Hiroshima

[admedia]

During World War II, for the purpose of forcing the Japanese to surrender unconditionally, the United States military dropped atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan on August 6 and August 9, 1945 respectively, killing at least 120,000 people outright, and around twice as many over time. Japan presented its formal document of surrender to the Allied powers on August 15. This was the first and only use of atomic bombing in history.

Today marked the 60th anniversary of this horrible event in our worlds history.

[erova]

Today marked the 60th anniversary of this horrible event in our worlds history.

horrible event. nice. i'm sure the korean comfort women agree.

[admedia]

I just watched a new program called Hiroshima on the Discovery Channel. It was horrifying. Like watching a suspenseful horror film, but you know it's true and you know the horrible ending. I have seen alot of doumenteries about Hiroshima, but this one I thought was extremely well done, interesting and terrifying. Alot of first hand accounts of Hiroshima citizens in the moments before, during and after the bomb contrasted with first hand accounts of the atomic bombardiers. Re-enactments, actual footage, etc...

I guess it doesn't matter how many times I hear about it. It's just still unbelievable to me. The horror is unimaginable.

I think those casualty figures in my original quote from wikkipedia are low.

[indivision]

It is horrible that it came to that. Do you disagree with Truman's decision?

[gerbick]

this reminds me of that time I wanted a tattoo while in Japan that said that famous line from Pulp Fiction... "mushroom cloud layin' mutha... mutha..."

all while in Japan, near Hiroshima. Guess I was insensitive.

[Jeff2A]

It is horrible that it came to that. Do you disagree with Truman's decision?

I think it's very, very hard to disagree with Truman's decision when you look at everything in perspective. There's two things to remember when you consider the end scenario of WWII in the Pacific:
1) Someone would have had to establish a beachhead on the Japanese mainland, which would have been an ugly, bloody act, and
2) Stalin would have probably beaten us there if we had to island-hop as we had been.

The most regrettable part of the incident (in my opinion) is that it affects future generations rather than just those alive at the time of fighting. That, in my opinion, is far more significant than the actual deaths that occurred in the first 5 years. It's also, in fact, one of the parts that Truman likely didn't understand at the time he ordered the bombing.

[admedia]

Do you disagree with Truman's decision?

I don't think it was necessary to end the war. In retrospect it can be concluded that Truman could have negociated the terms of surrender and avoid the invasion of Japan before resorting to dropping the atomic bomb(s).

The reason for dropping it was more than just to end the war and to avoid invasion. Who knows what the world would have looked like now though if we hadn't dropped the bomb(s). Without knowing the true devastating nature of atomic weapons would the Cold War really have been so Cold?

It is difficult to say that I agree with the decision, but at the same time I think it prevented further problems and catastrophe down the road.

One of the saddest things was a Japanses woman survivor crying and pleading that humans should never experience the horror it caused. I pray that this never happpens again.

[Jeff2A]

I don't think it was necessary to end the war. In retrospect it can be concluded that Truman could have negociated the terms of surrender and avoid the invasion of Japan before resorting to dropping the atomic bomb(s).
.

Do you have any examples of major wars that were ended through negotiation and surrender PRIOR to military defeat that didn't lead to larger problems? The mindset that you can gain the upper hand and then accept surrender goes against standard military theory, and allows treaties like Versailles to stop wars that neither side believed were done. WWI wasn't over - as shown by WWII, the Gulf War wasn't over - as shown by Saddams refusal to allow real inspections and the 2003 invasion (whether you agree with it or not, if the Gulf War had removed him from power, it wouldn't have happened), the Revolutionary War (1776) wasn't over - as shown by 1812, and Korea wasn't over - we haven't even seen the second round of this, but it may certainly be coming.

I think one of the few things that's relatively consistent in history is the concept of 'winning' a war - if you don't thoroughly destroy your enemy, they come back. The problem we see is that the thoroughness require tends to conflict with our sense of morality - nobody wants to kill women and children, but that sort of brutality is required to win wars. At the end of the day, every person in the opposing state needs to say "I'm never going through that again", and using smart bombs to hit military locations just isn't going to cause that sort of reaction unless - at the very least - one of the bombs removes the leader.

[admedia]

Do you have any examples of major wars that were ended through negotiation and surrender PRIOR to military defeat that didn't lead to larger problems?

It is difficult to say that I agree with the decision, but at the same time I think it prevented further problems and catastrophe down the road.

I agree with you. Perhaps the only acceptable surrender in major war is an unconditional one.

I think the decision to drop the bombs at the time did help to prevent an unstable 'negotiated' settlement and avoid major problems with the Soviet Union. It was a popular decision at the time. The Japanese were brutal and relentless adversaries. Better to use the weapon sooner rather than later.

What were the factors determining the decision to drop Fat-Man on Nagasaki?
No official word from Japan after Hiroshima?

[shadowking]

The alternative action was marines attacking mainland Japan (based on deaths suffered at Iwo Jima) the estimate presented to Truman was 1 million.

[justice strike]

take a look at "grave of the fireflies". It gives a horrifying look at life just after the hiroshima bomb.

[MagnusVS]

If we think about it, the nazi regime in Germany and the fascists in Italy had already surrendered. I've heard that Japan might surrender anyway, with these bombs or without. What should they fight for? All of their allies were gone.

The alternative action was marines attacking mainland Japan (based on deaths suffered at Iwo Jima) the estimate presented to Truman was 1 million.

I don't think an invasion would cost this many lives. Compared to the numbers of death civilians with the nuclear bombs, i think that an invasion would've killed less.

Stalin would have probably beaten us there if we had to island-hop as we had been.

I don't actually understand what you mean here? Why would stalin attack the US at the end of the war?

It's hard for us today to tell whether dropping that bomb was the best decision, or whether the war could've been ended in another way. But one thing i think is a bit tragically is that the pilots were awarded medals and had a big ceremony when they returned, after killing ten thousands civilians.

[admedia]

the pilots were awarded medals and had a big ceremony when they returned, after killing ten thousands civilians.

You blame the pilots?

They were interviewed in the Discovery program as well. Of course they feel awful about carrying out their mission and I can tell they will have that on their conscience the rest of their lives. It was their responsibility and duty to carry out the mission and they did so successfully. I commend them for their bravery and sacrifice.

[Ultima Designs]

If we think about it, the nazi regime in Germany and the fascists in Italy had already surrendered. I've heard that Japan might surrender anyway, with these bombs or without. What should they fight for? All of their allies were gone.

They were fighting for preserving the old order of Japan. That's what they had to fight for.

[indivision]

They dropped the second bomb because Japan refused to surrender after the first. The devestation caused by the atomic bomb(s) was horrific. However, horrors of greater magnitude had already and were happening before that. Imperial Japan had killed several million Chinese in the years before US involvement (some estimates put that toll toward 20 million!). In Nanking, they killed at least as many as the atomic bombs ever killed in the short or long run. These killings included babies, old women and everyone else. And it happened over weeks, face-to-face with bayonets, sword beheadings, gang-rapes, etc.

There is no evidence that I have ever found, in a lot of reading, that Japan was anywhere near surrender. Just the opposite, a nationwide campaign was taking place to instruct every man, woman and child on how to engage in suicide and guerilla warfare if the mainland were to be invaded. Even after the atomic bombs were dropped, there was nearly a successful military coup in an effort to continue fighting. You have to understand that part of the culture at the time was to fight selflessly to the death, even if no victory was in sight.

The estimates of death that would have been tolled from a mainland invasion are probably accurate. More so than a non-expert on FK with no actual data could deduce. As far as affecting future generations. Think of what Japan would be like had a mainland invasion happened. Look at Vietnam and Korea as perfect examples. The devestation of a land invasion would have crippled the nation for a century. Also, another fact about that part of the war was that many more people were already being killed by firebombing than by the atomic bomb. How would Truman have answered if, after the devestation of a mainland invasion occured, it was discovered that there was a weapon that could have ended the war earlier?

In the end, it was horrible. All war is horrible. The innocent lives lost due to these bombs, and all of the other bombs should be remembered and honored. But, I think people get a little carried away about the spectacle of the atomic bombs and lose sight of the full picture.

[Ultima Designs]

Also, another fact about that part of the war was that many more people were already being killed by firebombing than by the atomic bomb.

This is absolutely true. The vast majority of death and destruction in Japan came from the firestorming, not from the atomic bombs.

[MagnusVS]

You blame the pilots?

They were interviewed in the Discovery program as well. Of course they feel awful about carrying out their mission and I can tell they will have that on their conscience the rest of their lives. It was their responsibility and duty to carry out the mission and they did so successfully. I commend them for their bravery and sacrifice.

Of course i don't blame the pilots! But i think it's a bit scary to have a celebration ceremony when you've just killed ten thousands of civilians, even if it made japan surrender. I know that some of the crew on the "Enola Gay" feel terrible about it, i saw an interview on tv.

(Just a comment: To have a duty to carry out something, doesn't always mean that you should do it. the "duty" killed, among others, 6.000.000 jews)

[MagnusVS]

They dropped the second bomb because Japan refused to surrender after the first. The devestation caused by the atomic bomb(s) was horrific. However, horrors of greater magnitude had already and were happening before that. Imperial Japan had killed several million Chinese in the years before US involvement (some estimates put that toll toward 20 million!). In Nanking, they killed at least as many as the atomic bombs ever killed in the short or long run. These killings included babies, old women and everyone else. And it happened over weeks, face-to-face with bayonets, sword beheadings, gang-rapes, etc.

There is no evidence that I have ever found, in a lot of reading, that Japan was anywhere near surrender. Just the opposite, a nationwide campaign was taking place to instruct every man, woman and child on how to engage in suicide and guerilla warfare if the mainland were to be invaded. Even after the atomic bombs were dropped, there was nearly a successful military coup in an effort to continue fighting. You have to understand that part of the culture at the time was to fight selflessly to the death, even if no victory was in sight.

The estimates of death that would have been tolled from a mainland invasion are probably accurate. More so than a non-expert on FK with no actual data could deduce. As far as affecting future generations. Think of what Japan would be like had a mainland invasion happened. Look at Vietnam and Korea as perfect examples. The devestation of a land invasion would have crippled the nation for a century. Also, another fact about that part of the war was that many more people were already being killed by firebombing than by the atomic bomb. How would Truman have answered if, after the devestation of a mainland invasion occured, it was discovered that there was a weapon that could have ended the war earlier?

In the end, it was horrible. All war is horrible. The innocent lives lost due to these bombs, and all of the other bombs should be remembered and honored. But, I think people get a little carried away about the spectacle of the atomic bombs and lose sight of the full picture.

Yes i know that Japan had done terrible things in China, and the relations between the countries are still very tense. You have many good points here, and i won't argue against them. As i wrote, it's hard for us to say whether the decision was right or wrong, as it's also hard to tell what the outcome would've been if the bombs weren't dropped.

[Visionray]

But, I think people get a little carried away about the spectacle of the atomic bombs and lose sight of the full picture.

Especially the Japanese, who for the most part, are completley unwilling to look at the reasons why those A bombs were dropped in the first place.

[MagnusVS]

Of course they won't forget it very soon, just like americans won't forget 9/11.