Happy Hiroshima day….

[headscratcher4]

Today is the anniversary of the dropping of the first atomic bomb, resulting in the death of over 150,000 people in and around the city of Hiroshima.

I am one of those who believes that nuclear war must be avoided at all costs, that proliferation is an evil to be fought by all sane individuals, that US policy regarding nukes has been haphazard and often misguided.

I also believe that the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the Second World War, saved hundreds of thousands of lives (both US and Japanese). I am also glad that the US developed the bomb first (the horror of thinking that the Japanese or the Germans would have been any more thoughtful about its use -- especially once they were losing -- is too great to contemplate). I also think that the US was justified in using the bomb especially to end the war. I don't believe that the policy was particularly "racist" -- as I am convinced that had we had the bomb when the war in Europe was at its peak, we would have used it against the Germans (that is the use for which it was designed).

Anyway, I write this soliciting opinions on what people, today, think of the bombing of Hiroshima, in context and what lessons we can take from the use of the bomb….

One thought that I'd like to share is that there are few alternatives in the current global situation as Kim Il Jong having a bomb...what should the world do about it?

[Larspeart]

/em throws confetti.

Hiroshima Day. . . the day that the USA effectively told the world 'don't mess with us.'

This day, above and beyond all others in history (I believe at least) was a defining moment, because it was the 1st time that all other countries had to stop, sit back and realize that no matter the circumstance, there was an army out there that has the biggest stick. Further still, this big stick will do what every other weapon throughout history had built up to; total annihilation of whatever target it wanted.

The atomic bomb is what the catapult wanted to be.

It is what the trebuchet wished it was.

It is the cannon on a castle wall. . . times a billion.

It is mustard gas that lasts for a decade, and destroys the buildings, crops, animals, and water too.

It is, in it's basest sense, what man first wanted to do when he picked up a heavy stick 250,000 years ago, and charged the enemy tribes' cave. He wanted to destroy the cave. instead, he clubbed a man.

The atomic bomb destroys the cave, everything around the cave, the beings in the cave, and makes the remains of the cave toxic for years to come. The ultimate stick.

[Tmy]

I nearly forgot! Now wheres my "I got bombed in Hiroshima and all I got was this lousy Tshirt..............and colon cancer" t-shirt?

Nowadays wed be disgusted wh targeting such a lg civilian population. Thats what terrorists do.

Being it was way before my time Im wondering. Was it soooooo neccesary.. Would the japs be as unimpressed if we nuked a small island just for show??? WHat about zapping Nagazaki so soon afterwards. Did we give them a chance to really think about Hiroshima??

IS the whole "we saved lives" line really just feel good propaganda.

[headscratcher4]

The argument, if I recall history correctly, was made to do a "demonstration" and not bomb a population center. One of the issues, I think, was that there was only one bomb (maybe two) at the time and maximum impact to drive home the point was desired. The fear was that a demonstration could be dismissed and there would be little chance for follow-up. Whereas by bombing a city, the profound impact of the weapon and how it changed the nature of the war could not be overlooked. Even so, there was great disagreement among the Japanese leadership regarding how to respond to the bomb, and more than a few hard-liners who wanted to fight on...sacrificing everything for the honor of the nation (as it were).

[Mike B.]

How is Hiroshima morally different than fire-bombing Tokyo or the RAF terror raids on German cities?

BTW,
How many more people would have to be killed in China by the genocide inflicted on them by the Japanese Army to get the people time to think about it?

Also,
The Soviet invasion of Manchuria also sealed the deal of the Japs surrendering...

[Aoidoi]

Last I read, Truman figured it was just a bigger bomb and didn't think of it as a long term strategic issue... but this is one of those issues where there's a lot of misinformation floating around so it's hard to find out what really happened (I could be completely wrong FWIW).

I do know that the firebombing of various cities killed and maimed far more people than the atomic bombs did. Napalm used on wood and ricepaper was a horrific tactic.

So far as I've been able to determine, there was not an increase in cancer cases due to the bombings. A rather large number of people died from radiation burns, but it does not appear to increased the long term cancer risks, and the radiation level at ground zero is pretty much back to the background level at this point.

Mind you, modern nukes are so much more powerful that there's little question they could eradicate humanity, but those first couple bombs weren't even as effective as the napalm attacks on other cities. The psychological impact was due largely to it being a single bomb rather than many, and the idea that if they kept dropping them they could, eventually, destroy the whole island (of course, we did only have the 2 at the time).

[HarryKeogh]

i recently saw in a documentary how before the nukes were dropped bombing of those two cities was kept to a minimum so the US could effectively measure the impact the nukes had. never heard that before , found it interesting.

and for the record, glad we dropped those nukes and hope we never have to again.

[Tormac]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
i recently saw in a documentary how before the nukes were dropped bombing of those two cities was kept to a minimum so the US could effectively measure the impact the nukes had. never heard that before , found it interesting.

and for the record, glad we dropped those nukes and hope we never have to again.

Well we did avoid bombing those cities. The oficial line that I had read was that they were not military targets, and not worth the expendature of men and material.

[Tormac]

The atomic bombing of civilian cities saved hundreds of thousands of lives. It's unpleasant to say that the indiscriminate death of thousands and thousands can be justified, but I do think that the use of the atomic bomb was preferable to a conventional invasion, and at least equivalent to carpet firebombing that the allies had started to resort to. In the context of the war, I do think that it is important to realize that the atomic bomb was nothing revolutionary, it had shock value, and was easy to deliver, but the allies had air superiority at that point, and had already demonstrated a willingness to firebomb civilian populations. I don't think there is any moral difference between what the allies did to Dresden and what we did to Hiroshima. The atomic bomb is an easy thing to focus on, but by the closing of WW2 nations had reached the ability to obliterate populations by conventional means. It is the will to perform such an act by a government and its populace that is the horror.

Time and time again, throughout human history human governments have shown the willingness to slaughter or enslave other populations indiscriminately. I would hate to think that it would take the threat of Mutual Assured Destruction to keep nations from ravaging weaker ones. Unfortunately the "safety" of the bomb has only been for a privileged few, and this allure is what makes nuclear proliferation likely. And even for the ones living with the double-edged safety of nuclear arms, its protection may be waning. Now we live in an era of asymmetrical conflict, with thousands still dying in an instant.

The bomb itself is not the thing that we need to focus on. As a species our willingness to kill humans indiscriminately needs to be acknowledged by general populations, and its motives need to be understood and rejected. If humans can make the moral decision that using force to achieve profit is wrong, and if we can make our institutions accept this decision, we may make a world where a population does not need ICBM's for protection.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Today is the anniversary of the dropping of the first atomic bomb, resulting in the death of over 150,000 people in and around the city of Hiroshima.


Im so happy I could die of leukemia!

Originally posted by headscratcher4
I am also glad that the US developed the bomb first.

Oh yes. With no help from any other country either!

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Im so happy I could die of leukemia!



Oh yes. With no help from any other country either!

Your point is once again lost on me.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Your point is once again lost on me.

Its behind your right ear!!!

[Skeptical Greg]

Here is an interesting read..

The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mpmenu.htm)

This report describes the effects of the atomic bombs which were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively. It summarizes all the authentic information that is available on damage to structures, injuries to personnel, morale effect, etc., which can be released at this time without prejudicing the security of the United States.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Im so happy I could die of leukemia!http://www.hiroshima-is.ac.jp/Hiroshima/radiation.htm
http://www.rerf.or.jp/eigo/radefx/late/leukemia.htm
Well look at that, I guess there were excess leukemia deaths due to the radiation. 87 or 89 from 1950 to 1990. I wonder how they determined they were excess... they didn't mention what they were using as a control.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Oh yes. With no help from any other country either!


Point well taken...the bomb was developed by the allies and not just the US (though it is interesting, that the US is always singled out as the only country to use one -- no one says "the allies dropped the bomb on Japan" -- but that is as maybe...). It would have been impossible without the British and the many other international scientists who participated in the project. I apologize for mistating the facts....

[Larspeart]

The original 'race' was between the Germans (who for a long time were ahead of us, and the Americans, who jumped in late only AFTER most of the german scientists (of which Einstein was one) defected and worked for us. The original idea was simply to beat the Germans. it was then later changed to 'lose against the GERMANS to end the war in Europe' but we beat Germany too fast to have the chance. The bomb was finsihed AFTER Germany had fallen. At that point, we truely believed we would NOT have to use it at all. Then, Japan decided it wasn't going to surrender, no matter what.

Carpet bombing, napalm, flame-throwing their bunkers, and taking over and occupying EVERY island they had gained did nothing to sway them. A full scale 'D-Day II' invasion was the worst possible outcome. The lose of life that would have occured by a full invasion of Japan, on both sides, would likely have equaled the deaths in Europe (minus the holocaust).

So, 2 HUGE displays of power by a weapon that is the ABSOLUTE demoralizer, humiliator, and will-killer on two large military-industrial cities was to do what nothing else would; break the japanese will to fight.

Yes, we did wait and give them a chance to surrender both BEFORE AND AFTER the 1st bomb was dropped. We told them, clearly, that we are going to drop a weapon on one of your major port cities very soon if you don't surrender. They didn't. We dropped the bomb, and anihilated Hiroshima. We then gave them TWO WEEKS and said 'we'll do it again, we promise'. They still didn't, so we dropped the second one.

Now, at this point (I believe) we were out of nukes. We still told them we would hit tokeyo and Osaka next. Only then did they give up.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Larspeart
.

They didn't. We dropped the bomb, and anihilated Hiroshima. We then gave them TWO WEEKS and said 'we'll do it again, we promise'. They still didn't, so we dropped the second one.



Where did you get this information.. I understand that the two bombs were dropped on the 6th and 9th of August, with no warning in between. I'm not sure about warnings before or after..

See my link above..

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Then, Japan decided it wasn't going to surrender, no matter what.



Everyone keeps saying this as if its true. Obviously its not because they did surrender.

[SteveW]

This was the only way to force a reasonable surrender. The Japs were training little kids to defend the main islands with sharpened bamboo sticks. WWII would have drawn on another year at least at a cost of nearly a million lives.

Remember, at the time the emporer was a living god and the entire country supported the war almost from a religious point of view.

With this in mind, nukes are impractical today. The problem as I see it are small factions within the "axis of evil" and destroying everything and everybody is totally out of the question.


"I have become Death- the destroyer of worlds" - Oppenheimer after the first test.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Here is an interesting read..

The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mpmenu.htm)



Here's another interesting article: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/08/05/nyt.kristof/index.html

The article supports the belief that, while some elements of Japan wanted to surrender before the bombing, certain elements of the Japanese military wanted to continue fighting, even after the bombings.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the article:


One of the great tales of World War II concerns an American fighter pilot named Marcus McDilda who was shot down on Aug. 8 and brutally interrogated about the atomic bombs. He knew nothing, but under torture he "confessed" that the U.S. had 100 more nuclear weapons and planned to destroy Tokyo "in the next few days."

[shanek]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
I also believe that the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the Second World War, saved hundreds of thousands of lives (both US and Japanese).

I don't see how that can be the case. The reason we dropped the bombs on Japan was to force them to give an unconditional surrender...but after we got that, we left the Emperor on the throne—which was the only condition the Japanese had wanted anyway! So, we could have just accepted the conditional surrender, left the Emperor on the throne, not dropped the bombs, and still ended the war at just about the same time.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by shanek


I don't see how that can be the case. The reason we dropped the bombs on Japan was to force them to give an unconditional surrender...but after we got that, we left the Emperor on the throne—which was the only condition the Japanese had wanted anyway! So, we could have just accepted the conditional surrender, left the Emperor on the throne, not dropped the bombs, and still ended the war at just about the same time.

Except he was now an emperor in the same sense as English royalty are on the throne. We completely and totally remade Japan after the war; created a constitution, gave women right to vote, removed any cast system that was in place. The kind of system that Japan wanted in that "only" condition was different than they ended up with.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shanek


I don't see how that can be the case. The reason we dropped the bombs on Japan was to force them to give an unconditional surrender...but after we got that, we left the Emperor on the throne—which was the only condition the Japanese had wanted anyway! So, we could have just accepted the conditional surrender, left the Emperor on the throne, not dropped the bombs, and still ended the war at just about the same time.

You make it sound like Japan was ready and willing to just give up. Although there is a lot of hindsight over the issue, a lot of historians and people who were actually involved in the politics back then think that many Japanese (or at least its military) wanted to continue fighting.

For example, from the artical I posted before (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/08/05/nyt.kristof/index.html):


The Japanese scholarship, by historians like Sadao Asada of Doshisha University in Kyoto, notes that Japanese wartime leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized upon the bombing as a new argument to force surrender.

"We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war," Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest aides, said later


So, some of the people in Japan who wanted to end the war actually welcomed the bombing. (Ironic, ain't it?)

[Crossdress]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
So, some of the people in Japan who wanted to end the war actually welcomed the bombing. (Ironic, ain't it?)


how do you know this ?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Crossdress



how do you know this ?

Dude! He just provided you with a quote!
"We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war," Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest aides, said later

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Dude! He just provided you with a quote!


Not to mention these quotes (also from the article):


The atomic bombings broke this political stalemate and were thus described by Mitsumasa Yonai, the navy minister at the time, as a "gift from heaven."

...


"The atomic bomb was a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war," Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief cabinet secretary in 1945, said later.


Yeah, I know relying on a single source for so much information is usually not a good thing. But at least its a main-stream source (like CNN), and not someone's personal web page, or some extremely biased source like NewsMax or Indymedia.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Except he was now an emperor in the same sense as English royalty are on the throne. We completely and totally remade Japan after the war; created a constitution, gave women right to vote, removed any cast system that was in place. The kind of system that Japan wanted in that "only" condition was different than they ended up with.

What you're ignoring is that all of these changes were made with the willing cooperation of Hirohito, who fully supported MacArthur's Constitution. Also don't forget that he had made some similar reforms in Japan prior to the war and was critical of Japan's entry into the war. You're making it sound like a tyrannical monarch had his power abrogated. It was nothing like that at all. It's not like they were trying to protect Tojo or anything.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
You make it sound like Japan was ready and willing to just give up. Although there is a lot of hindsight over the issue, a lot of historians and people who were actually involved in the politics back then think that many Japanese (or at least its military) wanted to continue fighting.

Many of them did, even after the bombing. It didn't affect that at all. All it did was make the factions that were in power at the time move from seeking conditional surrender (with Hirohito still on the throne) to unconditional surrender.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by shanek


I don't see how that can be the case. The reason we dropped the bombs on Japan was to force them to give an unconditional surrender...but after we got that, we left the Emperor on the throne—which was the only condition the Japanese had wanted anyway! So, we could have just accepted the conditional surrender, left the Emperor on the throne, not dropped the bombs, and still ended the war at just about the same time.

No Shanek their only condition was that we leave the Imperial government relatively intact. Big difference.

[RCNelson]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Here is an interesting read..

The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mpmenu.htm)
Thanks!

I had read these from the Project Gutenberg site, but the link you gave makes them far more accessible.

From the Appendix: Father Siemes' eyewitness account (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mp25.htm):

Up to August 6th, occasional bombs, which did no great damage, had fallen on Hiroshima. Many cities roundabout, one after the other, were destroyed, but Hiroshima itself remained protected. There were almost daily observation planes over the city but none of them dropped a bomb. The citizens wondered why they alone had remained undisturbed for so long a time. There were fantastic rumors that the enemy had something special in mind for this city, but no one dreamed that the end would come in such a fashion as on the morning of August 6th.

August 6th began in a bright, clear, summer morning. About seven o'clock, there was an air raid alarm which we had heard almost every day and a few planes appeared over the city. No one paid any attention and at about eight o'clock, the all-clear was sounded. I am sitting in my room at the Novitiate of the Society of Jesus in Nagatsuke; during the past half year, the philosophical and theological section of our Mission had been evacuated to this place from Tokyo. The Novitiate is situated approximately two kilometers from Hiroshima, half-way up the sides of a broad valley which stretches from the town at sea level into this mountainous hinterland, and through which courses a river. From my window, I have a wonderful view down the valley to the edge of the city.

Suddenly--the time is approximately 8:14--the whole valley is filled by a garish light which resembles the magnesium light used in photography, and I am conscious of a wave of heat. I jump to the window to find out the cause of this remarkable phenomenon, but I see nothing more than that brilliant yellow light. As I make for the door, it doesn't occur to me that the light might have something to do with enemy planes. On the way from the window, I hear a moderately loud explosion which seems to come from a distance and, at the same time, the windows are broken in with a loud crash. There has been an interval of perhaps ten seconds since the flash of light. I am sprayed by fragments of glass. The entire window frame has been forced into the room. I realize now that a bomb has burst and I am under the impression that it exploded directly over our house or in the immediate vicinity.

It continues ... (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mp25.htm)

[shanek]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
No Shanek their only condition was that we leave the Imperial government relatively intact.

Which it was! The changes were made with the willing support of Hirohito, and there's every indication he would have gone along with all of them had there been no bombing.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shanek


Many of them did, even after the bombing. It didn't affect that at all. All it did was make the factions that were in power at the time move from seeking conditional surrender (with Hirohito still on the throne) to unconditional surrender.

Many wanted to stop the fighting before the bombs were dropped. Many wanted to keep fighting after the bombs were dropped.

By dropping the bombs, it made enough people who wanted to continue fighting change their minds and decide that surrender in order that the balance was shifted to peace.

The article that I posted (which contains quotes from an aid of the emperor, and various politicians in Japan) supports that point of view, as do other historical sources. (I am aware that there are also historians who contradict that assesment. But what makes their analysis any more correct than the one presented?)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
By dropping the bombs, it made enough people who wanted to continue fighting change their minds and decide that surrender in order that the balance was shifted to peace.

(I am aware that there are also historians who contradict that assesment. But what makes their analysis any more correct than the one presented?)

I would think that the presence of the prior offer of conditional surrender would be enough.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

THe united states has brought us:

mini-burgers

mini-me

mini-mouse



now they bring the world mini-nukes? (http://www.bullatomsci.org/bulletinwirearchive/BulletinWire010419.html)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39376000/jpg/_39376399_blast66.jpg

this one makes me feel.... uncomfortable: The Penetrator (http://www.motherjones.com/magazine/MJ02/better_bombs.html)

Plans within plans (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2779069.stm)

Q & A (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2780521.stm)

[Mr Manifesto]

Still trying to find out if McDilda is true or not. Found this blog (http://an-age-like-this.blogspot.com/2003_08_01_an-age-like-this_archive.html) which links to an archived NYT article (a snip at $2.95). The blog says:

Kristof, incidentally, also tells a story about an American pilot, Lt. Marcus McDilda, who was shot down over Japan on August 8 and interrogated about the atomic bombs; McDilda supposedly told the Japanese that the United States had "a hundred more" bombs and this helped lead to the surrender. The story appears to actually be more uncertain than that; sources I checked could not agree as to whether McDilda was, as Kristof has him, a fighter pilot, or whether he was a B-29 crewman. The story he actually told, about America possessing a weapon that consisted of a "lead box" filled with "positive" and "negative" atomic forces that when mixed created an explosion, might have fooled his interrogators for a time, but Japan had experienced physicists who, had they had the material, could have easily built a nuclear weapon and would have let the military know that the unfortunate McDilda was blowing smoke (in one of those weird historical coincidences, one of them was Tetsua Fujita - better known in the United States as Dr. Ted Fujita, the man behind the "Fujita Scale" of tornado intensity). It would be interesting to find out more about this.

I googled and found another reference to the lead box lie as well. It seems unlikely that the Japanese would have fallen for a lie like this for long.

[Mr Manifesto]

I couldn't find McDilda on this (http://www.wwiimemorial.com/) site, which is a little odd considering how he was such a war hero who saved millions of lives and blah-blah-blah, but I don't know this site very well. For all I know, there are only 3 WWII veterans listed on it.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by SteveW
This was the only way to force a reasonable surrender. The Japs were training little kids to defend the main islands with sharpened bamboo sticks. WWII would have drawn on another year at least at a cost of nearly a million lives.

Remember, at the time the emporer was a living god and the entire country supported the war almost from a religious point of view.



This is what I've come to understand as well. That being the case, I think it's a little naive to call Hiroshima and Nagasaki the "indiscriminate killing of civilians." More like irregular forces, if you ask me.

And what kind of enemy has the mindset that requires a SECOND city to be destroyed before surrendering? I think that speaks volumes as to justifying the bombs. Nothing less would suffice.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe



now they bring the world mini-nukes? (http://www.bullatomsci.org/bulletinwirearchive/BulletinWire010419.html)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39376000/jpg/_39376399_blast66.jpg

this one makes me feel.... uncomfortable: The Penetrator (http://www.motherjones.com/magazine/MJ02/better_bombs.html)

Plans within plans (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2779069.stm)

Q & A (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2780521.stm)

So i take it that you prefer large-scale, indiscriminate bombs like Hiroshima (times a thousand, mind you)? The motives behind the two in Japan - the WWII version of "shock and awe" - no longer work. Everyone knows what the bombs are capable of, so there's not much psychological adavantage in their use, is there?

I take this program as a very encouraging sign of cooler, strategic heads directing the next generation of weaponry. It certainly beats the Us/USSR race to develop the first 100 megaton bomb, doesn't it?

"There's just no pleasing some people." -- Jesus Christ

[T'ai Chi]

..dropping of the first atomic bomb, resulting in the death of over 150,000 people in and around the city of Hiroshima.


A brilliant day for science and technology!


saved hundreds of thousands of lives (both US and Japanese).


It killed real lives, but that is OK because it saved lives that of course would have died in hypothetical scenarios. :rolleyes:

[T'ai Chi]

What I don't understand is why couldn't the bomb have been dropped, say, on a deserted island, or in the ocean, etc., just so the 'enemies' could have seen our vast power, instead of dropping it on actual people?

[The Thrasher]

Originally posted by Tmy
I nearly forgot! Now wheres my "I got bombed in Hiroshima and all I got was this lousy Tshirt..............and colon cancer" t-shirt?

Nowadays wed be disgusted wh targeting such a lg civilian population. Thats what terrorists do.

Being it was way before my time Im wondering. Was it soooooo neccesary.. Would the japs be as unimpressed if we nuked a small island just for show??? WHat about zapping Nagazaki so soon afterwards. Did we give them a chance to really think about Hiroshima??

IS the whole "we saved lives" line really just feel good propaganda.

The actual time line was as follows.
1. US demands unconditional surrender. Japan refuses.
2. 1st bomb dropped on Hiroshima. US repeats surrender demand. Japan refuses.
3. 2nd bomb dropped on Nagasaki. US repeats surrender demand. Japan refuses.
4. US threatens to drop the next one on Tokoyo (a bluff since we didn't have anymore) Japan agrees to surrender on the condition that we would not harm the emporer. We agree.

They were willing to fight on after the total destruction of two of their major cities. They would have laughed at a "demonstration".

[shuize]

Originally posted by The Thrasher


The actual time line was as follows.
1. US demands unconditional surrender. Japan refuses.
2. 1st bomb dropped on Hiroshima. US repeats surrender demand. Japan refuses.
3. 2nd bomb dropped on Nagasaki. US repeats surrender demand. Japan refuses.
4. US threatens to drop the next one on Tokoyo (a bluff since we didn't have anymore) Japan agrees to surrender on the condition that we would not harm the emporer. We agree.

They were willing to fight on after the total destruction of two of their major cities. They would have laughed at a "demonstration".

Exactly. But everyone should keep the previously mentioned firebombings in mind as well.

US firebombs numerous Japanese cities killing even more than the subsequent atomic bombings.

Japan keeps fighting.

US demands unconditional surrender.

Japan refuses.

US bombs Hiroshima. Repeats surrender demand. Japan refuses.

US bombs Nagasaki. Repeats surrender demand. Japan refuses.

US threatens to drop the next one on Tokyo. Attempted coup in Japan to keep fighting. Coup attempt put down. Japan finally surrenders.

Even with scores of burned out cities, two nuclear strikes and a threatened third, a large number of the Japanese military wanted to continue fighting to the death.

The remote demonstration argument is revisionist wishfull thinking. It is often said here in Japan by those not spending all their time rewriting themselves into the role of WWII victims that the atomic bombs were the only things that could have ended the war short of a full scale invasion. (See the quotes noted in the previous posts above)

The invasion was scheduled. If it had taken place, US military planners estimated a million US casualties. Considering the number of Japanese military and civilian casualties on Okinawa, the number of deaths on the main islands could easily have run into the tens of millions.

*edited to reference the previous posts.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shuize

The remote demonstration argument is revisionist wishfull thinking. It is often said here in Japan by those not spending all their time rewriting themselves into the role of WWII victims that the atomic bombs were the only things that could have ended the war short of a full scale invasion.



It was, however, morally necessary.

[shuize]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


It was, however, morally necessary.

Do you think a demonstration of the firebombing was morally necessary as well?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shuize


Do you think a demonstration of the firebombing was morally necessary as well?

The firebombing is a different issue. The A-Bomb was a new weapon that ushered in a whole new era of political and moral thinking. The demonstration was morally required.

[shuize]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The firebombing is a different issue. The A-Bomb was a new weapon that ushered in a whole new era of political and moral thinking. The demonstration was morally required.

Firebombing killed far more people than both atomic weapons put together. In fact, there are estimates that more people died in the firebombing of Dresden than in either atomic bombing. If I understand your position, however, you believe because the atomic bomb was a "new" weapon it should have been demonstrated first.

If such a demonstration as you suggest was not possible, you would apparently agree that it would have been fine to go ahead and firebomb both Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I'm afraid I don't understand the distinction.

(Now I have to get to work. I'll check for your response this evening)

[a_unique_person]

I understand the fire bombing. It is also a highly contentious issue. However, everyone involved in the A-Bomb project knew exactly what was happening. One single bomb could do as much damage as thousands of conventional bombs.

A demo would have cost nothing. It may well have not worked. However, the idea that it should be tried first was well known.

[shuize]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I understand the fire bombing. It is also a highly contentious issue. However, everyone involved in the A-Bomb project knew exactly what was happening. One single bomb could do as much damage as thousands of conventional bombs.

A demo would have cost nothing. It may well have not worked. However, the idea that it should be tried first was well known.

I agree that there was debate whether to demonstrate the weapon at the time. I disagree that such a demonstration would have cost nothing.

It cost a huge amount to build the first two atomic bombs.* Both in terms of time and treasure. A third would have taken more time and more treasure. Nevermind the financial cost though, let's just consider the time aspect.

A demonstration would have cost the later use of one of the only two nuclear weapons in existence. You may argue with revisionist hindsight that such a demonstration might have been successful in persuading the Japanese to give up. However, as noted above, in addition to the firebombing of scores of Japanese cities and the use of both atomic bombs, Japan still nearly did not surrender. I don't see how a demonstration plus the bombing of one city would have been any more successful in convincing the die-hard militarists when in reality the actual bombing of two cities nearly did not.

Suppose the demonstration plus one city scenario you suggest did not convince the Japanese to surrender. Without the use of the second bomb to follow up after Hiroshima, the war would have been prolonged.

A prolonged war would have meant continued firebombing, the invasion would have gone forward as planned and millions more would have died.

For that reason, I am not convinced the demonstration argument is as moral as you make it sound.

(Now back to work)

* edited to add: I realized after I wrote this that I forgot about the one bomb tested in New Mexico. Still, I think my basic argument stands.

[EvilYeti]

One thing this that's hard to understand from a Western perspective is that the "pro-war" factions within the country had no illusion that they could repel a foreign invasion. Their goal was was to exterminate the entire Japanese race in the largest hara-kiri in history. We don't even have a word for the concept of genocide by suicide. Even today, Japan leads the world in suicides per-capita. Its ingrained in their culture.

To the many military people, "Death before Dishonor" meant there was no possibility of surrender, they had lost the war and the right thing to do was put and end to the Japanese race. How do you reason with people like that? That answer is you don't, you just keep killing them until all the hardcore ones are dead and whoevers left change their perspective.

It's also important to note that the seeds of our demand of unconditional surrender were sown as early as the Perl Harbor attack. The sheer viciousness of the attack, combined with later reports from POW's of torture, led to a national outcry. There would be no bargaining with an immoral enemy.

[Chaos]

Wouldn´t it have been even more effective to drop one or both bombs on Japanese troop concentrations?

That would have told them: "Yes, you can die if you want, and we will help you with it, but you are not going to take a single American soldier with you."

[shuize]

Originally posted by Chaos
Wouldn´t it have been even more effective to drop one or both bombs on Japanese troop concentrations?

That would have told them: "Yes, you can die if you want, and we will help you with it, but you are not going to take a single American soldier with you."

If the bombs had been finished in time, Iwo Jima would have made a nice first target. 6,800 American servicemen killed to capture an island 6 miles long by 2 miles wide. Almost every one of the 21,000 Japanese defenders fought to the death. Of course, the reason it was such a difficult battle might have reduced the effectiveness of the bombs: miles and miles of underground tunnels and caves.