Use of Nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: A more humane way to end the war just as quick?

reply to post by DarkStormCrow


America obliterated germany and then two cities in japan, for no reason other than to just kill people.

People talk about the blitz in london like it was like some siege, it was nothing of the kind, of what america did to germany and then to 2 ciities in japan.

All you pro americans need to watch some more war movies to tell you how you won a war without being evil, lol.

Thanks for this thread! I learned a lot today, although some information I wanna double check

Yes, I've heard about the monstrosities of the Japanese Empire through-out China and the Pacific... 200,000 died due to 2 atomic weapons to end the war and send the world a message, I agree, was too hard to pass up..........



I'll just add this though....

The moment the 1st bomb exploded it sent the world into an arms frenzy.

reply to post by andy1033


I guess its only America that does evil in war.

Japanese, Soviets, Germans, British, Chinese ,all pure as the driven snow never committed any acts that could be considered evil.

All of the destruction in Europe and the Pacific was caused by Americans, even though we came to the war late as we are always bashed for.

Thanks for clearing that up.

reply to post by tellmemoreok


Hum... There's nothing humane about nukes. Why do you think the Japanese resorted to kamikazes? They had nothing left to fight with. And, they offered to surrender! What more humane way to end a war do you want?

Wouldn't you agree that a nuke detonated in a desolated place would have spared 200 000 casualties while still sending a message?

reply to post by andy1033


Truman and the cabinet were into the occult? Where do people get this stuff, unless your confusing Truman with Himmler and Hess. If it's because Truman was a member of the Masons, I'm not even to bother going there. But concerning what historical account's tell us. There were those in the cabinet who wanted a demonstration. The problem was we had limited material at that time for either type of bomb. The Hiroshima bomb was the simpler of the two, it used uranium and was often called a "gun barrel" type bomb. It was never tested. We were confident it would work but weren't sure untill it was actually dropped. The kind used on Nagasaki was a plutonium implosion bomb, more complicated, and powerfull using less material. But plutonium has to be made from uranium. The first test at Alamagordordo, NM was of a plutonium bomb. This stuff was new to everyone.

The point is, if there was a test and it diden't work, what do we do with the Japanese officials at the test? Kill them? Even if it had worked, it's doubtfull such a test would have been enough to persuade Japans PM Tojo to surrender. In hindsight, we know some source's in the Japanese government were putting out "feelers" to individuals in the US government. Information thats come out since indicates various surrender terms were "run up the flagpole" by some Japanese diplomats to certain American contacts via Swiss and other middlemen. But as it was in Germany, as a nation faces total breakdown, the hierarchy breaks down. You don't know if someone is speaking for the government or themselves.

At that the radiation factor was mostly unknown to us. Most underestimated, was not the short term but long term effects. Burns and injuries that might have been survivable were terminal due to radiations impact on the immune system. Thats the technical side. For those not killed immediatly, this is was hell, its worse. At least in hell your suppose to be there for a reason. But most people view the effects on the Japanese population of A weapons in a vacume. Non-nuclear weapons can be just as awfull to those on the recieving end. No radiation, but everything else. In fact I am convinced if we had used the bomb sooner (we coulden't), hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved. General Curtis LaMay from March 1945 ordered the fire bombing of Japanese cities. 100,000 died in Tokyo in one night. More then the number in Hiroshima or Nagisaki alone. But the A bomb was a collective psycological shock, which is why it forced surrender.

But to me the wrong action we took was not the use of the A bombs, but the fire bombing from 3/45 on. By then despite decentralization, the capacity to produce material and services for war was effectively destroyed. It woulden't have made a bit of difference how much we fire bombed. We kept doing it when we did not get the results we wanted. Surrender. The classic example of doing the same thing and expecting a different result. We would have had to invade. Very conservative estimates place casualities starting at 100,000 and up. And thats just the US. Japanese casualties could have been 1,000,000 up.

But I think the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki contributed to humanities survival over the following decades in ways they coulden't imagine. The visual effects and it's emotional impact on us of what those people experienced not only had a profound effect on the world, it held those leaders in check at the most dangerous moments in the cold war. The image of people burned like that or just shadows on walls, helps to remind us of what can happen all over the world if someone loses their mind, or worse, is sane and use's nukes anyway. It seems we need an emotional impact associated with something for it to realy sink in. It's tragic when it's at another's expense.

reply to post by DarkStormCrow


I did not say that, but hollywood would tell us that some nice country with good values won two world wars, and never committed any war crimes. They won because they where the most evil period.

We all know they had no need to drop those two bombs on japan, and like we said earlier they could just have given a demonstration to japan.

I think personally they where all into the occult and it was a ritual. Oppenheimer looks of his rocker when talking about hindu texts didnt he. They where obviously into occult, and you have to be pretty evil to want to wipe out two cities without any survivors, as you guys would not have known what the results really would of been.

It was pure evil.

Having listened to the arguments about World War II and the use of atomic weapons there are some things that many want to admit or think about.
The reason for such is a decision that was not taken lightly, and ultimately given by then President Harry Truman. He had to weigh the following consequences and actions. According to the best estimates at the time, the number of dead and wounded from an invasion of Japan, would have been millions on both sides, as we would have to fight to subdue all of the islands and those parts still under the control of the Japanese empire. If we took out the emperor, it would have resulted in every man, woman, and child fighting to the death. Then there was the political aspect, as there was the Soviet Union. Yes they were our Allies, but only after Hitlet attacked the Soviet Union, before that Stalin and Hitler were at least cordial and agreed not to attack each other. Truman could not afford to let the Japanese surrender to the Soviets, as he wanted to contain the soviet threat, by having it surrounded by countries that were allied with the US and democratic in nature, and he needed to move quickly. Yes they did send a radio messages to Japan, wanting them to surrender, but it has to be unconditional surrender, nothing less would do, and the Japanese knew if the Soviets were to get involved, they could surrender with terms and come out alright. So Harry Truman gave the order, and then bluffed about what would happen if the Empire of Japan did not surrender, he ordered that the only 2 atomic weapons we had were to be used, and the targets were selected, and then proceeded to tell the Japanese that unless they surrendered, every major city of theirs would suffer the same fate. Now a demonstration would have given them thought, but its effect is limited if the government controls the media, however use on a target that everyone sees, has an effect to make people think twice about their actions.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
I'll take a stab at answering your questions. If it gets too politcal for people feel free to stop reading my post.

[quotep]
Was the use of Nuclear Weapons on Japanese cities necessary to break the Japanese will?

Absolutely. The Japanese people were willing to fight on without the use of them even in the face of an invasion of the home islands. The use of the atomic bombs showed Japan what they had in store for them if the continued to fight.

Initial estimates of a land invasion of Japanese home islands were thrown off by the realistic resistance and causalities during the invasion of Okinawa.

Whoa, what? The initial casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan were not even done until after Okinawa. Everything prior to that was not even close to realistic.

However, was there a need to use nuclear weapons on a city?

Since Japanese industries were spread throughout the cities, yes.

Would a demonstration have sufficed?

Japan ignored the pamphlets that were dropped before the first bomb, so my guess would be no. They started paying attention after the first one was dropped and this led to a mass exodus from the cities that were named as potential targets on the pamphlets.

Were there ulterior motives to use this as a means of aggressive diplomacy against the soviets?

No, that was proposed by a historian years ago with no proof to back up that claim. If that were the case we would have read about it in the Truman documents. Look into what his library has on file for the decision to use the bomb in the first place.

Wasn't the invasion of Manchuria sufficient?

No, because the Japanese forces there were already cut off from the home islands. Defeating them would not have changed a thing.

Was it necessary to use 2 bombs?

Since they ignored the first one, yes. There were plans already in the works to drop even more as soon as they arrived to Tinian.

Was this a live test of radiation fallout on humans and landscapes?

Yes, and a test of the damage that those weapons could cause. The targetting decision for the cities took into account how often they had been attacked. The US wanted to get an idea of how much damage this weapon could do and needed the least damaged cities to do so.

And here is the million dollar question:
Would it have been prudent to inform and achieve consensus with the other world powers (namely soviets) prior to use? Would this simple step have prevented the cold war that followed by saved future generations (us) from living under the fear of nuclear extinction?

Truman had already announced the existence of the bomb to Stalin before they were used, so I don't think it would have affected the Cold War.

The Japanese ( including Hirohito) were unswayed by the near total destruction caused by the "b-san", the B-29. If the firebombing didn't cause them to surrender, why on earth would you imagine a demonstration of the A bomb would?
Japan was DEFEATED long before the wars end. The problem was they refused to surrender, even when they knew the could not win!!
The insane attitude of Imperial Japan, and the unbelievably cruel suffering, death and destruction they caused came back to the home islands in a big way. They deserved the destruction they got. Hirohito could have ended it long, long before he did. He chose not to,Japan was indifferent to the suffering of it's citizens.
Anybody who feels "sorry" for Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany simply is ignorant of the facts. when you cause the kind of savagry they did, Karma will pay you back times ten.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by OldDragger]

What I feel sorry for is the bunch of twits who support the bombing and live under the threat of nuclear annihilation everyday.. a very result of that unilateral action

No.. this is not a 'hate america' thread, this is not a Nazi/Japanese junta sympathizer thread.. this is 'America you had the responsibility of taking a decision that defined the rest of the century for this planet and look at the fallout of that decision'..


Its almost heartening to see canned responses supporting the detonation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (a term so ironically and callously used nowadays) on civilian targets..

reply to post by OldDragger


Why was unconditional surrender the ONLY option?

Why wasn't a naval blockade and starve-out policy of the main islands carried out?
Why wasn't an allied campaign to free China and push the Japanese back to the main islands undertaken?

Does anyone really think a military junta could have survived through a blanket blockade? There would have almost inevitably been a revolution and/or uprising that could have received tacit support and funding from a united Rest of the World. And yes.. this would have served the dual objective of KEEPING the rest of the world united.

Does bombing over 200,000 (potentially innocent/unaware persons) into instant or horrendous slow death and condemning generations to genetic defects (DEFINITELY innocent) outweigh saving the lives of military men?

A quick end to the war was an easy way out. But was it the right way out?

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Absolutely. The Japanese people were willing to fight on without the use of them even in the face of an invasion of the home islands. The use of the atomic bombs showed Japan what they had in store for them if the continued to fight.

And I ask again.. why was it necessary to invade the home islands instead of blockading them?

Whoa, what? The initial casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan were not even done until after Okinawa. Everything prior to that was not even close to realistic.

Now that's just plain wrong.. The plans for invading home islands (X, Y and Z Day) were prepared much before the Okinawa invasion.
And the very reason that everything prior to Okinawa was not realistic was because Okinawa was a shocker.. That does not extrapolate to having unrealistic estimates before Okinawa.

Since Japanese industries were spread throughout the cities, yes.

So the bombing was intended to kill the Japanese war machine? But wasn't it already being killed by unrestricted conventional bombing achieved during air supremacy? Looking a little pale there that argument.. genocidal even..

Japan ignored the pamphlets that were dropped before the first bomb, so my guess would be no. They started paying attention after the first one was dropped and this led to a mass exodus from the cities that were named as potential targets on the pamphlets.

The question remains.. Would a demonstration have sufficed? The answer is maybe yes, maybe no.. was there any harming in trying before attacking a civilian target?
Was there a fear that the Japanese would devise a magical means of protecting their cities/industries from nuclear weapons damage?

What is the fundamental element of surprise that was achieved by using this weapon in such a horrendous manner?
None whatsoever except to send a message to foes-to-be..

No, that was proposed by a historian years ago with no proof to back up that claim. If that were the case we would have read about it in the Truman documents. Look into what his library has on file for the decision to use the bomb in the first place.

No?

I did look at it and it seems to revolve around a message to garner public opinion to support WMD usage on civilian targets..
There is no military advantage as opposed to a demonstration with an option to use on live targets open as a subsequent step..
If there is.. find it and show it to me..

No, because the Japanese forces there were already cut off from the home islands. Defeating them would not have changed a thing.

Cut off? As in no means for repatriation and organised retreat? You sure about that? This was the only sizable army left to the Japanese and
Was it necessary to use 2 bombs?

Since they ignored the first one, yes. There were plans already in the works to drop even more as soon as they arrived to Tinian.

Oh isnt that absolutely charming.. lets drop some more..

Yes, and a test of the damage that those weapons could cause. The targetting decision for the cities took into account how often they had been attacked. The US wanted to get an idea of how much damage this weapon could do and needed the least damaged cities to do so.

Yes of course.. a live test on live targets is essential.. We should carry some out with the multi megaton yield ones we have these days..

Truman had already announced the existence of the bomb to Stalin before they were used, so I don't think it would have affected the Cold War.

The question was about the usage.. not the existence..
The usage has resulted in a situation where the former soviet republics have a stockpile and yield total that is much larger than that in the US.
I most definitely think that the information in addition to joint ops in China would have postponed or even stopped the cold war from happening.

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
reply to post by andy1033

 

I guess its only America that does evil in war.

Japanese, Soviets, Germans, British, Chinese ,all pure as the driven snow never committed any acts that could be considered evil.

Yea and so I guess there's no point holding any moral high ground in relation to any of these other mass murdering nations eh?
We're all a part of the same moral rot..

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
Oh great another the evil Americans killed civilians with the Atomic Bombs thread

Lets see how Japan got to the point where Atomic bombs were used against them

China Estimated 7,000,000 civilans murdered low estimate, 16,000,000 high estimate

Dutch East Indies 3,030,000 civilians murdered low estimate, 4,030,000 high estimate

French Indo China 1,000,000 civilians murdered low estimate, 1,500,000 high estimate

India 1,500,000 civilians murdered low estimate, 2,500,000 high estimate

Philippines 500,000 civilians murdered low estimate, 1,000,000 and consider that these people are American citizens at the time

these are just the major instances of Japanese atrocities

Interesting and horrifying..Have a source or 2? Yes they were monsters.. And perhaps the one clause of a conditional surrender should have been unconditional war crimes prosecution and conviction by an international body.

Japan lost 580,000 civilians from 1933-1945 ,70,000 died in Hiroshima from the intitial blast, 40,000 died in Nagasaki from the intitial blast, high estimates for casualties from radiation and other causes from both bombs combined range from 90,000 to 166,000 including lack of medical services.

Everytime this evil Americans dropped atomic bombs thread comes up, which seems to be on a quarterly basis at a minumum, we seem to forget how japan got itself in the position they were in.

the fact that it comes up so often is perhaps because it just makes sense to ask it.. And a tit for tat response every time is most juvenile.. really.. 5 year old stuff.. Seems like one must go a ram a plane into the tallest building in Tehran/Islamabad.. Yea.. thats a real tit for tat eh? Kill about 1/5th of the ppl that died in 9/11 and then feel happy about the ~moral high ground~ achieved in quantitative ratios of people killed.
jeez!

Projected American casuaties for Operation Downfall (the invasion of japan) From Wikipedia

Estimated casualties.....

I'd like to see casualty estimates for this:

1. Naval blockade of Japan in the Pacific
   
2. Allied(Soviet, British, Chinese) invasion of China and other occupied Japanese territories
   
3. Blanket blockade of Japan after pushing them back to the home islands.
   

If the USA hadn't dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the war would have dragged on for years.

Did Japan offer to surrender before hand?
I've yet to see definitive proof.

And you have to consider Japanese mindset at the time, surrender would have been the most dishonourable thing imaginable.
Honour is the very heart and soul of Japanese culture.

And consider this.
No other atomic bomb has been used in warfare since.
We all know human nature.
If a nuclear bomb had not been used then it would have done at some point in human history, and how much more powerful a weapon would it have been?
How many people would have died then?

They very fact that they were used and we do know the full effect of them, in real human terms and not hypotheticals, has proved the best deterant of all for them not being used ever again!

Yes it was tragic and caused enormous human suffering, but it was necessary.
And it should burn into the very essence of every human being and be a constant reminder why they should never be used again!

reply to post by Daedalus3


That is exactly what this thread is, blame America for everything , look at the responses.

The Soviets had spies throughout the Manhattan project they knew about the Bomb and were already working on thier own. Russia would make thier own bombs wether the US drops them or not.

A blockade would not have worked , The UN had sanctions on Iraq for 12 years with some sources reporting the deaths of 300,000 children due to starvation and malnutrition.

A demostration might have worked but do you waste 1 of 2 bombs you have created based on a maybe they will surrender.

So instead of Invading Japan you drop one of your 2 bombs, the Soviets finally declare war on Japan and invade Manchuria, still Japan doesnt want to surrender because they want to preserve thier God/Emperor.

So by dropping both bombs you kill 200,000 Japanese , and save 1-4 million American lives and probably at leat 10 million Japanese lives.

Still to this day the Japanese have no remorse for what they did during the Pacific war, and they are still some of the most racist people on the planet. They dont even teach thier children about the war.

At least the Germans have some shame for what happened and have passed the knowledge of what happened to thier children.

reply to post by Daedalus3


Wiki is your friend

World War II casualties

Japanese War Crimes

Am I glad Truman dropped the bombs, yes, I am very happy that my Grandfather came back from the Pacific War and was become the Father to my mother. No the US doesnt have anything to feel guilty about or apologize for.

Added 2 links for you to consider

Japanese Twelfth Area Army

Volunteer Fighting Corps

[edit on 5/17/2010 by DarkStormCrow]

Originally posted by Freeborn
If the USA hadn't dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the war would have dragged on for years.

Did Japan offer to surrender before hand?
I've yet to see definitive proof.

And you have to consider Japanese mindset at the time, surrender would have been the most dishonourable thing imaginable.
Honour is the very heart and soul of Japanese culture.

And consider this.
No other atomic bomb has been used in warfare since.
We all know human nature.
If a nuclear bomb had not been used then it would have done at some point in human history, and how much more powerful a weapon would it have been?
How many people would have died then?

They very fact that they were used and we do know the full effect of them, in real human terms and not hypotheticals, has proved the best deterant of all for them not being used ever again!

But usage as a demonstration has also proved to be a deterrent.. there is no denying that.. What happens when we invent the next WMD.. a 100 times more powerful than all nuclear weapons combined. Do we use it teach ourselves of the ramifications? Will we have the luxury of doing so?

reply to post by Daedalus3


We now know the level of destruction and suffering that results from using atomic weapons.
We can actually visualise the effects of far more powerful weapons simply because we have seen the effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
It has been the ultimate deterrent.

And I would like to know of an example where merely 'demonstrating' a weapon has proved such aneffective deterrent.

The bombings are something that has become etched into human consciousness.

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
That is exactly what this thread is, blame America for everything , look at the responses.

Not mine. though popular opinion does mostly end up being the right one.. and it does seem to be a popular opinion..

The Soviets had spies throughout the Manhattan project they knew about the Bomb and were already working on thier own. Russia would make thier own bombs wether the US drops them or not.

No denying that.. but would they stockpile amounts that resulted in the ability of humanity to exterminate itself for the first time? Would earlier implementation of SALT, CTBT, NPT etc etc.. have prevented us ending up with stock piles? A united allied front in the years after the war is worth pondering..

A blockade would not have worked , The UN had sanctions on Iraq for 12 years with some sources reporting the deaths of 300,000 children due to starvation and malnutrition.

Ah there we go.. and so it was necessary for the 2nd Gulf war in order to end the suffering of these children.. provide them food and shelter? Were aid agencies able to do that?
Are you generally stating that sanctions and blockades are ineffective?

A demostration might have worked but do you waste 1 of 2 bombs you have created based on a maybe they will surrender.

Waste? How many bombs did the US and Russia 'waste' in the 50s and 60s in demonstrations.. Are you really weighing lives against wastage of a nuclear bomb?

So instead of Invading Japan you drop one of your 2 bombs, the Soviets finally declare war on Japan and invade Manchuria, still Japan doesnt want to surrender because they want to preserve thier God/Emperor.

The Soviets didn't invade Japan because of the bomb. They did so because they committed to doing so in the Potsdam declaration. They had to re-purpose and arm half a million men in Manchuria.. Such mobilization takes time. They had committed to doing so in the month of August in that very declaration.

So by dropping both bombs you kill 200,000 Japanese , and save 1-4 million American lives and probably at leat 10 million Japanese lives.

for the life of me.. I cannot understand this obsession with total victory and invasion and unconditional surrender. Was it unacceptable to the American military that invading the home islands was an unachievable ambition?

Still to this day the Japanese have no remorse for what they did during the Pacific war, and they are still some of the most racist people on the planet. They dont even teach thier children about the war.

At least the Germans have some shame for what happened and have passed the knowledge of what happened to their children.

That is an unfair generalization.. and quite interesting that you bring it up here in this discussion.. as a means of justification of dropping the bomb on civilian targets?