Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 123 ... LastLast
Results 36 to 70 of 112

Thread: Hiroshima 75

  1. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    56,437

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    If you have the fortitude, you should watch this anime, Directed by Isao Takahata, Studio Ghibli, the firebombing of Kobe. I watched it once; never again. It's the saddest film I've ever seen.

    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  2. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    32,014

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Eyewitness accounts of the Hiroshima bombing. Well worth a read.
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1...ODBpgvsiwfpPs4
    ​"Life is under no obligation to give us what we expect." Irrfan Khan. RIP

  3. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    32,014

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    If you have the fortitude, you should watch this anime, Directed by Isao Takahata, Studio Ghibli, the firebombing of Kobe. I watched it once; never again. It's the saddest film I've ever seen.

    Watched about half. Very graphic and very sad.
    ​"Life is under no obligation to give us what we expect." Irrfan Khan. RIP

  4. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Palo Alto, California
    Posts
    337

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy W View Post
    My father also felt that the bombs likely saved his life. When the war ended, he was on a troop ship heading to the Philippines to be part of the invasion
    I expect that many members of this forum had fathers with the same story. After spending a year flying P38s in the Aleutian Islands, my father was in Southern California, training to fly as a bomber escort for the invasion of Japan. As much as he hated the use of that terrible weapon he guessed that the rapid end it brought about saved his life. Fifty years later, on the 50th anniversary he happened to be in Hiroshima. He was overwhelmed by the kindness he was shown by the survivors and descendants of that terrible day.

    It turned out that my neighbor here in Palo Alto was the first doctor into Nagasaki. He was landed from the ship where he was a physician at the Japanese naval academy not far from Nagasaki a few days after the war had ended. The horror he saw made him an ardent opponent of nuclear weapons

  5. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    8,157

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    If you have the fortitude, you should watch this anime, Directed by Isao Takahata, Studio Ghibli, the firebombing of Kobe. I watched it once; never again. It's the saddest film I've ever seen.

    I may do so.

    But a reminder:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  6. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    24,142

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    .... and beyond the Bataan Death March, we have the Death Railway in our backyard here. 20% of the Allied prisoners of war that were forced by the Japanese to work on its construction died, and more than 50% of the Asian forced labourers died. More than died in the firebombing of Tokyo. A thousand deaths for every mile of the 258 mile railway.

    Japan didn't need invading. It was crumbling. Their merchant shipping had almost been decimated. It was down to 23% of it's pre-war tonnage.... and was dwindling rapidly. The greatest wastage of manpower and civilian lives in the Pacific war sheeted home to MacArthur and his ego. 100,000 civilians in Manila died for his ego.

  7. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    8,157

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by The Bigfella View Post
    .... and beyond the Bataan Death March, we have the Death Railway in our backyard here. 20% of the Allied prisoners of war that were forced by the Japanese to work on its construction died, and more than 50% of the Asian forced labourers died. More than died in the firebombing of Tokyo. A thousand deaths for every mile of the 258 mile railway.

    Japan didn't need invading. It was crumbling. Their merchant shipping had almost been decimated. It was down to 23% of it's pre-war tonnage.... and was dwindling rapidly. The greatest wastage of manpower and civilian lives in the Pacific war sheeted home to MacArthur and his ego. 100,000 civilians in Manila died for his ego.
    (bold) I dunno, that's like saying "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" before the war is over. (Not sure if you'll get that US domestic reference.)
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  8. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    24,142

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob (oh, THAT Bob) View Post
    (bold) I dunno, that's like saying "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" before the war is over. (Not sure if you'll get that US domestic reference.)
    Yes, I get it. Big banner on an aircraft carrier. President carrying a turkey.

  9. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    8,157

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by The Bigfella View Post
    Yes, I get it. Big banner on an aircraft carrier.
    Yep. Somewhat... early.
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  10. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    3,068

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    But that is a forced binary choice: invade or nuke. The third way would have been to blockade the home islands. Japan could not feed or fuel itself. In a short time it would be on its way back to the middle ages. Its Manchukuo Army would disintegrate for lack of supplies and reinforcements, its industry would halt almost completely, its people would start to starve, its military would be utterly unable to respond. They would end up hollering "nuff", especially if they could keep the Emperor.
    But there were other factors. There are mid-range estimates that the Japanese occupying forces in China, Burma, SEA, the PI and elsewhere killed 6 million people during the war. If the blockade had dragged on for another six months, with overseas garrisons no longer supplied and their situation becoming even worse, it is likely that even more non-Japanese civilians would have died.

    Why should one save Japanese civilians at the probable cost of a greater toll in the lives of Chinese, Phillipinnos (sp), Burmese etc?

    The Japanese military was not known for caring about the plight of its people, as demonstrated in many ways such as their willingness to assassinate civilian leaders who did not do what the military desired, and for the huge amount of GDP that went into munitions before the war. They showed in Manchuria that many officers didn't even listen to the high command, to the extent of attacking Russia without orders. They weren't behaving in a sane manner that showed care for civilian lives, which is why they had prepared sharpened stakes etc for women and children to use to fight off an invasion.
    Last edited by Chris249; 08-07-2020 at 02:42 AM.

  11. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    12,395

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Well, it is clear that the US thinks the bombs were justified. Being able to "declare victory", collective punishment, etc. The second bomb was used because it was there. Fortunately there wasn't a third, or tenth, bomb at hand, otherwise people would be arguing that it took ten nukes to convince Japan to surrender.

    Perhaps that is why the US has so many nuclear weapons today. Perhaps that is why it is comfortable with a first use policy.

    Why does the United States need enough nukes to destroy civilization several times over? What could possibly not be deterred by the threat of, say, a 500 warhead counterstrike?

  12. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    3,068

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    With respect, I think you may be over-simplifying matters. The reading I have done indicates that there is a fairly reasonable case to be made, as noted above, that the blockade option would have led to the deaths of many, many more lives than dropping the bombs. The bizarre thinking of the people at the top of the Japanese government also cannot be ignored.

    Are you aware, for example, that the possibility of a demonstration bombing was considered by the Franck Report, but rejected as impractical? Have you read of Compton's experience with the disaster of WW1 and its place in his considerations regarding the Scientific Interim Committee? Have you read "Pandora's Keepers", for example, or bios of (say) Oppenheimer or Preston's "Before the Fallout"?

    Have you looked into the food situation in Japan, the behaviour of the military, and the issues of the blockade of the Inland Sea with its routes to China?

    Have you studied, for example, the chaotic situations in Vietnam and Indonesia, and how much worse they would have become as the Japanese held on in those areas?

    How do you balance the lives lost in the bombings compared to the lives destroyed by the Japanese invasion of China and other areas? Four million Indonesians are said to have died under Japanese occupation in about four years - why allow more to die by prolonging the war? Why allow a death rate of ONE MILLION INDONESIANS PER ANNUM to continue in order to save a smaller number of Japanese?

    The Vietnamese famine of 1945 caused deaths estimated at 400,000 to 2 million, and it was largely caused by the Japanese retaining control of the area and by the very style of action (blockade) you are advocating. Why allow hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese to die in order to save the lives of a far smaller number of those who are starving them to death?

    Why don't the lives of Vietnamese, Indonesians, Chinese and Burmese count as much as the lives of Japanese? Why allow so many deaths of others in order to perhaps preserve a smaller number of Japanese lives?

  13. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    24,142

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    With respect, I think you may be over-simplifying matters. The reading I have done indicates that there is a fairly reasonable case to be made, as noted above, that the blockade option would have led to the deaths of many, many more lives than dropping the bombs. The bizarre thinking of the people at the top of the Japanese government also cannot be ignored.

    Are you aware, for example, that the possibility of a demonstration bombing was considered by the Franck Report, but rejected as impractical? Have you read of Compton's experience with the disaster of WW1 and its place in his considerations regarding the Scientific Interim Committee? Have you read "Pandora's Keepers", for example, or bios of (say) Oppenheimer or Preston's "Before the Fallout"?

    Have you looked into the food situation in Japan, the behaviour of the military, and the issues of the blockade of the Inland Sea with its routes to China?

    Have you studied, for example, the chaotic situations in Vietnam and Indonesia, and how much worse they would have become as the Japanese held on in those areas?

    How do you balance the lives lost in the bombings compared to the lives destroyed by the Japanese invasion of China and other areas? Four million Indonesians are said to have died under Japanese occupation in about four years - why allow more to die by prolonging the war? Why allow a death rate of ONE MILLION INDONESIANS PER ANNUM to continue in order to save a smaller number of Japanese?

    The Vietnamese famine of 1945 caused deaths estimated at 400,000 to 2 million, and it was largely caused by the Japanese retaining control of the area and by the very style of action (blockade) you are advocating. Why allow hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese to die in order to save the lives of a far smaller number of those who are starving them to death?

    Why don't the lives of Vietnamese, Indonesians, Chinese and Burmese count as much as the lives of Japanese? Why allow so many deaths of others in order to perhaps preserve a smaller number of Japanese lives?
    For the same reason that the lives of Russians didn't matter to the West. Stalin was pushing for the opening of the western front as early as 1942 and had received promises to that effect from Roosevelt and Churchill.

  14. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    32,014

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    The war with Japan was total war, that means civilians are targets. It means the Geneva Convention is on hold.
    ​"Life is under no obligation to give us what we expect." Irrfan Khan. RIP

  15. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    25,044

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by The Bigfella View Post
    For the same reason that the lives of Russians didn't matter to the West. Stalin was pushing for the opening of the western front as early as 1942 and had received promises to that effect from Roosevelt and Churchill.
    Well of course he was. And he was happily allied to Hitler and carrying out the Katyn massacre in Poland in 1939-40. Spare the whataboutery.

    And I suggest you don’t ever try that “line” near anyone who served in or had relatives who served in the Arctic convoys.
    IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINT

  16. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    12,395

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    With respect, I think you may be over-simplifying matters. The reading I have done indicates that there is a fairly reasonable case to be made, as noted above, that the blockade option would have led to the deaths of many, many more lives than dropping the bombs. The bizarre thinking of the people at the top of the Japanese government also cannot be ignored.

    Are you aware, for example, that the possibility of a demonstration bombing was considered by the Franck Report, but rejected as impractical? Have you read of Compton's experience with the disaster of WW1 and its place in his considerations regarding the Scientific Interim Committee? Have you read "Pandora's Keepers", for example, or bios of (say) Oppenheimer or Preston's "Before the Fallout"?

    Have you looked into the food situation in Japan, the behaviour of the military, and the issues of the blockade of the Inland Sea with its routes to China?

    Have you studied, for example, the chaotic situations in Vietnam and Indonesia, and how much worse they would have become as the Japanese held on in those areas?

    How do you balance the lives lost in the bombings compared to the lives destroyed by the Japanese invasion of China and other areas? Four million Indonesians are said to have died under Japanese occupation in about four years - why allow more to die by prolonging the war? Why allow a death rate of ONE MILLION INDONESIANS PER ANNUM to continue in order to save a smaller number of Japanese?

    The Vietnamese famine of 1945 caused deaths estimated at 400,000 to 2 million, and it was largely caused by the Japanese retaining control of the area and by the very style of action (blockade) you are advocating. Why allow hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese to die in order to save the lives of a far smaller number of those who are starving them to death?

    Why don't the lives of Vietnamese, Indonesians, Chinese and Burmese count as much as the lives of Japanese? Why allow so many deaths of others in order to perhaps preserve a smaller number of Japanese lives?
    The blockade option might have led to the deaths of many more than the bomb. Or not. Japan might have surrendered a month later. It is not like there was any strategic solution to their position.

    But dropping the bombs ensured hundreds of thousands of dead and terribly injured. A certain catastrophe was chosen over one that might not happen at all.

    (and god forbid you have a blockade that actually allows food and medicine through, right?)

    And please don't try to convince us that the people who decided to drop the bomb were overly concerned about Indonesians and Vietnamese.

  17. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    24,142

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett View Post
    Well of course he was. And he was happily allied to Hitler and carrying out the Katyn massacre in Poland in 1939-40. Spare the whataboutery.

    And I suggest you don’t ever try that “line” near anyone who served in or had relatives who served in the Arctic convoys.
    Um, what line? Sorry, I've missed the Cambridge subtlety.

    Stalin isn't exactly on my list of the top ten lovely chaps in the world.... but he was facing a situation where, IIRC, there were 175 German Divisions on the Eastern Front and only 25 in the western zone. Good Dog, they never had more than 3 Divisions in the Middle East

  18. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Grosse Pointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    15,031

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    But that is a forced binary choice: invade or nuke. The third way would have been to blockade the home islands. Japan could not feed or fuel itself. In a short time it would be on its way back to the middle ages. Its Manchukuo Army would disintegrate for lack of supplies and reinforcements, its industry would halt almost completely, its people would start to starve, its military would be utterly unable to respond. They would end up hollering "nuff", especially if they could keep the Emperor.
    Blockading Japan had already provoked a response--the attack on Pearl Harbor.

  19. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    12,395

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan McCosh View Post
    Blockading Japan had already provoked a response--the attack on Pearl Harbor.
    Which they carried out because they had 18 months before running out of oil and having to submit to US demands. In 1945 they had far less time left.

  20. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    31,204

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Hiroshima taught us all a valuable lesson: No nation will accept defeat if they have nuclear weapons at their disposal. The US was not even looking at defeat, but it was looking at huge losses if they invaded Japan. As these weapons proliferate, every nation that has them becomes a nation that will not submit to defeat. Add to that any terrorist group that gets their hands on one. It truly does make warfare unacceptable.

    It also teaches us that there is no longer any such thing as a noncombatant. Civilians support the military effort and become as much a target as the solder with a rifle.

    And if you still cling to the outdated notion of The Just War Theory, then you are a dinosaur. It no longer applies.

  21. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Grosse Pointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    15,031

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    Which they carried out because they had 18 months before running out of oil and having to submit to US demands. In 1945 they had far less time left.
    I would assume there had been a blockade in effect all through the war.

  22. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    25,044

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan McCosh View Post
    I would assume there had been a blockade in effect all through the war.
    Well, no, because they had access to Brunei and to the Indonesian oil fields.

    Had they but looked, their Army in Manchukuo was standing on one of the biggest oilfields on this planet. Mao’s China discovered the Da Qing oilfield in 1950.
    IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINT

  23. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Grosse Pointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    15,031

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett View Post
    Well, no, because they had access to Brunei and to the Indonesian oil fields.

    Had they but looked, their Army in Manchukuo was standing on one of the biggest oilfields on this planet. Mao’s China discovered the Da Qing oilfield in 1950.
    I didn't mean to say that the blockade was effective. Still, Japan's need for resources, notably coal and oil, was one of major the driving forces for it's expansionary efforts that ultimately led to it's role in WWII.

  24. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Port Richey
    Posts
    13,289

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Hindsight certainly is 20/20
    Tom

    "Leave the gun, take the cannolis"

  25. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    12,681

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by pandelume View Post

    What I take away from all this is that the framing of this debate is somewhat artificial (not to cast any aspersions on the WBF members participating) - particularly the distinction being made between the US strategic bombing efforts up until the atomic bombs were used and the use of the atomic bombs themselves. I don't think an ethical framework existed in military or government at the time to separate them. Even now, there's a fairly thin distinction between obliterating a city with conventional vs nuclear weapons. Much thinner than, say, between obliterating a city and not obliterating it at all.
    I generally agree with this, with a few minor squabbles. I would say there was accepted ethical framework around strategic bombing in general, not just the US. And that is not minor point trying to make the US seem "less bad". Strategic bombing was new to WWII, and military leaders in general struggled with what to do about it. The US wanted to do targeted attacks against military and industrial targets, but that required daytime bombing and more casualties, England settled for nighttime bombing. There were military leaders who would have ratehr bombed Germany to smitherreens before launching the D-Day invasion. I believe it was Ike who argued that the US did not go to Europe to reduce the great cities to rubble. In Japan it was more complicated, as the Japanese civilian workers tended to live right next door to the factories they worked in. Industrial vs resididntial areas in Japanese cities was not demarcated much at all. Add to that a bit (perhaps overstated at times) racial attitudes against the Japanese and they settled for the nighttime bombing of industrial citiies. And there was little thought of nuclear bombing being any different than other strategic bombing, just more efficient.

    But again, one can take the conclusions too far. Due to the destructiveness of the bomb, it was certainly hoped it would bring a rapid end to the war.

  26. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Seattle area
    Posts
    437

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    Well, it is clear that the US thinks the bombs were justified. Being able to "declare victory", collective punishment, etc. The second bomb was used because it was there. Fortunately there wasn't a third, or tenth, bomb at hand, otherwise people would be arguing that it took ten nukes to convince Japan to surrender.

    Perhaps that is why the US has so many nuclear weapons today. Perhaps that is why it is comfortable with a first use policy.

    Why does the United States need enough nukes to destroy civilization several times over? What could possibly not be deterred by the threat of, say, a 500 warhead counterstrike?
    Perhaps I misunderstand you, but what this seems like is that you have an axe to grind with US nuclear policy rather than an interest in the details and justification of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    This is fine with me - there is a lot to criticize about US nuclear policy since WWII - but I have the impression that it is interfering with your assessment of the bombing of Japan in 1945. At the time of the bombings there was no US nuclear policy to speak of. There weren't really any articulated justifications for the bombing to speak of, either - nearly all of the justifying theories that have been discussed here are postwar rationalizations of one kind or another.

    That isn't to say that the rationalizations necessarily aren't true, but they were not constructed in advance of the bombings, and their purpose was largely to explain and justify the usage of the bombs on Japan.

    Suppose for a minute that we perform a thought experiment: If the US had refrained from using the atomic bombs on Japan and had instead conventionally bombed (which in this context means firebombing) Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would you see that as a completely different situation? Incrementally different? By how much? If the US had then gone on to develop the same nuclear arsenal we have today, would you see that in a different light?

  27. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Seattle area
    Posts
    437

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by peb View Post
    I generally agree with this, with a few minor squabbles. I would say there was accepted ethical framework around strategic bombing in general, not just the US. And that is not minor point trying to make the US seem "less bad". Strategic bombing was new to WWII, and military leaders in general struggled with what to do about it. The US wanted to do targeted attacks against military and industrial targets, but that required daytime bombing and more casualties, England settled for nighttime bombing. There were military leaders who would have ratehr bombed Germany to smitherreens before launching the D-Day invasion. I believe it was Ike who argued that the US did not go to Europe to reduce the great cities to rubble. In Japan it was more complicated, as the Japanese civilian workers tended to live right next door to the factories they worked in. Industrial vs resididntial areas in Japanese cities was not demarcated much at all. Add to that a bit (perhaps overstated at times) racial attitudes against the Japanese and they settled for the nighttime bombing of industrial citiies. And there was little thought of nuclear bombing being any different than other strategic bombing, just more efficient.

    But again, one can take the conclusions too far. Due to the destructiveness of the bomb, it was certainly hoped it would bring a rapid end to the war.
    I agree with you that there was hope that the atomic bombs would help rapidly end the war. I think your description of the issues surrounding strategic bombing in general is largely accurate. What I meant was that at the time of the atomic bombings there wasn't in the military or US government really any ethical distinction between conventional bomb use and atomic bomb use - the distinction came after the bombs were used. The strategic bombing of Japan, in my opinion, is a difficult ethical area - one that is perhaps more relevant than the specific ethics of the first atomic bomb use, insofar as the use of the atomic bombs was an extension of the strategic bombing policy.

  28. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    12,681

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by pandelume View Post
    The strategic bombing of Japan, in my opinion, is a difficult ethical area - one that is perhaps more relevant than the specific ethics of the first atomic bomb use, insofar as the use of the atomic bombs was an extension of the strategic bombing policy.
    Yes, this is the key point, I agree. I once made the statement, with regards to WWII bombing campaigns, that it would take the death the generation following WWII before it can be objectively analyzed from a moral perspective. Too many people around knew their fathers and grandfathers and others who bravely went on those bombing missions, at great risk, to ever be objective as to whether it was just or not.
    Fortunately, in the last 30-40 years, most military thought regarding bombing and missiles has come to rely more and more on pinpoint accuracy, both to be more effective and to reduce collateral damage (ie innocent lives killed). Certainly our ethics with regards to bombing have evolved quite a bit since WWII, when it was all in its infancy, yet being used on a scale not seen since.

  29. #64
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    the hills
    Posts
    57,530

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    I’m going to get Scott Ritter’s latest book on US nuclear weapons history.

    https://www.amazon.com/Scorpion-King.../dp/1949762181

    A comprehensive and illuminating account of America's paralyzing infatuation with nuclear weapons. This expanded edition of Scott Ritter's 2010 book drives home the point made in the original: The ominous threat of Doomsday persists, with U.S. policymakers unable to extricate themselves from the reckless pact with the devil made by their predecessors more than a half-century ago." -- ANDREW BACEVICH, President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft

  30. #65
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon
    Posts
    1,279

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    "The horror he saw made him an ardent opponent of nuclear weapons"

    yeah, I know the arguments on both sides.
    my take is NEVER again drop a Nuc...anytime anywhere. Call me a simplistic or naive, I don't care.

    Trump Budget Calls for New Nuclear Warheads and 2 Types of Missiles


    The president’s spending proposal requests money for a new arms race

  31. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    12,395

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by pandelume View Post
    Perhaps I misunderstand you, but what this seems like is that you have an axe to grind with US nuclear policy rather than an interest in the details and justification of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    ....

    Suppose for a minute that we perform a thought experiment: If the US had refrained from using the atomic bombs on Japan and had instead conventionally bombed (which in this context means firebombing) Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would you see that as a completely different situation?
    My problem is with a policy of bombing cities to rubble. Radiation just makes it worse.

    The US has been bombing civilian areas since World War II in the hopes that someday it will work and make the enemy surrender. In fact, it has never worked.

    This insistence on justifying the nuking of Japan is part of the reason why the US keeps more nukes than everyone else combined, along with a first use policy. The US military thinks they are a good idea since 1945.

  32. #67
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon
    Posts
    1,279

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    "The US military thinks they are a good idea since 1945."

    and then there is this,


    Trump Budget Calls for New Nuclear Warheads and 2 Types ...








    [COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]But a 2015 Pew Research Center survey finds that the share of Americans who believe the use of nuclear weapons was justified is now 56%, with 34% saying it was not. In Japan, only 14% say the bombing was justified, versus 79% who say it was not.[/COLOR]
    [COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Not surprisingly, there is a large generation gap among Americans in attitudes toward the bombings of Hiroshima. Seven-in-ten Americans ages 65 and older say the use of atomic weapons was justified, but only 47% of 18- to 29-year-olds agree. There is a similar partisan divide: 74% of Republicans but only 52% of Democrats see the use of nuclear weapons at the end of World War II as warrante[/COLOR]

    Will the fight go on for sanity...

  33. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    3,068

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    The blockade option might have led to the deaths of many more than the bomb. Or not. Japan might have surrendered a month later. It is not like there was any strategic solution to their position.

    But dropping the bombs ensured hundreds of thousands of dead and terribly injured. A certain catastrophe was chosen over one that might not happen at all.

    (and god forbid you have a blockade that actually allows food and medicine through, right?)

    And please don't try to convince us that the people who decided to drop the bomb were overly concerned about Indonesians and Vietnamese.
    Please don't try to convince us of issues when it seems that you have done no research on them.

    Let's look at your points;

    1- There was no sign that Japan was going to surrender in a month of further blockade. As others have pointed out, the country had been largely blockaded since the Phillippine Islands were taken by the US. According to many sources, the Japanese people were already suffering terribly, and those in control were planning to make them suffer more in the hope of somehow achieving a better peace settlement. Yes, it was insane but so was the decision to go to war in the first place.

    2- If Japan stayed in the war for a month later, it appears that hundreds of thousands of people in other countries who had been invaded were going to die. Again, why place the lives of Japanese above the lives of a greater number of people they had invaded?

    What you are advocating was a gamble that the Japanese, who had been facing blockade and certain defeat for years, were suddenly going to change their minds. The probable stakes were either hundreds of thousands of dead or injured Japanese, or a LARGER number of dead of injured Chinese, Singaporeans, Koreans, Malaysians, Vietnamese and others.

    3- If the blockade allowed food and medicine through then it probably wasn't a blockade that would end the war. You are also apparently ignoring the problem of running such a blockade. How do you tell from a submarine's periscope or from a B25 that a ship contains food and medicine, or munitions? How do you operate a search mechanism in the Inland Sea, between China and Japan when both shores are held by hostile forces?

    4- Are you aware of the US and British reaction to the events in Indo China at the end of the war? Sure, the people who decided to drop the bomb may have been racist and paternalistic in some ways, but the events in Indo-China and the US attitude to the BPF and Mailfist show that they were also distinctly against colonialist oppression even by Europeans.

    5- May I ask again what research you have done on this topic, and why you apparently assume that you know more about the factors involved than the people who were involved in the decision to drop the bomb and the research behind that decision?
    Last edited by Chris249; 08-07-2020 at 08:55 PM.

  34. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    3,068

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    Quote Originally Posted by sonofswen View Post
    "The US military thinks they are a good idea since 1945."

    and then there is this,


    Trump Budget Calls for New Nuclear Warheads and 2 Types ...








    [COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]But a 2015 Pew Research Center survey finds that the share of Americans who believe the use of nuclear weapons was justified is now 56%, with 34% saying it was not. In Japan, only 14% say the bombing was justified, versus 79% who say it was not.[/COLOR]
    [COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Not surprisingly, there is a large generation gap among Americans in attitudes toward the bombings of Hiroshima. Seven-in-ten Americans ages 65 and older say the use of atomic weapons was justified, but only 47% of 18- to 29-year-olds agree. There is a similar partisan divide: 74% of Republicans but only 52% of Democrats see the use of nuclear weapons at the end of World War II as warrante[/COLOR]

    Will the fight go on for sanity...
    How many of those who were surveyed were aware of the issues involved? According to this study, 22% of young Americans don't even know of the existence of the Holocaust,41% of them think that fewer than 2 million Jews were killed, and 2/3 don't know of Auschwitz.

    That study, and similar surveys, show pretty clearly that most young people have very little idea of the history of the time, and therefore they do not have informed knowledge of the factors involved in the decision to make and drop the bombs.

  35. #70
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    8,157

    Default Re: Hiroshima 75

    The question of a prolonged blockade:

    From the day of the Pearl Harbor attack, the USA was "all-in" on the war. Production of anything else that was not for the war effort or to keep the civilian population alive was on hold. Tremendous national effort and combined sacrifice.

    The history after WWII has shown the problems with national support of a war that drags on longer than needed. Maybe the US leaders were more prescient, maybe not, but they wanted the war over as quickly as possible. And given the suffering and sacrifice of US troops and population, you can't blame them for that. Can you imagine the outcry, if, after the immense resources that were invested in the Manhattan Project, and the result was not used to end the war quickly, that the knowledge became public? How could it not after war's end with the sheer number of people working on it? Not design details, but why were you refining uranium and plutonium?

    AFTER the surrender of Japan and Germany, the USA showed enormous generosity, partly to prevent the origins of WWII in the lack of generosity after WWI, possibly to preempt the Soviet Union from getting footholds, possibly humanitarian reasons, but I think those deeds in the aftermath of the war were the finest hour of the United States; Not just food aid and such, but rebuilding industries, with the result that Germany and Japan became thriving, wealthy societies and powerhouses of industry, something that continues to this day.
    Last edited by Bob (oh, THAT Bob); 08-07-2020 at 09:40 PM.
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •