Hiroshima, 67 Years Ago Today...

[Zim Hosein]

Japan is marking the 67th anniversary of the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima in an annual ceremony.

Tens of thousands of people attended the event, amid growing anti-nuclear sentiment and protests in the country.

A bell marked the start of a one-minute silence at 08:15 local time (23:15 GMT) when the US bomber Enola Gay dropped the bomb that killed 140,000 people.

Mayor Kazumi Matsui called for a nuclear-free world at the event at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park.

Japan is marking the 67th anniversary of the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima in an annual ceremony.

It's time I re-read John Hersey's Hiroshima to remember the victims when US bomber Enola Gay dropped the bomb that killed 140,000 people, even though it was before I was born.

 

[dennilfloss]

It was tragic but it was necessary.

http://www.mphpa.org/classic/LC/I-002.htm

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Did the thread not just say 60 years a minute ago?...

7 years passes so quickly nowadays...

 

[Zim Hosein]

Did the thread not just say 60 years a minute ago?...

7 years passes so quickly nowadays...

Yes it did PlasmaBomb, I was looking at an old article and posted an inaccurate anniversary.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

My only positive view of what we did to Hiroshima is that hopefully it prevents the rest of the world from ever doing that again. It may not be a crime, but using nuclear weapons surely shows a lack of compassion for humanity as a whole. It is time that we, as a unified humanity, move forward into an era that doesn't know war or hatred.

I can only hope that the Japanese can find a way to recover and find strength in the wake of this and the more recently terrible Fukushima nuclear explosion.

 

[MrMuppet]

It was tragic but it was necessary.

http://www.mphpa.org/classic/LC/I-002.htm

No, it wasn't necessary to massacre a couple of hundred thousand of Japanese civilians.

However, it was a great opportunity for Uncle Sam to try out his new shiny toy, save the lives of a great many Allied soldiers (hundreds of thousands?) if you're dead set on a full-scale invasion, and of course not be as straining on the Allied economies.

Why was an invasion of the Japanese mainland necessary anyway? Should be able to cut them off and starve them out if you expect massive resistance and casualties, no? The Japanese may have plenty of pride, but they're not stupid.

 

[dennilfloss]

Starving them out would have resulted in many more Japanese deaths than by the A-bombs. I have seen estimates of up to 10 million dead through starvation and disease. Just think about it, the siege of one city, Leningrad, caused 1.5 million deaths.

Here's a detailed CIA assessment of the decision to use the bombs.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...nning-and-the-a-bomb-decision/csi9810001.html

 

[Genx87]

No, it wasn't necessary to massacre a couple of hundred thousand of Japanese civilians.

However, it was a great opportunity for Uncle Sam to try out his new shiny toy, save the lives of a great many Allied soldiers (hundreds of thousands?) if you're dead set on a full-scale invasion, and of course not be as straining on the Allied economies.

Why was an invasion of the Japanese mainland necessary anyway? Should be able to cut them off and starve them out if you expect massive resistance and casualties, no? The Japanese may have plenty of pride, but they're not stupid.

Either we dropped the bomb and end the war. Or we go through with operation Olympic. Which would had killed far more. On top of the invasion Japan was facing a failed crop in 45. Millions more would have died without ending the war.

 

[MrMuppet]

I didn't mean literally "starve", it's a metaphor for making their economy and potential for war effort implode via blockade (no more influx of resources). Where would Japan, an isolated island country, get raw materials for new ships, oil, etc.?

Either way, it would at least be their decision to starve or be reasonable. As long as the US puts forth reasonable conditions for peace.

Instead, outsiders slaughtered hundreds of thousands of them as well as irradiating two of their major cities (the capitals of their respective prefectures).

edit: The premise of that CIA text seems to be "unconditional surrender", that is hardly reasonable.

 

[ichy]

Why was an invasion of the Japanese mainland necessary anyway? Should be able to cut them off and starve them out if you expect massive resistance and casualties, no? The Japanese may have plenty of pride, but they're not stupid.

Lol, you bitch about us killing civilians but then suggest starving them out instead? Do you have any idea how many people that would have killed? Every day I find yet another contender for dumbest post ever.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

I didn't mean literally "starve", it's a metaphor for making their economy and potential for war effort implode via blockade (no more influx of resources). Where would Japan, an isolated island country, get raw materials for new ships, oil, etc.?

Either way, it would at least be their decision to starve or be reasonable. As long as the US puts forth reasonable conditions for peace.

Instead, outsiders slaughtered hundreds of thousands of them as well as irradiating two of their major cities (the capitals of their respective prefectures).

Don't start none won't be none.

 

[MrMuppet]

Lol, you bitch about us killing civilians but then suggest starving them out instead? Do you have any idea how many people that would have killed? Every day I find yet another contender for dumbest post ever.

I bitched about someone calling it "necessary" to nuke civilians. I never said it was "wrong". War is war, it does things to people and nations, shit happens. But don't go calling it "necessary".

Besides, I've already explained "starving out".

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

I bitched about someone calling it "necessary". I never said it was "wrong". War is war, it does things to people and nations, shit happens. But don't go calling it "necessary".

Besides, I've already explained "starving out".

Like I said don't start a fucking war and then cry about it when you unleash the hounds of hell. Its a good reminder to other folks not to Fuck with us.

 

[Northern Lawn]

No, it wasn't necessary to massacre a couple of hundred thousand of Japanese civilians.

Yes it was absolutely necessary.

That particular Shock and Awe saved millions of lives.

The Japs would have fought to the death, even if they had to kill themselves. The Nuke scared the Emperor crap right out of them.

 

[Iron Woode]

I didn't mean literally "starve", it's a metaphor for making their economy and potential for war effort implode via blockade (no more influx of resources). Where would Japan, an isolated island country, get raw materials for new ships, oil, etc.?

Either way, it would at least be their decision to starve or be reasonable. As long as the US puts forth reasonable conditions for peace.

Instead, outsiders slaughtered hundreds of thousands of them as well as irradiating two of their major cities (the capitals of their respective prefectures).

edit: The premise of that CIA text seems to be "unconditional surrender", that is hardly reasonable.

Considering the type of war Japan was waging, unconditional surrender was the only option.

You need to study the Japanese war mindset back then. There was no thought of surrender. You fight to the death.

Now can you see what a bloodbath a land invasion would have been? Not to mention conventional bombings? Taking out 2 military targets with devastating force convinced Japan that surrender was the only option.

 

[Northern Lawn]

Besides, I've already explained "starving out".

Who would have starved do you think? The Emporer?

Look at N. Korea look at Japan whos better off?

Btw, using nukes probably kept the russians from over running Finland then Sweden..you guys were pretty friendly with the nazis weren't you?

Should have nuked sweden too then we wouldn't have to read this drivel

 

[MrMuppet]

Like I said don't start a fucking war and then cry about it when you unleash the hounds of hell. Its a good reminder to other folks not to Fuck with us.

Uh, didn't the Allies start the war by imposing a trade and oil embargo on Japan? That's an act of war.

Why would Japan want war with the US, unless the US fucked with them first? Compare the GDP/industrial capacity, access to oil (which country do you think supplied Japan with 80% of its oil?) and other natural resources, populations, etc. prior to WW2 of the two countries.

It makes no sense at all for Japan to decide to fuck with US out of the blue. You fucked with and provoked Japan first. Japan was proud and took a gamble and retaliated (rather successfully at Pearl Harbor, too).

Japan fucked with China though.

Should have nuked sweden too then we wouldn't have to read this drivel

Murica, f yeah!

 

[Northern Lawn]

It makes no sense at all for Japan to decide to fuck with US out of the blue. You fucked with and provoked Japan first. Japan was proud and took a gamble and retaliated (rather successfully at Pearl Harbor, too).

Japan fucked with China though.

Oh god, get a book... WRITTEN IN ENGLISH!!! not SWEEDISH!!!

All they did was cut off their oil so they could commit genocide in China. The mirican bastards!

 

[MrMuppet]

Oh god, get a book... WRITTEN IN ENGLISH!!! not SWEEDISH!!!

All they did was cut off their oil so they could commit genocide in China. The mirican bastards!

So, you agree with me then after all. We're at 4/4 now, yay!

Oh and yes, one must be careful to read the literature in the language of the victor or confusion may ensue. Excellent point!

 

[StrangerGuy]

Lol, you bitch about us killing civilians but then suggest starving them out instead? Do you have any idea how many people that would have killed? Every day I find yet another contender for dumbest post ever.

Typical "humanists", who knew? They are the first to dismiss viewing people as statistics but have no qualms in saving a few people in the short term while letting countless more people die in the long run.

 

[Northern Lawn]

Oh and yes, one must be careful to read the literature in the language of the victor or confusion may ensue. Excellent point!

That must account for the lack of Swedish authors and books since the Viking era


*I crack myself up*

 

[MrMuppet]

Typical "humanists", who knew? They are the first to dismiss viewing people as statistics but have no qualms in saving a few people in the short term while letting countless more people die in the long run.

I see you've had me mistaken. The point is, if you're gonna nuke civilians, don't be an intellectual coward trying to hide behind it being "necessary", geez. It's a choice.

 

[ichy]

Uh, didn't the Allies start the war by imposing a trade and oil embargo on Japan? That's an act of war.

Allies started the war? At least you've made it obvious that you're just trolling.

 

[Iron Woode]

Uh, didn't the Allies start the war by imposing a trade and oil embargo on Japan? That's an act of war.

Why would Japan want war with the US, unless the US fucked with them first? Compare the GDP/industrial capacity, access to oil (which country do you think supplied Japan with 80% of its oil?) and other natural resources, populations, etc. prior to WW2 of the two countries.

It makes no sense at all for Japan to decide to fuck with US out of the blue. You fucked with and provoked Japan first. Japan was proud and took a gamble and retaliated (rather successfully at Pearl Harbor, too).

Japan fucked with China though.



Murica, f yeah!

stop trolling or GTFO.

 

[Nintendesert]

No, it wasn't necessary to massacre a couple of hundred thousand of Japanese civilians.

However, it was a great opportunity for Uncle Sam to try out his new shiny toy, save the lives of a great many Allied soldiers (hundreds of thousands?) if you're dead set on a full-scale invasion, and of course not be as straining on the Allied economies.

Why was an invasion of the Japanese mainland necessary anyway? Should be able to cut them off and starve them out if you expect massive resistance and casualties, no? The Japanese may have plenty of pride, but they're not stupid.

LOL so starving the populace would have been better? How many million would have died before the Emperor and his zealots would have surrendered?

Besides, the conventional and fire bombings of Japan killed scores more than the 2 atomic bombings. In the end the atomic bombings even saved Japanese lives.

You can also thank the atomic bombings from putting just enough scare into the Soviets so they only gobbled up half of Europe instead of the whole thing. You're welcome.