Nuclear Arms

[Trunkmonkey]

THE ATOMIC BOMBING OF HIROSHIMA
Hiroshima (August 6, 1945)
Events: Dawn of the Atomic Era, 1945
In the early morning hours of August 6, 1945, a B-29 bomber named Enola Gay took off from the island of Tinian and headed north by northwest toward Japan. The bomber's primary target was the city of Hiroshima, located on the deltas of southwestern Honshu Island facing the Inland Sea. Hiroshima had a civilian population of almost 300,000 and was an important military center, containing about 43,000 soldiers.
The bomber, piloted by the commander of the 509th Composite Group, Colonel Paul Tibbets, flew at low altitude on automatic pilot before climbing to 31,000 feet as it neared the target area. At approximately 8:15 a.m. Hiroshima time the Enola Gay released "Little Boy," its 9,700-pound uranium bomb, over the city.

cgi video

****WARNING******
The above video is graphic and disturbing.

So, let's discuss the use of weapons of mass destruction starting with

a) was there another way to end the war with Japan with less loss of life
b) should weapons of mass destruction be used ever and if yes under what circumstances

Discussion rules are

Keep it civil.. no name calling
Differentiate between your opinion and fact.
If you're claiming something as fact have a reliable source (Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source)
If you find this thread disgusting report it to a moderator and request that it be removed but don't whine about it in here.

I will give my opinion with facts to back it up 24 to 36 hours after the last post. Other than that my only participation will be to ask you to stay within the guidelines I've requested. It's the mods job to make sure you all behave and play nice.

 

[Shimmer]

At the time I think it was a reasonable measure of force...now I'd be concerned that one country using nuclear force would initiate other countries doing same, and that could be devestating.

 

[*Stargazer*]

Given the absolute violent ferocity of the Japanese army (even towards their own people), I don't know that there was an alternative at the time. Doesn't mean I am proud of the idea that it took those two bombs to end the war, but it may in fact have saved lives (on both sides). I'm not sure that's much consolation to anyone who was affected by it though.

I believe we live in a different world these days and a weapon of that caliber should not be used. The phrase Weapon of Mass Destruction can mean any number of weapons or armaments, so I can't say we should never use them again, KWIM? If we need to take out an Al Qaeda stronghold or a group of Janajweed in a specific area, the weapon used may in fact be a WMD. And in that case, I'm not crying over their deaths. I think we've developed more precise weaponry and mimizing innocent deaths since the 40s.

 

[GalleyGirl]

Absolutely not was it in any way justified. They used the bomb against civilians, civilians who were already suffering at the hands of the their imperialistic government. I translated some diaries for a project on Japanese school children during the war, and the Japanese people suffered in a way that is not really talked about in this country.
Also, what irks me about the discussion of the atomic bomb is that it completely overshadows all the other atrocicious bombing the allies did. Ever hear of the fire bombing of Tokyo? The British and American set that city ablaze, and either killed or orphaned scores of children, and killed a disgusting amount of adult civilians.

 

[Shimmer]

Weren't the Japanese warned about the bombings?

 

[GalleyGirl]

Which ones are you referring to, the fire bombings or the atomic bombs? And what would a warning about an atomic bomb do if you have know idea what an atomic bomb does?

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GalleyGirl Which ones are you referring to, the fire bombings or the atomic bombs? And what would a warning about an atomic bomb do if you have know idea what an atomic bomb does?

"On July 26, Truman and other allied leaders issued The Potsdam Declaration outlining terms of surrender for Japan:

"...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..."
"...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." "


I'd say that's plenty clear.

 

[GalleyGirl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ladybug10678 Given the absolute violent ferocity of the Japanese army (even towards their own people), I don't know that there was an alternative at the time.

By the end of the war the, the Japanese army was so tapped for resources that their last line of defense was literally to have citizens take up bamboo spears against the invading forces. There are accounts of children practicing with their spears in the fields and vowing to kill at least one American before they die. They did this, because the Japanese goverment told them that the Allies would take no prisoners, would kill their babies, rape their women and kill them. The level of deception on the part of the Japanese government is almost unfathomable.
But my point is, is that with their resources dwindled down to the point where they were preparing to have their people, the elderly, young, sick, pregnant, etc, take up primitive arms, then they were weak enough that there was no need to subdue them with such force. A surrender was already being negotiated, the only problem was that the Americans wanted an unconditional surrender that included the emperor, who was at that time the ultimate symbol of the Yamato race, and the government did not want to agree to those terms.
Did it end the war sooner? Probably, and after so many years of war, who could blame them for wanting it to end as soon as possible. However, that does not make it morally right and it is a stain on this country's history.

 

[GalleyGirl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer "On July 26, Truman and other allied leaders issued The Potsdam Declaration outlining terms of surrender for Japan: "...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..." "...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." " I'd say that's plenty clear.

I don't interpret that as an out and out warning of impending atomic bomb attack as much as a bullying threat.
Also, they first mentioned the destruction of the Japanese armed forces, followed by the inevitable (and by implication, not direct) destruction of the homeland. I don't think it was clear that such a heinous attack upon citizens was so immediately imminent.

 

[Dizzy]

In all honesty, after the atocracies commited by the Japanese to their own people as well as the POW's and our servicemen, do you blame the US for wanting an unconditional surrender? I don't think we were concerned about morals during WWII, I think the more important issue was ending the war through any means possible.

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GalleyGirl By the end of the war the, the Japanese army was so tapped for resources that their last line of defense was literally to have citizens take up bamboo spears against the invading forces. There are accounts of children practicing with their spears in the fields and vowing to kill at least one American before they die. They did this, because the Japanese goverment told them that the Allies would take no prisoners, would kill their babies, rape their women and kill them. The level of deception on the part of the Japanese government is almost unfathomable. But my point is, is that with their resources dwindled down to the point where they were preparing to have their people, the elderly, young, sick, pregnant, etc, take up primitive arms, then they were weak enough that there was no need to subdue them with such force. A surrender was already being negotiated, the only problem was that the Americans wanted an unconditional surrender that included the emperor, who was at that time the ultimate symbol of the Yamato race, and the government did not want to agree to those terms. Did it end the war sooner? Probably, and after so many years of war, who could blame them for wanting it to end as soon as possible. However, that does not make it morally right and it is a stain on this country's history.

I have to disagree that it's a stain on the country's history.
When a nation is warned, emphatically, that muy bad things are going to happen without unconditional surrender, that nation might consider taking it to heart.




Of course, this was back in a time when it was acceptable to be patriotic, and many looked at military service as something that was honorable to do.

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GalleyGirl I don't interpret that as an out and out warning of impending atomic bomb attack as much as a bullying threat. Also, they first mentioned the destruction of the Japanese armed forces, followed by the inevitable (and by implication, not direct) destruction of the homeland. I don't think it was clear that such a heinous attack upon citizens was so immediately imminent.

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...
I'm sorry, that's just as clear as day in my book.


but I'm glad we can discuss it and agree to disagree, if need be.

 

[*Stargazer*]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer Of course, this was back in a time when it was acceptable to be patriotic, and many looked at military service as something that was honorable to do.

Ahhh, the good old days. When people wouldn't have called my husband a baby killer or a torturer or attempted to tell my children that their Daddy is a bad man.

 

[GalleyGirl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dizzy In all honesty, after the atocracies commited by the Japanese to their own people as well as the POW's and our servicemen, do you blame the US for wanting an unconditional surrender? I don't think we were concerned about morals during WWII, I think the more important issue was ending the war through any means possible.

The Japanese army commited insane amounts of atrocities towards both their Asian neighbors and also Allied POWs, but what does the poor Japanese kid who was on his way to school that fateful day in Hiroshima have to do with that? Why did he have to suffer for his government's evil policies? And why can't we consider that to be as much of an atrocity as what the Japanese army was doing?
Also, I don't think the Japanese army's abuse of others was first and foremost on the minds of the government when they decided to drop that bomb. I doubt they gave a rat's ass about the enslaved comfort women (a whole other issue which probably deserves its own thread given recent articles about it). They were worried about the political issues, which were to calm a frustrated American public who wanted an end to the war.

 

[GalleyGirl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer i but I'm glad we can discuss it and agree to disagree, if need be.

Me too

 

[Dizzy]

What did the 68 civilians who died due to Pearl Harbor have to do with their government, either? Fact remains that the intentions with the atomic bombs were to hit the military instillations that were there, not to attack civilians. Are their deaths atocracies? Of course, I agree with you 100%. But I feel that the fact that we even had to use atomic bombs was a necessary evil, and that always comes with some sort of baggage, unfortunately.

 

[GalleyGirl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dizzy Fact remains that the intentions with the atomic bombs were to hit the military instillations that were there, not to attack civilians.

Then why did they drop it specifically on a bridge in the city?

 

[Dizzy]

Look at the way the military often operates, they'll block off on ramps/off ramps on highways, airports and trains are often disabled, etc. Important structures are what is normally destroyed, not the business districts or such.

At least that's what I see it as.

Edited to Add: Also, leaflets were dropped on August 8, 1945 warning of the bombings, as well as warning messages delivered through the radio by Radio Saipon. Although Nagasaki didn't recieve leaflets until August 10th, they were already a month into their campaign in delivering the leaflets all over the country. The civilians were warned, the government was warned- it wasn't as if this came out of left field.

 

[Shimmer]

Interesting information:


http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...ictory,00.html

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avme262.html

(section 8) germany gave the design for the me262 to japan late in the war. Had they been able to produce thse in sufficient numbers a single kamakazie 262 could have taken out a carrier and there would have been nothing we could do about it. Our planes couldn't catch it and our anti air assets couldn't keep up with it.

All the pilot would have to do is take it up to 30k and dive straight down and boom goodbye carrier or battle ship or troop transport etc...

 

[GalleyGirl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dizzy Edited to Add: Also, leaflets were dropped on August 8, 1945 warning of the bombings, as well as warning messages delivered through the radio by Radio Saipon. Although Nagasaki didn't recieve leaflets until August 10th, they were already a month into their campaign in delivering the leaflets all over the country. The civilians were warned, the government was warned- it wasn't as if this came out of left field.

My thinking on the whole leaflet thing though is that, okay, they were warned something bad was going to happen? So what could they do really? Its not like they could take a drive up to another city an camp out in a Motel 6 for a couple of days until things blew over. These people were poor, most likely starving (Japan's food rationing was very strict, and black markets for food were rampant) and probably just using their last strength to perform day to day tasks.
Again, they probably also had no idea what kind of utter destruction the atomic bomb would bring. They had no prior examples to refer to. These were people who were used to having bombs dropped on them, or their families members in other cities, quite frequently. They most likely thought they would have a simple air raid, and then do what you normally do - hide in a shelter and pray the bomb doesn't fall near you. They didn't know that it doesn't matter where you are in an atomic bomb attack as long as your are in a certain radius, you are in trouble.

However, I understand that for many, the atomic bomb was the lesser of two evils. Either way, the war was not going to end neatly and cleanly.
Referring back to the OP's question, can you envision a time in the future when the bomb will once again be the lesser of the several difficult means of ending a war or resolving a war situation?