Hiroshima, 67 Years Ago Today...

[K1052]

US and Russia have both been actively destroying there stockpiles of chemical weapons for several years now.

The entire US stockpile will be gone by 2020. The speed of disposal is mainly an environmental and logistical issue. They already got rid of the really nasty stuff.

 

[-Slacker-]

So why didn't the air force bomb two less populated cities, or even unpopulated areas, if the purpose was merely to scare the japanese and the soviets into submission or obedience?

 

[K1052]

So why didn't the air force bomb two less populated cities, or even unpopulated areas, if the purpose was merely to scare the japanese and the soviets into submission or obedience?

No matter what the revisionists say the Soviets didn't really figure into the US decision to use the bomb and where to do so.

The target list was generated largely on the basis of what hadn't been hit already. It would have been impossible to do damage assessment when you've already burned down half the city with incendiaries.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

So why didn't the air force bomb two less populated cities, or even unpopulated areas, if the purpose was merely to scare the japanese and the soviets into submission or obedience?

To send a message. Its a fucking war numb nuts. You better believe Hitler and the Japanese would been raping your women and hung the men in the street if they'd won. Get a clue jack ass.

 

[mugs]

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.

Shipping to and from Japan had already been reduced substantially through all of 1945.

Stopping shipments to them wouldn't have helped. Japan knew they lost the war. Their goal at that point was to get the best surrender terms they could. They thought the way to do that would be to make it very expensive (in terms of lives) for us to force an unconditional surrender. Their military leadership didn't care how many civilian lives it cost. Meanwhile they were killing Chinese and Korean civilians at an alarming rate. If we waited the three months it would have taken to prepare for an invasion they would have killed more civilians than we did with the bombs (on top of the millions they had already killed). And if we just blockaded them and waited it would have been worse.

 

[mugs]

So why didn't the air force bomb two less populated cities, or even unpopulated areas, if the purpose was merely to scare the japanese and the soviets into submission or obedience?

We had already firebombed every other major city in Japan (after dropping leaflets warning the civilians when and where we would be bombing)..

 

[Printer Bandit]

why not dropped on tokyo?

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Oh come on guys. You're telling me the same axis that was committing mass genocide and planned on world domination through brute force wasn't interested in playing patty cakes and working it out through discussion?

 

[-Slacker-]

To send a message. Its a fucking war numb nuts. You better believe Hitler and the Japanese would been raping your women and hung the men in the street if they'd won. Get a clue jack ass.

Oh, I'm going to enjoy your company on this forum aren't I?

So the reason, according to you, was that they would have done the same were they in the same situation?

But they weren't. They were on their last leg.

 

[Brainonska511]

why not dropped on tokyo?

Because it was already burned to ashes by Curtis LeMay's fire-bombing campaign

 

[OBLAMA2009]

talk about the worst terrorist attack in the history of the universe...even bin laden could learn a thing or two from the u.s.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

There are a lot of people here that have no clue about WWII.

 

[Ichinisan]

When the atomic bomb's where dropped on Japan there was really no point of reference for how devastating atomic bomb's where. The bomb had only been tested once. The Atomic Bomb was really just seen originally as a more efficient weapon to damage a country through strategic bombing. The implications and moral hazards of using the atomic bomb's hadn't been fully understood. It was like in WW1 when chemical weapons where used. The full implications of the power and damage of chemical weapons where not fully understood. After WW1 treaties where signed to prevent their use in warfare and essentially those treaties where respected during WW2.

With atomic bombs instead of sending in a thousand bombers you could send it one and it would do the equivalent damage. There was really no full understanding of all the effects of a atomic bomb on a city. It was originally just thought of as a large bomb. Even the radiation effects where not fully understood. It was only through the dropping of the bomb and later testing where the full effects of using such a weapon fully understood.

US and Russia have both been actively destroying there stockpiles of chemical weapons for several years now.

How often have chemical weapons been used since WW1? Where chemical weapons a active part of WW2?

Ahh. That's better.

 

[CZroe]

Ahh. That's better.

Not much. He left out a "where" for you to correct! I'm surprised you let the errant apostrophe be.

Also, one of those should be "when."

There's a typo too: it=in

 

[wischeez]

The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10&11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized. The committee felt Kyoto, as an intellectual center of Japan, had a population "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon." Hiroshima was chosen because of its large size, its being "an important army depot" and the potential that the bomb would cause greater destruction because the city was surrounded by hills which would have a "focusing effect".

 

[MrMuppet]

He's probably just pissed because Japan was the ally of his Nazi-Collaborator grandparents.

I take offense at that. You speak out of turn.

My grandmother and her family risked their lives every day housing and supporting other freedom fighters along with plenty of weapons and ammunition throughout the occupation of Denmark. Basically, they were civilians, even women, yet part of the Danish resistance movement.

Now, perhaps your grandfather risked his life in the war, but did your grandmother and your women?

 

[Angry Irishman]

I never have completely understood how this subject is really debatable. It's really all comes down to simple mathematics and the lesser of two evils.

I don't recall hundreds of thousands of Swedes being committed to the invasion of mainland Japan. In fact, as I recall, Sweden was neutral throughout the war. The invasion would have been accompanied with an incredibly horrific guaranteed loss of life for both sides. The invasion without a doubt would add up to a much larger death toll than the results of both bombs being dropped.

I'm sure if it was your son or spouse about to gamble their lives to defeat what most would agree was a purely evil/tyrannical enemy you'd have different views on the subject. Many of those troops would have already seen years of action in the European theater as well.

In any case, there were many more Japanese killed via incendiary bombing than the two atom bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The people were close to starvation at least in the major populous centers and prolonging the war would have aggravated that problem for the Japanese even more. The Japanese hierarchy of that time were purely and simply an EVIL lot and the common folks were pretty much brainwashed to the same degree as the current North Korean regime's level. They would have and were planning to fight on with pointy sticks and rocks...women, children, the wounded...you name it.

The atomic bombings inflicted terrible violence upon Japan but also saved many more lives as a consequence. Again, it's really just about simple math...it's really not complicated. The complications became apparent leading up to and most certainly following the event with the creation of the arms race and the Cold War...that's an entirely different subject.

 

[sdifox]

the firebombing campaign would have killed far more people if the nuclear option was not exercised.

 

[sdifox]

Fine then, since you're apparently pressing the issue, I'll say it. Letting the Japanese choose themselves would've been the more moral choice.

We are talking about forced medication of an entire people, a nation, here, against their will. It would be more moral to respect their freedom to choose suffering, if they so prefer. Religious, or proud, people of a different creed may act irrationally, in your opinion, however it is their right as free people to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo


nukes got nothing on this.

 

[Angry Irishman]

the firebombing campaign would have killed far more people if the nuclear option was not exercised.

It actually did.....

 

[Sonikku]

I reckon making a mushroom cloud out of one of their military bases would have made just as firm a point as making a mushroom cloud out of the women and children of the civilian cities. We also could have gotten away with only one bomb had he firmly told them what we now had and used it once to prove it, instead we used vague terms of "surrender or face utter destruction", bombing one city then before they realized what had happened (at the time the government thought they had only lost communication lines with the city) we dropped another bomb before they had time to survey the destruction from the first. But hey a Jap is a Jap.

 

[sdifox]

I reckon making a mushroom cloud out of one of their military bases would have made just as firm a point as making a mushroom cloud out of the women and children of the civilian cities. We also could have gotten away with only one bomb had he firmly told them what we now had and used it once to prove it, instead we used vague terms of "surrender or face utter destruction", bombing one city then before they realized what had happened (at the time the government thought they had only lost communication lines with the city) we dropped another bomb before they had time to survey the destruction from the first. But hey a Jap is a Jap.

wiki paste

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima

During World War II, the Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army were headquartered in Hiroshima, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping.[13]

 

[Angry Irishman]

I reckon making a mushroom cloud out of one of their military bases would have made just as firm a point as making a mushroom cloud out of the women and children of the civilian cities. We also could have gotten away with only one bomb had he firmly told them what we now had and used it once to prove it, instead we used vague terms of "surrender or face utter destruction", bombing one city then before they realized what had happened (at the time the government thought they had only lost communication lines with the city) we dropped another bomb before they had time to survey the destruction from the first. But hey a Jap is a Jap.

It's a historical fact that the Japanese high command baulked at the possibility of surrender even after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Also, the above post is correct Hiroshima was a major military target. Aside from that fact the goal was to make continued war a non-option for the Japanese.

With the amount of devastation that an atom bomb yields do you really think it matters exactly where the bomb detonated? It actually drifted and detonated over a clinic...not intended, but the reality of a really nasty war which was started by the Japanese and stopped with overwhelming firepower.

Also, did you read this entire post and review the facts?

But hey, ignorance is ignorant.

 

[KeithP]

Wow, this thread didn't at all go in the direction I thought it would.

-KeithP

 

[Angry Irishman]

Oh, I'm going to enjoy your company on this forum aren't I?

So the reason, according to you, was that they would have done the same were they in the same situation?

But they weren't. They were on their last leg.

Well, I don't really agree with how rude of an answer you received but I do agree with the overall message.

Japan had plenty of fight left in her to kill FAR more of both allied forces and her own citizens if a conventional invasion took place rather than the atomic bombings. Again, dropping these weapons was the lesser of two evils.

Fanatically embedded and driven behaviour will do this to a nation.

Regarding what Japan would have done given the technology and extra time...you can rest assured that they would have done things equally as violent and worse. There were many projects unveiled after the war of what Japan and Germany were planning for their enemies. In fact, they did perform some of the most heinous and wicked things that a world power could conjure up and have been very slow to and in some instances have never even apologized or acknowledge those actions.