Hiroshima And Nagasaki?

[YakuzaIce]

I am just curious, as we have just recently passed the sixty year anniversary of these two events, what your opinions are on this incident. Was it a good idea, the only choice, or a reprehensible crime against humanity?

My opinion is that it had to be used, if anyone wants me to elaborate why I feel this way, just ask.

[jm1fd]

I think the fact that we had to drop a second one on 'em to get 'em to surrender makes it perfectly clear that it was the right thing to do.

[SpringTX]

I'd like to quote the movie "Apocalyspe Now":

"They were going to charge Kurtz with murder. Hellll, that's like handing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500."

Did the 100,000 killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki justify saving the lives of an estimated 1,000,000 would have died in a land invasion of Japan? Did it matter that most of the 100,000 who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't soldiers but were civilians? And why doesn't anyone mourn the 600,000 who died in the bombing of Dresden, Germany shortly before Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

My opinion is that, in war, there are no rules, no rights, no wrongs. It's all hell. It's all evil. As Josepth Stalin said: "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." There is no math we can apply when we're talking about hundreds of thousands or even millions of people dying.

[dalparadise]

The dropping of the Atomic bombs was absolutely necessary, but not for the reasons most Americans would have you believe. The bombs were not a demonstrative war ender to the Japanese, but rather a strong message to the Russians, who were making their imperial strides eastward. The Japanese put themselves in the middle and paid dearly. They were victims of their own greed and foolishness.

Japan's war machine was almost completely destroyed by 1945. They would have fought on for a couple of years, perhaps, ala the insurgents in Iraq. But there was no denying they were defeated. Midway had assured that a few years earlier, with punctuation marks made in Okinawa and elsewhere, later. Still, the argument that the bombs saved American lives that would have been lost in an invasion are right, if maybe a bit overblown.

The crime of the bombs was that they were the two largest acts of terrorism ever accomplished -- by a country that, up to that point -- had gone about the nasty business of warfare with honor and courage. There's just not a very positive way to portray an attack on civilians as heroic. Our methods in the past had always minimized civilian losses and focused on military objectives. To unleash such a weapon of destruction for essentially PR reasons feels like a GW Bush move, not the final chapter in the most heroic struggle in human history.

The real shame in the bombs is the methodology of warfare they ushered in. Now, with civilians up for grabs and a "remote-control" sensibility to fighting, where armies can strike at enemies they never have to even face, the honor of war is cheapened to the point that the greatest nation in the world can be duped into attacks at the whim of an imbecile. In other words, with the risks of warfare seemingly diminished and in a world where it's possible to wage large scale attacks without getting one's hands dirty, politicians are much more likely to go to war for the wrong reasons and couch it as something as silly as "spreading freedom".

the bottom line is, why did the US feel the need to get into the terrorism business? Wouldn't a demonstration of the bomb on an unpopulated island with an ultimatum, prior to an announced invasion, would have worked just as well? Considering the road we've taken over the past 40 years, doesn't hindsight seem to suggest this was, at least, worth a try?

[SpringTX]

The real shame in the bombs is the methodology of warfare they ushered in. Now, with civilians up for grabs and a "remote-control" sensibility to fighting, where armies can strike at enemies they never have to even face, the honor of war is cheapened to the point that the greatest nation in the world can be duped into attacks at the whim of an imbecile. In other words, with the risks of warfare seemingly diminished and in a world where it's possible to wage large scale attacks without getting one's hands dirty, politicians are much more likely to go to war for the wrong reasons and couch it as something as silly as "spreading freedom".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with most of your well-thought post...except for the paragraph above. And I only think it's a bit of a stretch because, looking at military history, wars have always been somewhat remote, and gradually getting more and more remote:

* In the Stone Age, battles were fought eye-to-eye. To take another man's life was to look into his very soul before doing so.

* With the advent of the bow and arrow, archers could slay opponents from hundreds of miles away, never having to see the faces of who they were slaying.

* In Medieval times, countless were slain with boiling oil, ballistas, trebuchets, catapults, crossbows, and other weapons that could kill anonymously from a distance. The slain opponents might not even be visible. With the later advent of gunpowder and cannon and mortar and so on, it became even more impersonal.

* By WWI, artillery was killing opponents miles away, if I'm not mistaken.

* By WWII, airplanes were dropping bombs and killing people thousands of feet below.

Regarding generals who make the decision to go to war:

* Even thousands of years ago, generals would camp out on the hill behind the battle field and watch the fracas from a safe distance.

* Thousands of years ago, the kings who declared war may have never went into battle themselves.

Regarding killing civilians:

* Even thousands of years ago, a conquering army would rape and pillage innocent civilians. Burning a village always makes for a good start of a movie like Bravehart. In the American Civil War, General Sherman was pretty good with a torch in his march through Georgia, it is said.

* Especially WWII with Hitler's Luftwaffe bombing innocent civilians, the modern era commenced where there was no longer a distinction between soldier and civilian in terms of who gets killed.

* In the current era, it's sickening to think of a president basically "pressing a button" to decide which missile to send to blow up which city. But it's not much different from how war has always been fought: in a cowardly manner. Real men face their adversaries and air their grievances. Which takes courage. Cowards seek vengeance from a distance. And they'll all rot in hell for it. I'd rather have my infitessimally brief lifetime on earth stopped abruptly because of a remote coward offing me with a bomb, than to gleefully zap all my so-called enemies from a distance and then spend eternity roasting in hellfire. That seems like it would definitely hurt more.

[arche_757]

SpringTX - in response to your post:

*Archers didnt see there enemies faces - but it wasnt from miles away.

*Id be interested to know just how many times a city was attacked by siege engines. The more common practice was to camp around said town/city and starve the people inside -- a much more cruel way of waging war -- but most effective.

*WWI artilery was used to kill millions along both the western and eastern fronts - even worse scientists devised a way to insert gasses that could choke and kill a person into shells that could be fired from those guns.

*In WWII Germany wasnt alone in its indiscriminate bombing, all the Allied powers did the same. What is seldome mentioned is the blockade inforced on Japan by the US - we succesfully starved that countries civilians (since the Military got the bulk of the food). Germany was in a virtual state of starvation by wars end to.

*Regarding Generals: Throughout history there have been two kinds of people -- those who lead and those who follow. It makes sense that someone would be in overall command of thousands of men - since without they would be nothing more than a large rable. Even more interesting is why follow?

*Generals usually took up position behind the battle and on top of a hill so they could survey their men and order them better. It wasnt that they were cowards - many of them had distinguished themselves underfire, they realized the importance of directing rather than leading. So to speak

*Raping and pilaging civilians shows a lack of discipline. Good commanders didnt let there troops take advantage of helpless civilians. Many times the men who did all the mischief to the helpless were the men who hadnt fought in the battle but the reserves.

*General Sherman wasnt nice to the Southerners in Georgia - but his idea was make war hard on them and they will stop fighting. This policy wasnt new - it just seemed harsh at the time.

*Id venture to bet the Brits killed thousands more civilians than did the Germans! By bombing them that is.

*In the end its all down to people killing and being killed, I know this ventured from the topic, but it has relivance.

The decision to drop the bomb(s) was I hope completly necessary - I believe it saved thousands(perhaps Millions) of Japanese, since invading Japan wouldnt have been a walk in the park, ie. Okinawa, Iwo Jima.....

I also firmly belive it saved American lives. Unfortunatley it also ushered in an era of "russian roulette" - seeing who would flinch and start the end. Although that era is for the most part over --- now we sit and hope some group of young angry extremists dont find a bomb and use it on us or anyone else for that matter.

Atleast there is hope.

[RedScare]

Prior to World War I and the invention of the machine gun, by far the number one killer in all previous wars was disease.

Arche, is there hope? Only 60 years from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and in the midst of worrying about North Korea, Iran and rogues obtaining stolen or missing nuclear material, our own government is exploring the use of so-called "tactical nukes", an oxymoron if there ever was one.

If the hope is that the world never again experiences the horror of the nuclear bomb, we need a serious "Come to Jesus Meeting", right here at home.

[Heights2Bastrop]

In the American Civil War, General Sherman was pretty good with a torch in his march through Georgia, it is said.

Actually, Sherman was very selective about places he ordered burned. After Atlanta fell, he ordered that the courthouse and residential areas be spared. In fact, some of the Union troops were used to fight fires that got out of hand, some of which the Confederates themselves had set. Savannah was spared burning after it was occupied.

After the occupation of Savannah, Sherman turned north and cut a swath through South Carolina. Not many realize this, but his march through that state was even more destructive than the one through Georgia.

As was stated, Sherman

[nmm]

The Japanese Administration got what was coming to them.

Sometimes we overlook the fact that history isnt a set of seperate events, rather one big sequence of events beginning from time immemorial.

The Japanese did very nasty things to China during the Age of the Last Emperor. Very awful concentration camps. In my opinion the Japanese Administration got what they deserved.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

The answer to the question asked in this thread is, yes.

[DJ V Lawrence]

The answer to the question asked in this thread is, yes.

It's an uneasy question to say yes to when so many innocent people died. That being said, Pearl Harbor is reason enough to say yes. Not only was that a pre-emptive strike against us, but we were decieved into thinking diplomacy was on our side.

Thank god it's the last time a weapon that size was used by anyone. Respect goes out to those who died at Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

[nmm]

Just to be Fair:

Pearl Harbor was strictly a military site and the deaths at Pearl Harbor were all military deaths.

On the other hand Nagasaki and Hiroshima were civilian victims. Also known as "collateral damage".

The only question that comes to mind when i hear Americans rationalize the 2 attacks as a "neccessary evil" is: How would Americans take it if two cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco were wiped out with a nuculear weapon because the enemy thought it was a 'justified' attack?

Hmmmm.....things to ponder over.....

I always thought that the Japanese would harbor hatred against America for the Hiroshima-Nagasaki strike. Considering it was the only strike in the history of the world where Atomic weapons were used in a predominantely civilian city.

[TheNiche]

The only question that comes to mind when i hear Americans rationalize the 2 attacks as a "neccessary evil" is: How would Americans take it if two cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco were wiped out with a nuculear weapon because the enemy thought it was a 'justified' attack?

The scenario you suggest is highly unlikely or impossible. But if you're basically asking "How would you feel if you were Japanese?", then I'd have to respond with the world "pissed". But anger wouldn't matter. The surrender is preferable to total nuclear anhilation or to a doomed battle for Japan.

Even if the most hawkish folks would have been pissed for generations, that beats a protracted war. Just because somebody is pissed doesn't mean that you have to take them seriously [*cough AftonAg cough]. Life is seldom a win-win game when it comes to political, economic, social, or military policy.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Just to be Fair:

Pearl Harbor was strictly a military site and the deaths at Pearl Harbor were all military deaths.

On the other hand Nagasaki and Hiroshima were civilian victims. Also known as "collateral damage".

The only question that comes to mind when i hear Americans rationalize the 2 attacks as a "neccessary evil" is: How would Americans take it if two cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco were wiped out with a nuculear weapon because the enemy thought it was a 'justified' attack?

Hmmmm.....things to ponder over.....

I always thought that the Japanese would harbor hatred against America for the Hiroshima-Nagasaki strike. Considering it was the only strike in the history of the world where Atomic weapons were used in a predominantely civilian city.

Something you should consider though is the fact that the people who died at Pearl Harbor (military and civilian) were innocent too. The Pearl Harbor attack was unprovoked...

[Heights2Bastrop]

There was a piece on the History Channel just last night about how Japan was just weeks away from testing their own nuclear device at the time of their surrender. It looked promising, but I fell asleep halfway through it.

[TheNiche]

There was a piece on the History Channel just last night about how Japan was just weeks away from testing their own nuclear device at the time of their surrender. It looked promising, but I fell asleep halfway through it.

No. The Germans made a last-ditch attempt on getting experimental nuclear materials (unassembled) to Japan via a submarine, so that Japan could continue where they left off, but were unsuccessful. If the Germans hadn't thrown out "Jewish physics", they might've beaten us to the punch, however.

[RedScare]

It's an uneasy question to say yes to when so many innocent people died.

You're reading the question backwards. And, I agree with Moonman, the answer is unequivocally yes. There are always other options. Whether the other options are better is sometimes debatable.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

You're reading the question backwards. And, I agree with Moonman, the answer is unequivocally yes. There are always other options. Whether the other options are better is sometimes debatable.

That is correct. The answer is yes. The bombs did not have to be dropped.

By the way, when the decision was made by Truman to use them on Japan, the primary target was to be Tokyo and Kyoto. Tokyo was spared due to the fact that General LeMay fire bombed it nearly into oblivion and Kyoto was spared because many in the top eschelon of the military ranks and Truman himself decided a nations religious areas should not be destroyed.

[nmm]

Something you should consider though is the fact that the people who died at Pearl Harbor (military and civilian) were innocent too. The Pearl Harbor attack was unprovoked...

Its true that the attack was unprovoked. However, the way i see it, America was on a "state of alert" during the World War whilst it was raging on the European and Asian fronts. All in all, the Americans in Pearl Harbor had something to defend themselves with. They were trained warriors.

On the other hand, the people of Hiro/Naga were untrained civilians.

Then ofcourse theres that possibility that the American Administration already knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked, but they didnt let anyone know. The idea behind it was to encourage Americans to go into war on the side of Britain. Both my World History and American History (AP) teachers told me that. I also heard it on the History Channel. I dont know.

By the way, when the decision was made by Truman to use them on Japan, the primary target was to be Tokyo and Kyoto. Tokyo was spared due to the fact that General LeMay fire bombed it nearly into oblivion and Kyoto was spared because many in the top eschelon of the military ranks and Truman himself decided a nations religious areas should not be destroyed.

I admire General Eisenhower/President Eisenhower. He was a great man.

The scenario you suggest is highly unlikely or impossible. But if you're basically asking "How would you feel if you were Japanese?", then I'd have to respond with the world "pissed". But anger wouldn't matter. The surrender is preferable to total nuclear anhilation or to a doomed battle for Japan.

Yeah, well anything could happen. I mean two commercial jets flying into the WTC sounds strangely odd. Even stranger is that 4-6 skyscrapers were destroyed in the incident.

It sounds more plausible to have LA/SF hit by a nuclear missile during a war, then two airlines being used as missiles into two towers.

[Jeebus]

With the advent of the bow and arrow, archers could slay opponents from hundreds of miles away, never having to see the faces of who they were slaying.

Wow.

[TheNiche]

Tokyo was spared due to the fact that General LeMay fire bombed it nearly into oblivion...

Thank you for reminding me, but wasn't firebombing much more destructive (if not as awe-inspiring) on the whole as the two nuclear attacks? I've always wondered why LeMay got away with such relatively little criticism.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Thank you for reminding me, but wasn't firebombing much more destructive (if not as awe-inspiring) on the whole as the two nuclear attacks? I've always wondered why LeMay got away with such relatively little criticism.

Fire bombing was more dangerous to our forces than the dropping of atomic weapons. The fire bombing required multiple low level flights at lower altitudes which put our boys in harms way and ended up in lots of US casualties.

Curtis E. LeMay was one of the greatest Generals to ever serve and wear the uniform. Cast iron and hawkish to the core!!!

General Curtis E. LeMay and his trademark cigar

[TheNiche]

Its true that the attack was unprovoked. However, the way i see it, America was on a "state of alert" during the World War whilst it was raging on the European and Asian fronts. All in all, the Americans in Pearl Harbor had something to defend themselves with. They were trained warriors.

On the other hand, the people of Hiro/Naga were untrained civilians.

Then ofcourse theres that possibility that the American Administration already knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked, but they didnt let anyone know. The idea behind it was to encourage Americans to go into war on the side of Britain. Both my World History and American History (AP) teachers told me that. I also heard it on the History Channel. I dont know.

I admire General Eisenhower/President Eisenhower. He was a great man.

Hiro/Naga were untrained civilians, but then the servicemen and civilians at Pearl Harbor were caught off-guard in a surprise attack. I'm on the fence about whether or not FDR knew about it, but on the face of things, I don't consider it much different. A surprise attack without so much as an open declaration of war has got to be on the same level of dishonor as is killing untrained civilians...especially if they may be trained tomorrow and shooting at your guys the day after.

Having said that, two wrongs don't make a right. And there's still the matter as to the scale of the destruction from the use of nuclear weapons. Another complicating factor is that Truman had to ask himself at some point whether there was a difference in terms of importance between American lives and Japanese lives. If so, what was the coefficient that goes in front of the formula that reconciles the value of people from different nations? That's a noggin-scratcher.

You know...sometimes the optimal outcome in a situation is not so much to maximize benefit as it is to minimize losses. Twentieth-century warfare is all about minimizing losses. There's no way around that. And sometimes the best way to accomplish that is using unorthodox or counterintuitive means.

Yeah, well anything could happen. I mean two commercial jets flying into the WTC sounds strangely odd. Even stranger is that 4-6 skyscrapers were destroyed in the incident.

It sounds more plausible to have LA/SF hit by a nuclear missile during a war, then two airlines being used as missiles into two towers.

There are a lot of technical issues that made the prospect of a nuclear missile launched on LA and SF profoundly unlikely. The foremost problem would have been that you are referring to a missile. NYC and DC were far more likely to be hit, with Germans being the aggressors. The WTC attacks, though admittedly strange, are entirely plausible and fit the general MO of Middle Eastern terrorists. But I still think that you were basically trying to pose the "how would you feel if you were Japanese?" question. And I gave my answer as best I could.