The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[All Else Failed]

The allies wiped out several cities in both Europe and Japan with carpet bombing during the war. How was using nukes any different from that?

its all terrorism.

 

[Pudding Time]

The allies wiped out several cities in both Europe and Japan with carpet bombing during the war. How was using nukes any different from that?

Nukes shouldn't be used, period.

And blanket bombing is not any better. When no attempt is made to avoid civilian casualties, it then becomes a shameful act in which some may call, murder.

 

[MikeMarx]

Yes. I think it was justified because they didn't have Nuclear Weapons at the time. :-\

The invasion of mainland Japan would've cost thousands upon thousands of U.S. casualties, and would've hurt us in the eventual stand off with Russia.

 

[IntruderLS1]

I say that drop was 100% justified. For several reasons.

1. Japan wasn't as badly injured as we thought. They had hoarded a massive military presence on Honshu (sp?) and were well prepared for the invasion.

2. The studies that I've read estimated approximately 1,000,000 casualties from a traditional invasion / occupation.

3. The fire bombings did exponentially more damage than the nuke, but killed much more painfully. The nuke at least is swift.

4. The technology didn't exist to use precision bombing techniques that we have today. The only way to defeat an industrialized nation was to destroy the industry (AKA cities)

5. The Japanese had (and in the business sense still have) a reputation for double talk and manipulation. No offer of conditional surrender could be reasonably acceptable.

6. The nuke saved lives (probably millions)

7. The drop ended Jo Stalin's idea that maybe the West was worth taking a grab at.

I could probably go on, but there is enough here for you guys to argue with for awhile.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Capt. Ramsey: You do qualify your remarks. If someone asked me if we should bomb Japan, a simple "Yes." By all means sir, drop that fucker, twice!

 

[skyblue]

the bombs on japan weren't to defeat japan.......they we're already on they're knees.......they we're dropped to stop the red army which was marching south through china

 

[Pudding Time]

The nuke at least is swift.

You got to be kidding me!


This is not what I'd call "swift".

Damage of Radiation​

The special characteristic of an atomic bomb is nuclear radiation, something which conventional weapons never produce. The radiation inflicts severe injuries on the human body. The radiation from the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima affected those within two to three kilometers of the hypocenter, and especially those within 900 meters, who received life-threatening doses. Many of them died within a few days.
The tremendous fire that burned downtown caused intense firestorms and whirlwinds. Within 20 to 30 minutes, a heavy black rain began falling in areas to the northwest. This rain contained large amounts of radioactive soot and dust, thus contaminating areas far from the hypocenter. It is said that fish died in ponds and rivers, and people who drank well water suffered from diarrhea for about 3 months. After the explosion, high levels of residual radiation remained on the ground for an extended period. Many who did not directly experience the bomb were affected.​

++The Danger of Radiation++​

The radiation caused alterations in the blood, destroyed the bone marrow's ability to produce blood and also seriously damaged the liver and other internal organs. Numerous people sustained fatal injuries as a result.
Within about 2 kilometers of the hypocenter, high-levels of residual radioactivity remained on the ground for about 2 weeks after the actual explosion. Therefore, some who came to the area soon afterwards developed symptoms of radiation sickness and died.​

++Lost Hair++​

Hiroko (then 18) and her six-year old brother were on the first floor of their home, only 800 meters from ground zero, when the bomb's blast wrecked the house. They managed to get outside the house. She had thirty-seven injuries, but her little brother was hardly hurt at all. Her brother remained healthy and active until August 21, when suddenly his temperature rose rapidly.
Most of his hair came out and sometime later, convulsed with vomiting, her little brother died. Not long afterward, the mother was combing Hiroko's hair, and it too came out easily. At the time people often said that the loss of hair meant death was near. Hiroko resigned herself to the same fate as her brother. But Hiroko made a remarkable recovery. Gradually her hair grew back. Though she still suffered some atomic aftereffects, she was married in 1947.
She had to have several surgical operations. But she tries always to live courageously, saying, "I must do my best to make up for my brother's short life."​

++Black Rain++​

From around 9 a.m. black rain covered a wide area from the hypocenter to the north-west. It rained heavily for one hour or more in some areas. Since the rain contained a lot of black soot which was produced by the terrific sea of fire, it was called "black rain", oily and sticky. Furthermore, it contained radioactive elements produced by the fission of uranium. Exposed to the rain, many people developed symptoms of the atomic bomb diseases and died.​

++Suffering from the aftereffect++​

Radiation caused serious effects on human bodies not only just after the bombing, but for a long period of time since then. The long-term suffering is known as a characteristic of the aftereffect of an atomic bomb. It is not thoroughly clear, over 50 after the bombing , what long-term effects radiation taken into human bodies brings about as the time passes on. Leukemia, cancer or various diseases have developed two or three years or even ten years after the explosion. Their health has been damaged even now.​

++Keloids of a Girl's Arm++​

The heat rays of the atomic bomb struck the human body and produced burns. At the same time, radioactivity injured the inner tissues of the skin and formed keloids on the surface of the skin. After seeming to heal, the scars left by the burns swelled up. This type of swelling is called a keloid. Most keloids developed in 1946 and 1947, and most commonly in teenagers. At present, most keloids have flattened out but are still recognizable as scars.​

++In-utero Exposure (microcephaly)++​

The A-bomb had serious effects on fetuses. Many were stillborn, and exposed fetuses born alive had higher infant mortality rates than other children.​

In-utero survivors also suffered an increased incidence of microcephaly, a syndrome characterized by an abnormally small skull, accompanied in severe cases by mental retardation.​

 

[Pudding Time]

Here's a good perspective from Leo Szilard. (Responsible for the creation of the Manhattan Project)

"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"

 

[debbie t]

both skyblues reply and mine show that the history we are taught says that japan was indeed on its knees ,japans only prerequesite for surrender was that the emperor was still in state

hiroshima was chosen because of weather conditions on the day and its geographic contours.

yes ,we are indeed ashamed here of the firestorms in dresden etc

Engand has out grown its empire and realised the hooror it was built upon ,has America?

One bomb was strategically good as it reduced the number of (US) casualties and stopped the potential soviet advance (no evidence that they wanted global domination)

second bomb was of a different design and needed testing what better way?

If pre-emptive strike is a valid reason for nuclear strikes then god help the us if iraq or iran etc get them..(are you saying they would be justifird in nuking us)

The nuclear holocaust from both bombs has not yet ended people still die horribly

Death by nuclear bomb
.......................................1 dead
.......................................2 hair teeth fall out blindness deafness and the living flesh rot and falls from the screaming survivors
.......................................3 Cancer lukemia and more for 60 years and more to come

 

[All Else Failed]

I say that drop was 100% justified. For several reasons.

1. Japan wasn't as badly injured as we thought. They had hoarded a massive military presence on Honshu (sp?) and were well prepared for the invasion.

2. The studies that I've read estimated approximately 1,000,000 casualties from a traditional invasion / occupation.

3. The fire bombings did exponentially more damage than the nuke, but killed much more painfully. The nuke at least is swift.

4. The technology didn't exist to use precision bombing techniques that we have today. The only way to defeat an industrialized nation was to destroy the industry (AKA cities)

5. The Japanese had (and in the business sense still have) a reputation for double talk and manipulation. No offer of conditional surrender could be reasonably acceptable.

6. The nuke saved lives (probably millions)

7. The drop ended Jo Stalin's idea that maybe the West was worth taking a grab at.

I could probably go on, but there is enough here for you guys to argue with for awhile.

So you support terrorism when its directed at anyone else, then?

 

[IntruderLS1]

You got to be kidding me!

This is not what I'd call "swift".

Any survivor of any major injury is going to produce imagas like that. I'm not going to, but I could post for you images from car accidents, gunshot survivors, fall victums, etc... Let's not turn this into a propaganda war.

Here's a good perspective from Leo Szilard.

"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"

Mr. Szilard made an excellent observation here. As long as we're playing imagination though, why must we assume that Germany would have lost the war had they created two bombs. They wouldn't have used it on Manchester and Buffalo, it would have been London and York. England surrenders. The U.S. loses it's primary staging base, and must now work through Africa. German can turn all her power on Russia and push the Reds back to Russia where they would undoubtedly end up in truce. Germany begins rule of the 1000 year Reich as the leader of the whole European continent.

both skyblues reply and mine show that the history we are taught says that japan was indeed on its knees ,japans only prerequesite for surrender was that the emperor was still in state

hiroshima was chosen because of weather conditions on the day and its geographic contours.

Japan had lost the ability to wage global war. That is true. But what most people don't know is that Japan spent the last several years prepairing for invasion of the mainland. They had secretly squirrled away a massive amount of equipment that we didn't know about. Our estimates of 1 million souls lost didn't take into account Japans hidden military resources.

I address earlier the "why" we couldn't simply accept their conditional surrender.

second bomb was of a different design and needed testing what better way?

It was more than a test. If all we wanted to do was test detonate, we would have done it in the American south west like we did before. We didn't have the materials to make more immediatly. It was a gamble and projection of force in the hopes of deception, but it worked. Japan surrendered.

If pre-emptive strike is a valid reason for nuclear strikes then god help the us if iraq or iran etc get them..(are you saying they would be justifird in nuking us)

We did not pre-emptivly strike with the nukes. Japan pre-emptivly struck America using conventional means, which brought us into conflict. I don't think the word "preemptive" can be fairly used by any stretch.

The nuclear holocaust from both bombs has not yet ended people still die horribly

In our defense, we didn't know that at the time. But if you take all those deaths from then until now, it is still a fraction of the number of lives that would have been required on both sides had we invaded.

The Japanese culture stood the potential to be completely destroyed by invasion. They fought for honor, and the mother island would be defended almost to the last man.

I could post them, but why doesn't everybody here look up the casualty numbers for the invasions accomplished during our island hopping campaign. Take those numbers, multiply them by thousands, and you start to get a pretty clear picture of what the alternative was.

So you support terrorism when its directed at anyone else, then?

Whatever.

 

[Pudding Time]

Any survivor of any major injury is going to produce imagas like that. I'm not going to, but I could post for you images from car accidents, gunshot survivors, fall victums, etc... Let's not turn this into a propaganda war.

WTF?!?!?!

I can't believe you just posted that. You just lost ABSOLUTELY any credibility I thought you may have had. And if anyone else has half a brain, then they should think the exact same.

The aftermath of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings are well documented, and international recognized.


:willy_nilly:

Mr. Szilard made an excellent observation here. As long as we're playing imagination though, why must we assume that Germany would have lost the war had they created two bombs. They wouldn't have used it on Manchester and Buffalo, it would have been London and York. England surrenders. The U.S. loses it's primary staging base, and must now work through Africa. German can turn all her power on Russia and push the Reds back to Russia where they would undoubtedly end up in truce. Germany begins rule of the 1000 year Reich as the leader of the whole European continent.

You completely missed the point.

 

[IntruderLS1]

WTF?!?!?!

I can't believe you just posted that. You just lost ABSOLUTELY any credibility I thought you may have had. And if anyone else has half a brain, then they should think the exact same.

The aftermath of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings are well documented, and international recognized.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I have no mis-comception that there are not people suffering with the after effects of those bombs. I'm not sure why you're so upset. I think you're reading something more into my post than is there.

You completely missed the point.

No I didn't miss the point. His point was that if our situations were reversed, we would have said it was a terrible thing to do. Double standard type thing. It was a good point. Like I said.

It was taking things into imagination though, that logically wouldn't have moved in that direction. I tried to paint a more accurate picture of the idea in question.

 

[Pudding Time]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I have no mis-comception that there are not people suffering with the after effects of those bombs. I'm not sure why you're so upset. I think you're reading something more into my post than is there.

Then why call it propaganda?

No I didn't miss the point. His point was that if our situations were reversed, we would have said it was a terrible thing to do. Double standard type thing. It was a good point. Like I said.

It was taking things into imagination though, that logically wouldn't have moved in that direction. I tried to paint a more accurate picture of the idea in question.

What's the point of taking the imagination point of view?

Maybe if Hilter used a nuke on the Russians and they surrended, they could have had enough resources, and man power to defeat the Allied Forces?

Or maybe the Russians would have joined the Germans out of fear of the nuke?

Who the hell knows what could have happend? Leó Szilárd was an extremely intelligent man who was very involved in WWII, I'm sure he knew what he was talking about.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Another thread made me think of this. Do you think we were justified in dropping the A-Bombs on Japan to end WWII? Why or why not?

I've always been torn on this subject.

*backstory*

On mustang forums you had some serious hate for Japanese vehicles due to their bombing our pearl harbor. Military installations being attacked, by the military, I can understand.

What we did was apalling. We blew up two cities with the most powerful bombs in our arsenal at the time.

Innocent women.

Innocent children.

Vanished.

HOWEVER, in their cities they had their war factories. Tanks, boats, weaponry, etc.

The japanese fight to the death, they aren't the french. They volunteer for kamikazee missions for petes sake.

After we dropped the first bomb, they kept fighting. After number 2 they finally surrendered to us.

Had we invaded the mainland, we would have lost thousands more of our boys due to the Japanese fighting to the death.

So my point of view here is. We did the right thing for the US's interest, but we did the wrong thing in human interest.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

I've always been torn on this subject.

*backstory*

On mustang forums you had some serious hate for Japanese vehicles due to their bombing our pearl harbor. Military installations being attacked, by the military, I can understand.

What we did was apalling. We blew up two cities with the most powerful bombs in our arsenal at the time.

Innocent women.

Innocent children.

Vanished.

HOWEVER, in their cities they had their war factories. Tanks, boats, weaponry, etc.

The japanese fight to the death, they aren't the french. They volunteer for kamikazee missions for petes sake.

After we dropped the first bomb, they kept fighting. After number 2 they finally surrendered to us.

Had we invaded the mainland, we would have lost thousands more of our boys due to the Japanese fighting to the death.

So my point of view here is. We did the right thing for the US's interest, but we did the wrong thing in human interest.

That was very well put together James, a little of both viewpoints, good stuff.:clap

Rep delivered

 

[IntruderLS1]

Then why call it propaganda?

Oh, THAT'S the problem. My bad. Poor choice of words. I was using the word to describe the use of pictures to invoke emotional rather than rational response.

When dealing with questions of such enormous emotional magnitude, I find that it is much easier to find the right answer by using logic and numbers vs. what I ... "feel" about it.

Nobody likes the idea of what happened. You and I agree that it was terrible that it came to that.

We just disagree on weather or not it was a justified decision. To you, it wasn't. To me, I look at the numbers, and the history of the situation, and I think it was necessary.

No point in us fighting over it 70 years later.

What's the point of taking the imagination point of view?

Maybe if Hilter used a nuke on the Russians and they surrended, they could have had enough resources, and man power to defeat the Allied Forces?

Or maybe the Russians would have joined the Germans out of fear of the nuke?

Who the hell knows what could have happend? Leó Szilárd was an extremely intelligent man who was very involved in WWII, I'm sure he knew what he was talking about.

I agree that Mr. Szilard was a brilliant physicist. I don't know a lot about the man. I didn't even know that Einsteins letter was penned by him until today.

His technical expertise does not make him any more an authority on the ethics of the question than you and I are. His point is well thought out and well presented.

The only problem I had with it was the fictional history he built his premise on was out of step with the way I think things would have gone down. Had Germany gotten the bomb first, Brittan would not have been able to resist. Had Japan gotten the bomb, the U.S. would have lost the nerve to make war.

It was going to be used no matter what. I personally feel that the world is better off with the U.S. having used it than Germany or Japan. That is a personal opinion of course, but one that I feel is well organized and backed by historical reference and trend.

I've always been torn on this subject.

*backstory*
... ...

Well said James. :cool

 

[Pudding Time]

Intruder... Credibility reinstated

I understand that we just don't see eye to eye. And you point out quite nicely why that is. Thanks for your input.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Intruder... Credibility reinstated

I understand that we just don't see eye to eye. And you point out quite nicely why that is. Thanks for your input.

Did that just happen?

What about all the hours dedicated by each side to petty bickering, followed by name calling and the stomping of feet?

I think we just had an adult disagreement on the internet!! :eek


(Well done sir. Rare, but well done.)

 

[TheOriginalJames]

*fires the starting gun*

and we're off!