary for Americans to invade the Northern coast of France on June 6, 1944? Jeez. The Russians had the eastern front well sealed and the southern front was doing pretty well, too. All we had to do was starve them out of existence via blockade for a few months instead of those bloody battles.

Like it or not, the rules of war are different now, okay? Back then, the atomic bomb was regarded as no different than a conventional bomb of extraordinary power. Only looking at it through an historical perspective - a perspective that was unavailable to the decision makers at the time - allows such commentary and questioning of past acts.

"Oh, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unnecessary." Yeah, so was the attack on Pearl Harbor. My guess is that it was viewed by Japan that the US, "having lost good part of the air force and the navy their ability to succesfully attack the [Japan] would be slim." Wait a second!!! The US was all but defeated in the Pacific by December 8, 1941. There's no way in the world the US could bounce back from such an attack.

Same with Japan. You do battle until the enemy is neutralized. How do you kill an enemy? The preferred way is with air bombing because there is less risk of large-scale death by your troops. THen there's artillery. Then there's direct fire. The last gasp is hand-to-hand. Why? Because you take a lot of casualties that way.

Quit this shit about, "It was unnecessary." Yeah, from our modern perspective and modern airland battle doctrines it was. The fact that we have such superior intelligence on the basis of satellites, etc., also would let us know what Japan's capabilites were.

I note with interest that people fail to remember the horrors surrounding the night of February 23-24, 1945. Google "Tokyo firebombing" and see what comes up. Over 100k dead in one night, and about 20 square miles of city destroyed. People don't seem to say, "Was that really necessary?" Why not? Because conventional bombs were used, and I gues those 100k in Tokyo suffered much less painful incinerations than those in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Oh, yeah, just a week and a half prior, Dresden, Germany was laid waste. 8 months after D-day. Was this really "necessary?" Under modern rules of war, it is not only unnecessary but a crime. Good arguments remain that it was criminal back then, too. But, the attack was based upon intelligence that Germany could move a half million men to the eastern front, and therefore all steps would have to be taken to destroy oil production centers, i.e., Dresden, Berlin, Leipzig.

Look, the United States suffered 400,000 deaths in about 3 1/2 years. 200k of that came in the Pacific theater. Truman, when he decided to use the weapons, wanted to shorten the war by destruction and fear.

Don't you recall July 26, 1945 at Potsdam? That's when Truman offered an ultimatum to Japan to surrender now or suffer, "prompt and utter destruction." Japan promptly rejected it. I guess that in Japan's mind, the war was still winnable.

Quit this post hoc reasoning.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Botellines 0]

Quote

It doesn't surprise me either.....all his "expert" advice

Hey dude, Too long without reading your words of wisdom... I guess i will have to keep waiting.

I can tell that PeacefulJeffrey is not around because you don´t copy paste anymore his long pozts. I wish your posts were a bit longer and they added something to the thread. Oh well...

Note: I have intentionally left some words misspelled so you can easily add something to the discussion. You are welcomed.

[Botellines 0]

Quote

And I did a barbecue!!!!

No class. That is very poor taste. I know that those people dieing had odd looking eyes, but they were still innocent people.

When i read your post i thought about those extremist muslims dancing in the streets the 9/11. And i thought that you would look kinda cute with a turban and a robe.

[Botellines 0]

Both of you give very good points, but i am not argueing wether it was convenient, useful or desirable, what i am arguing was wether it was necesary.

If as you said it was necesary and inevitable, why not drop the nuke wherever the emperor and the government were. Hell, with a nuke you don´t even need to aim. Yes, granted a lot of civilians would have died, but possible a second nuke would not have been necesary.
Why didn´t you guys dropped the bomb over military targets? Even if civilians would have died anyway.
You say hindsight is 20/20, but you are using that to justify the bombs. At the time you were not certain that 2 bombs would be enough, maybe you would have had to build more, so why not strike military targets rather than civilians, that would have helped the war effort if the japanese were more stubborn than what they really were.

It is not the use of nukes what troubles me the most, but the target of innocent civilians.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Now those are more valid as arguments. You should try to focus on and expand those and abandon any which don't hold water.

[juanesky 0]

I guess it is ok for you to make a personal attack, since Billvon will back you up.


Perhaps that if you actually read history, and understand the facts, and don't let your hatred toward the US cloud your vision, you could probably assess or grasp a better understanding of things that clearly skip your knowledge.

WTF is your comment about me with a towel on my head and a robe is about?

Are you disguising sexual fantasies with other men???

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Steel 0]

Quote

And I did a barbecue!!!!

that sounds like a good idea. My girlfriend wants to have a barbecue to get some people together. We can specify the barbecue to celebrate Nagazaki and Heroshima.
Party on all!!!

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Both of you give very good points, but i am not argueing wether it was convenient, useful or desirable, what i am arguing was wether it was necesary.

If as you said it was necesary and inevitable, why not drop the nuke wherever the emperor and the government were. Hell, with a nuke you don´t even need to aim. Yes, granted a lot of civilians would have died, but possible a second nuke would not have been necesary.
Why didn´t you guys dropped the bomb over military targets? Even if civilians would have died anyway.
You say hindsight is 20/20, but you are using that to justify the bombs. At the time you were not certain that 2 bombs would be enough, maybe you would have had to build more, so why not strike military targets rather than civilians, that would have helped the war effort if the japanese were more stubborn than what they really were.

It is not the use of nukes what troubles me the most, but the target of innocent civilians.

Why is it that you don't even acknowledge lawrocket's comment about the Feb 1945 bombing? you don't sound pissed off at that, nor the fact that the Japanese were committing Genocide, and atrocities to CIVILIANS in their occupied territories? Still to this day they will deny these facts, and won't make a single apology towards that end.

The A-bomb was not necessary for Spain, but it was for the US and its allies....

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[aftermid 0]

I tend to take a much more pacifistic view on most issues and don't claim to be any kind of historical expert, but I'll chime in with my two cents.

Unfortunately, nothing less then pure annihilation was necessary to defeat Japan in WWII. Japan was not ruled by a leader but instead a divinely recognized God under the Shinto faith. God's have a way of rationalizing a lot of excuses and justifications. Part of the final surrender was Hirohito renouncing his divinity.

Does it make killing thousands of civilians justified? Unfortunately, Japan was reluctant to surrender after Hiroshima. Gods have a strange way of looking at things.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

what i am arguing was wether it was necesary.

In the scheme of things, NOTHING is necessary. It was not "necessary" for the US to declare war on Japan. It was not "necessary" to have a Pacific fleet. It was not "necessary" to take Iwo Jima. It was not "necessary" to bomb Tokyo. It was not "necessary" do any of these things unless the US wanted to win the war.

The threshhold question is whether it was "necessary" to win the war. If you answer "no" then none of this was "necessary." If you answer "yes" then you now begin to analyze what was and was not "necessary." You are dramatically oversimplifying an issue for which thousands of volumes have been written attempting to analyze it.

Quote

Why didn´t you guys dropped the bomb over military targets?

The US did. Hiroshima had a tremendous military significance. The headquarters for Japan's southern defense was there. It was also a hub for military logistics. A huge percentage of the city's population was conscripted into the military. Hiroshima was one of the strongpoints of planned resistance to an American occupation.

Hiroshima also had escaped pretty much unscathed from other bombings, and thus could provide a pretty good assessment of the destructive power of the A-bomb - not just from a scientific point of view but also from a pragmatic and propoganda point of view.

Nagasaki was also a wartime target. It's great military importance was as a port and a production center for ships, ordnance and other military materials. Knocking out supply and logistics support has the side effect of knocking out frontline warfighting capabilites.

Unlike Hiroshima, Nagasaki did have some conventional bombing about a week before. This resulted in the evacuation of children from the city. Both cities were military targets.

Quote

It is not the use of nukes what troubles me the most, but the target of innocent civilians.

As well it should. And America seems to have learned that lesson with the use of precision guided munitions. Hell, we even took 90mm recoilless rifles out of mothballs for Panama to precision target snipers without blowing whole buildings up (note that it was also because TOW missiles may be ineffective in MOUT operations due to the 300 yard arming distance).

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

I know that those people dieing had odd looking eyes, but they were still innocent people.

Holy crap, those people had odd looking eyes. I missed that in the history books. We should have dropped at least ten more a-bombs. Slanty eyes are almost as bad as people with black curly hair and big noses, and worse yet people with towels on their heads.

Anyway as far as my $.02 goes, WWII was a completely different era and type of war than those we fight today. Now we have to take in affect the mass slaughter of the jews and the chinese that were going on at that time, as well as all the countries that had been invaded. Civilian casualties were actually a goal of our enemies, there was no regard whatsoever to human life by these sides. The US would stand no chance in ever ending this war if it refused to drop a bomb because of civilian casualties in it's opposing countries. I still don't think it was ever the goal of the US to slaughter innocent lives, but to stop a superpower like japan we had to hit them where it hurt. Plus keep in mind we didn't have the intelligence back then that we have today. I don't think we had satellites that could point out right where their leader was or where all their military forces may be hiding. Our supplies were limited at the time and our strategy was to scare the shit out of em. According to Lawrocket's last post, these cities did have military interest, also keep in mind that the total Japanese lives that we were responsible for was nothing compared to the number of innocent chinese they had been killing, and we were able to put a stop to that. If you want to weigh it out we may have killed over 100,000 japs but this prevented them from killing maybe half a million or more Chinese (these numbers are just a guess) and God knows how many of our forces if we would have just done a ground invasion. As fantastic as the idea seems to hit only military targets and never civilians, it's just not realistic and we can't continue to blame the US for everything. Why shouldn't Japan and other countries take responsibility for their own civilian deaths because they brought it on themselves, instead of the usual anti-American copout used throughout history by them and people like you.

[billvon 2,476]

>So let me get this straight - we lose 3000 civilians in a terrorist
> attack and that's unacceptable (we agree there). BUT "74.000 killed.
> 75.000 wounded" (Don't know if those are the real numbers) are
> acceptable civilian losses because they are of another nationality . . .

Basically yes. BTW the total death toll for both bombings are generally taken to be about 350,000. Will never be known for certain, of course, since so many people were completely vaporized.

Ever since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we've been trying to reconcile this in our heads. Many US citizens consider the US to be "the good guys," that our moral leadership is a shining example to the blah blah blah. They want to believe it badly, because much of their own self-worth is tied up in being on the good guys side. After all, most american war movied have a good side and a bad side, and the good side always wins. Such a thing is hammered into us from kindergarten onwards - share your cookies. The good guy wins in the end. The coward, the bully, the villian always gets what he deserves.

But the world's not like that. In many cases the bully wins, because he's bigger and beats the crap out of people until they decide that they _like_ the bully and that he's really the good guy. That way their moral qualms are abated and they can again claim to be on the 'good' side - and they don't get the crap beat out of them any more. Machiavelli had a lot to say on this topic.

In the end, we're no different than any other group or country who is threatened. If we're threatened enough we will do whatever it takes to defend ourselves. If we have nukes we will use them. If we don't, we'd use conventional forces. If we didn't have them, we'd be driving suicide bombs into malls. Not because of any moral issue, but because that's what we would have to do to win.