Was the use of the Atomic Bomb on a city wrong??

[Amazon 7]

Another thread made me think of how the world views the USA for actually being the first country to use an atomic weapon on a City.

Personally after the things that were occurring to civilians all over the world and the atrocities committed by many countries. I think it was warrented to bring the war to an end as quickly as possible.

People were tired of war and losing their loved ones.

That said.. I believe that future generations will judge our forfathers harshly for not using it on a non populated area instead of on our fellow human beings.

What do you think

[willard 0]

I hate to admit it, but I agree with your opinion on this 100%.

Fuck.

[BillyVance 34]

Simply put, the U.S. decided to drop the A bomb on the two Japanese cities because:

The Japanese military was prepared to defend their country to the last man.

It would have been a prohibitive land invasion, costing thousands and thousands of US lives.

Also, the Japanese were hell bent on taking over their half of the world along with Germany taking the other half.

Fortunately, we did not use the A bomb on Germany because we along with the Russians were already in-country and winning that war.

Without the A bombs dropped on Japan, I dare say WWII would have gone on for another year or two and American casualties would have increased by 50% of the total casualties in the entire war on both fronts. Of course, I'm just guessing.

So no, it wasn't wrong. It wasn't right either. It was simply necessary.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[nigel99 143]

I haven't voted cause I think your poll options are to stark/controversial.

As a Non-american I may feel that the US commits war crimes (I don't know enough about the 2nd world war to have feelings either way). Iraq is a good current example of US war crimes. However under no circumstance would I feel that a US city deserves being bombed (Bush on trial - even facing execution Saddam style is a completely different situation.

Similarly I would say that the objective of war is not to kill the enemy but to get your own way - death & injury is a cost not an objective.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

I haven't voted cause I think your poll options are to stark/controversial.

They are some doozies.

Maybe people could just vote Yes or No, ignoring the inflammatory comments.

[Darius11 12]

I think considering these facts.

We knew the devastation the bombs would cause, and we picked populated cities where we knew we would kill men, woman and children in the hundreds of thousands. There is no question it was ethically the wrong move and the low road to take.

However it was the right move for the US.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

We knew the devastation the bombs would cause, and we picked populated cities where we knew we would kill men, woman and children in the hundreds of thousands.

We knew no such thing. The Los Alamos test indicated the power of the bomb (though 20kt is exceeded by conventional weapons now), but more Japanese died from radiation sickness and that wasn't known until afterwards.

WW2 was a total war, where no one came out looking like angels. Esp not the Germans and Japanese.

[chuteless 1]

There has been numerous documentaries that stated that the USA wanted to "test" the bomb on humans, so they coukld be ready if someone used such a device on the USA. I believe it. It was an immoral act, and since then, the USA has been committing many other immoral acts as well.

Bush said last week, Hell, Yes, if we know sopmeone has information that would save American lives, we would resort to any means to get that info.

That is exactly what Hitler said of his Gestapo, and their torture was well known. It was to give the Germans a preparedness...so torture was okay with Hitler....just as it is with Bush and Cheney.

The USA will get their payback ....two cities....two bombs in the hands of Al Qaeda.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I haven't voted cause I think your poll options are to stark/controversial.

I put nothing in there that I have not seen on foreign websites....and not even the radical ones

[AWL71 0]

"The USA will get their payback ....two cities....two bombs in the hands of Al Qaeda."
________________________________________________


That is quite a nugget of information you have there. Care to elaborate or have you been reading the works of Nostradamus?

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[kallend 1,620]

Quote

We knew no such thing. The Los Alamos test indicated the power of the bomb (though 20kt is exceeded by conventional weapons now), but more Japanese died from radiation sickness and that wasn't known until afterwards.

.

What wasn't known until afterwards? By 1945 radiation sickness had been known for a long time. At least one Los Alamos worker, Harry K. Daghlian, Jr died from radiation exposure prior to the bombings. The Manhattan Project even made estimates of the likely death toll from radiation vs other causes.

BTW, which conventional weapon exceeds 20kT?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

BTW, which conventional weapon exceeds 20kT?

I was wondering about that... the MOOB? (Mother Of All Bombs) or the Daisy Cutter?

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[shropshire 0]

>

No, but they came out far richer than they went in.

The U.K, on the otherhand has only just finished paying for it (in finacial terms) and has lost it's manufactuering base since... and to whom? Yeap, you guessed it. Thanks World

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kallend 1,620]

Quote

Quote

BTW, which conventional weapon exceeds 20kT?

I was wondering about that... the MOOB? (Mother Of All Bombs) or the Daisy Cutter?

No, the MOAB is 11 tons of TNT equivalent, whereas the Hiroshima "Little Boy" was equivalent to 13,000 tons of TNT

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kris 0]

Quote

No, the MOAB is 11 tons of TNT equivalent, whereas the Hiroshima "Little Boy" was equivalent to 13,000 tons of TNT

Correct. The largest conventional right now is the Russian FOAB at 44T of destructive power, utilizing 7.8T of high-yield nanotech explosive to get there.

Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and
Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™

[lawrocket 3]

I can't answer your poll. The closest answer I can come up with "It is wrong to use WMD's against civilians, but it was not wrong to do so at the time."

WWII consisted of atrocities on all sides. The firebombing of Tokyo may have killed more people than Hiroshima. Dresden was leveled. Over 300,000 German civilians were killed by Allied bombing during WWII - some estimates are well over a half million.

At the time, civilians were considered a legitimate target in wartime. Note Truman's Potsdam Declaration, part of which said:

Quote

We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

and

Quote

"...The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland..."

This was not something people thought twice about. It was the way things were.

The atomic bomb, at the time, was considered to be nothing more than a hugely explosive bomb.

The ethos and morals of society change with time. Post hoc rationalization, etc., must be taken with a grain of salt considering what was known at the time: 1) there is this new weapon; 2) it's supposed to be tremendously explosive; 3) we only had three of them - one uranium type and two plutonium type; 4) we were testing the plutonium type, so we only had two left; 5) they'd already shipped the first weapon before the first test was conducted; and 6) the Japanese were not interested in unconditional surrender.

On the day the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Truman addressed the US:

Quote

"We are now prepared to obliterate rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have ... It was to spare the Japanese from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on earth."

Today, we don't obliterate a country and its people. We don't leave glass parking lots. It's a different time with a different ethos.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[NCclimber 0]

For those of you who said the US was wrong for bombing cities, what would you have done instead?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The largest conventional right now is the Russian FOAB at 44T of destructive power, utilizing 7.8T of high-yield nanotech explosive to get there.

Would you provide a link to substantiate this, particularly the "nanotechnology"-enabled portion?

I've been looking for a robust confirmation since the alleged test announced on 11 Sept 2007 by General Rukshin on Russian tv.

Has John Pike's analysis been discredited? (http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/10/russian_bomb?currentPage=1)

I would agree that the most likely application would be nano-engineered propellants or initiators (function of surface area of nanoscale materials).

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Quote

Quote

We knew the devastation the bombs would cause, and we picked populated cities where we knew we would kill men, woman and children in the hundreds of thousands.

We knew no such thing. The Los Alamos test indicated the power of the bomb (though 20kt is exceeded by conventional weapons now), but more Japanese died from radiation sickness and that wasn't known until afterwards.

No, I think you are wrong. The affects were known.

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

• Quote

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

For those of you who said the US was wrong for bombing cities, what would you have done instead?

One counterfactual (i.e., alternative notional historical scenario) is if the US had chosen to pursue a technical demonstration before use on Japanese mainland. (Mentioned here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2988169;#2988169)

A different counterfactual was suggested by historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, who has argued that the possibility/probability of invasion by Soviet Union was a greater factor in prompting the surrender of Japan … and suggested that Japan would have unconditionally surrendered before 15 Aug, when the Soviets indicated they would join the Pacific War. The Soviets broke the non-aggression pact attacking the Japanese in northeast China (nee Manchuria) btw the bombing of Hiroshima & Hirohito's surrender.

He examined records from Japanese cabinet meetings and diaries of government and military officials before and immediately after the atomic bomb drops that he asserted suggested the “shock of the [potential] Soviet invasion was felt much more strongly than the shock of the atomic bombing.”

Excerpts from Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan are available via Google books (http://books.google.com/books?id=iPju1MrqgU4C&dq=tsuyoshi+hasegawa&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=BRtyjFFQWi&sig=jHA83WogTUZkxIV0UdmzyHm8fbo) is a fascinating read for any one who likes reading military history or security stuff.

Article discussing Hasegawa’s work: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1543754,00.html

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Royd 0]

Quote

As a Non-american I may feel that the US commits war crimes (I don't know enough about the 2nd world war to have feelings either way).

You might want to study WW 2 history. You don't have to speak German.

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Quote

You might want to study WW 2 history. You don't have to speak German or Japanese.

Fixed it.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[Casurf1978 0]

Read up on how the Japanese defended the islands of Okinawa. More than 10,000 Americans died and over 1/3 of the islands population perished. This was for a small piece of land. Now lets talk about the mainland invasion of Japan. Our generals estimated that over ONE MILLION Americans would be killed or wounded and god knows how many civilians would also die. Also remember that the mainland was NEVER successfully invaded in Japan's entire history. We had the option to end the war in days not years and save hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.

[skycop 0]

The invasion of Japan would have cost MILLIONS of lives on both sides. Okinawa was the example of how mainland Japan would have fought, to the last man, woman and child. Revsionist history is just that, applying todays standards and values to this situation.
Lawrocket was right, the incendary bombing of Toyko caused more civilian casualties than Hiroshima.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[DJL 232]

Quote

Quote

For those of you who said the US was wrong for bombing cities, what would you have done instead?

One counterfactual (i.e., alternative notional historical scenario) is if the US had chosen to pursue a technical demonstration before use on Japanese mainland. (Mentioned here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2988169;#2988169)

A different counterfactual was suggested by historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, who has argued that the possibility/probability of invasion by Soviet Union was a greater factor in prompting the surrender of Japan … and suggested that Japan would have unconditionally surrendered before 15 Aug, when the Soviets indicated they would join the Pacific War. The Soviets broke the non-aggression pact attacking the Japanese in northeast China (nee Manchuria) btw the bombing of Hiroshima & Hirohito's surrender.

He examined records from Japanese cabinet meetings and diaries of government and military officials before and immediately after the atomic bomb drops that he asserted suggested the “shock of the [potential] Soviet invasion was felt much more strongly than the shock of the atomic bombing.”

Excerpts from Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan are available via Google books (http://books.google.com/books?id=iPju1MrqgU4C&dq=tsuyoshi+hasegawa&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=BRtyjFFQWi&sig=jHA83WogTUZkxIV0UdmzyHm8fbo) is a fascinating read for any one who likes reading military history or security stuff.

Article discussing Hasegawa’s work: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1543754,00.html

VR/Marg

That's something I'd be interested in reading up on. Just from my college Naval History courses on the Japanese vs. Russian exchanges I know that the Russians had a score to settle and were willing to do bad things. I think some of the most reavealing things to read would be intelligence reports on Russian intentions as we neared the end of WWII. We knew they were out for the land grab that Hitler denied them at the beginning of the conflict. There sat Russian ripe with the Lend-Lease armament we'd been pouring into them for 5 years on top of a demolished China, Japan, Europe, and Eurasia.The fact that we dropped a nuke on their doorstep shouldn't be a surprise.

I would love to see someone do a comparison on containing the USSR at the end of WWII and what the bomb did on one end vs what the Marshal Plan did at the other. We militarily shored up the East while economically securing the West.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher