Thread: Should the A-bomb Have Been Dropped

64 years after the 2 atomic bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima the historical debate continues, and will continue.

Was the dropping of the atomic bombs, necessary?

Here are the first of a series of articles I'll be posting.

But most importantly, it's over to the members.

What's your opinion?

Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The Fat Man mushroom cloud resulting from the nuclear explosion over Nagasaki rises 18 km (11 mi, 60,000 ft) into the air from the hypocenter.




The debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki concerns the United States’ atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 August and 9 August 1945, thus ending the Second World War (1939–45). The role of the bombings in achieving the Surrender of Japan (2 September 1945) and the United States’ ethical justification for them remains the subject of scholarly and popular debate. In April 2005, in an overview of recent historiography about this matter, J. Samuel Walker wrote that “the controversy over the use of the bomb seems certain to continue”, noting that “the fundamental issue that has divided scholars over a period of nearly four decades is whether the use of the bomb was necessary to achieve victory in the war in the Pacific on terms satisfactory to the United States”.[1]

Link: Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The A Bomb was not dropped to 'save soldiers lives' or hasten the surrender of the stubborn Japs- surrender negotiations were already in progress, and well advanced. Thats just the convenient excuse for public consumption.

The A bomb was dropped to send a message to the belligerent Russki's, to make them fear Allied- specifically US- power, before Stalin started some more land grabbing in Europe. The Cold War was already underway. This has already been established- it is not a hypothesis, or conspiracy theory. There are plenty of accounts from 'I was there' people, senior people.

So no, the Bombing was not justified, morally or militarily- and what a terrible price the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki paid for being human guinea pigs, human 'examples'- and civilians at that. What a lovely precedent, which modern warfare technology and strategy has followed with alacrity. The A bomb seems almost humane now, compared to white phosphorus, cluster bombs and landmines designed to create maximum suffering, and other such exquisites.

The first foreign reporter in Hiroshima after the bombing btw was one Wilfred Burchett, an Aussie who smuggled his way in through a US blockade. Needless to say, he was discredited and even demonised (Communist!!) by the Allied 'powers that be'- but his on the spot reporting, easily Googled, was both accurate- because he was there, and harrowing.

The Upshot- well of course the USSR developed it's own nuke capacity too, and ASAP, as did the UK, China, France- The founder members of the 'Nuclear club'. For all of it's ills, the 'MAD' scenario did keep the world powers at bay for a long time- they fought their wars through proxies instead, like Korea & VN. Then followed by Israel, India, Pakistan, N Korea. Next followed by....?

Originally Posted by sabang

The A Bomb was not dropped to 'save soldiers lives' or hasten the surrender of the stubborn Japs- surrender negotiations were already in progress, and well advanced. Thats just the convenient excuse for public consumption.

So no, the Bombing was not justified, morally or militarily-

Wrong again. If the bombs had not been dropped, I would not be here annoying you left-wing moonbat bleeding-heart liberals as me old boy was then a POW of the Japs. Countless more lives would have been lost fighting the Japs on their homeland. End of story...

Yes they should have been dropped, if for no other reason than if they weren't used then, they surely would have been used in anger somewhere else, as it is they where in their infancy of the power development, and later bombs if used would have been far more devastating.

As it happened everybody got so scared, that using them again became almost unthinkable, and that is probably why we haven't had a nuclear-war yet.

And as far as a deserving target at that time, Japan was the best possible place they could have done it, the cruelty and crimes committed by the sons of Bushido is beyond belief, through was it altogether 13 years ? because the Japanese started long before the Germans. They more than match even the worst German war crimes in cruelty.

Sure the Japanese would have surrendered "unconditionally" (remember that was a no negotiable demand from the allies) but at a much later stage after thousands of allied soldiers would have lost their lives, and in principle just 1 life of an allied soldier would have been 1 to many when you could win by only inflicting casualties to a fanatic and cruel enemy.

Lastly the resounding and devastating defeat has taken the taste for war out of the Japanese people completely, for the benefit of the Japanese and the whole world, both the Germans and the Japanese have posed absolutely no threat to their neighbours ever since, and have joined the world community as extremely positive and productive members and are some of the strongest allies of their conquerors today.

If the same recipe had been used in Irak there would have been no insurgency to deal with, wars can only be won by utterly crushing and subduing the entire enemy entity, into such a state that no thought of resistance will ever enter their minds, and you have to remain there in force for decades after, if you are not prepared to do that, don't bother going to war in the first place, stay home and negotiate instead. Korea, Vietnam, Irak and maybe in the future Afghanistan are a testament to that, you cant fight and win a complete total victory half cocked.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

me old boy was then a POW of the Japs

Military men do think about other military men, and I'm sure a reservation that would have been expressed about dropping the bomb was what if the Nips, in a paroxysm of grief and rage, had turned on their POW's and slaughtered them all? Didn't happen fortunately. In spite of his apparent failure to teach you the political essentials of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' booner, I'm glad thats the case.

The US already had a foothold in Japan, in Okinawa, after a bloody battle. The strategy was then to halt the advance and negotiate the unconditional surrender of the Japs- it was already advanced, the only sticking point being the Godlike status of the Emperor- who of course the US insisted be brought down to human status in the eyes of the Japanese people and rightly so. This indeed (nominally) happened but Emperor Hirohito- in whose name all of these atrocities were committed- was never punished for anything, retained his throne, retained his estimated $100 billion fortune-he didn't pay a penny in War reparations, and lived in Imperial splendour until the end of his days. Neither was his Declaration of Surrender exactly a masterpiece of grovelling and acquiescence-

"Indeed, We declared war on America and Britain out of Our sincere desire to ensure Japan's self-preservation and the stabilization of East Asia, it being far from Our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandisement.

We cannot but express the deepest sense of regret to our Allied nations of East Asia, who have consistently co-operated with the Empire towards the emancipation of East Asia."

^ Thus you have contained the Japanese myth about WW2, taught in their schools to this day. This is not 'made up' history booner and others- the Bomb was dropped to cow Stalin. What we were all taught at school was the propaganda story.

I certainly understand larvs point about how despised and villified the Japs were- and given the climate of the time, I doubt there was much sympathy on the ground for the people of Hiro and Naga amongst the Allied public- apart from a conscientious minority. And of course, as pointed out above, the horrible reality of the Bomb and it's side effects was deliberately kept from the public for a safe amount of time, except for that pesky Wilfred Burchill- and see what happened to him . But what a terrible human lottery- why Hiroshima & Nagasaki why not, say, Fukuoka and Sapporo? Were the people there any worse, did they deserve it more? Given that the political capital and Emperors Palace was in Kyoto, why not there- with all of it's fawning courtiers, and senior military advisors? Or Yokohama, with it's big military bases? It was literally a human lottery, and both Hiro and Naga were chosen because of topography- one is flat, the other hilly, and their southern location in the Japanese archipelago, the direction the Yanks were coming from.

So heres a question, admittedly made in the calm light of afterthought and rationality- why didn't they fly a few key Japs & Russki's to the Nevada desert, or Bikini Atoll, and demonstrate the awesome power of the bomb there- "Hey Bud, we've got a few more of these with your name on them"?

The question implies that for the first time in history a belligerent in war would have access to a major new weapons system yet refrain from employing it. It's flattering that people assume America under Truman would have shown that kind of moral fortitude, but highly unrealistic. Almost as unrealistic as assuming that a government would be more concerned about civilian deaths than losing power- I refer here to the Japanese government. Neither the Japanese emperor nor the right-wing that dominated Japanese politics for almost the entire post-war period ever asked for forgiveness- neither from other the Asian people who people who suffered tens of millions of casualties, nor from its own people or the Allies. The Japanese imperial government was perfectly willing to sacrifice its own people, first in the cities, then Okinawa, yet somehow people expect the US to show remorse (which given the treatment of the Japanese after the war I think it pretty obviously did, in deeds more than in words).

When I visited Nagasaki a few years ago I regretted that the Americans hadn't shown more restraint, especially in light of the tragic irony that resulted in the bombing of Nagasaki, thanks to the fog bank over the Kokura Arsenal, which was the primary target: Saffo: essays: The Road from Trinity: Still, the primary responsibility lies with the emperor and the militarists who refused to surrender even when it was clear that all hope was lost. Their intransigence and stupidity didn't hit home until Stalin, whom the Japanese in their insane desperation had been begging to intervene on their behalf, invaded Manchuria, declaring war on Japan after Hiroshima (despite Japan having been Hitler's most important collaborator and ally, a fact the Japanese love to forget). Until that time the Japanese high command had been considering moving their base of operations to Manchuria from whence they would conduct the battles for the home islands. In other words, they were prepared to sacrifice the people of Japan as they had the Okinawans. It is a bit rich to suggest that the Americans should have cared more for the Japanese people than did the Japanese emperor and his government- too bad they didn't, but it really does strike me as asking too much.

This conversation brings the following to mind something Golda Meir said to Sadat:
"We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours." Of course, to this day the only regret the Japanese right-wing, by which I mean everyone from the LDP rightward, has about the war is that they lost. This is despite the rather obvious point that the Japanese "economic miracle" (finally squandered by the rightists, naturally- it's what they do) would never have occurred otherwise.

Originally Posted by sabang

why didn't they fly a few key Japs & Russki's to the Nevada desert, or Bikini Atoll, and demonstrate the awesome power of the bomb there- "Hey Bud, we've got a few more of these with your name on them"?

Teller suggested dropping the bomb in Tokyo Bay by way of demonstration. The thing is, I don't think they were absolutely sure what would happen until they actually used the thing on Hiroshima. In hindsight they might at least have tried. I suppose all we can be happy about is that contrary to the wishes of Curtis LeMay and the other right-wing loonies in the US high command they didn't drop it on Kyoto*, which would have constituted an absolutely perfect test site, in the most perverse possible sense of "perfect."

*Personally I hate Kyoto, but that's beside the point.