Hiroshima

[LuckyTaxi]

So I was reading up on what transpire on the day of the bombing. it seems the Japs didn't intercept the bombers in flight. what would've happened if they did? We didnt have any fighter jets accompanying the bombers.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: LuckyTaxi
So I was reading up on what transpire on the day of the bombing. it seems the Japs didn't intercept the bombers in flight. what would've happened if they did? We didnt have any fighter jets accompanying the bombers.

We didn't have figher jets period

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Deeko
Well hey - at least the first (and only so far) nuke dropped was only 15kt. Just think of what would happen if the Russians had dropped one of their 50mt bombs on a city. Or if we'd dropped one of our 25mt bombs.

We dropped two. One of hiroshima. The japanese thought, "hey, well, they probably could only make one" a few days later we nuked nagasaki and they decided that it might be a good idea to surrender.

Nagasaki wasn't as bad because (IIRC) the city is on rugged terrain and the valley that the bomb landed in helped contain / channel the blast.

I know we dropped one on Nagasaki. I phrased that wrong. I meant the only incident - they're kinda a package deal.

 

[LuckyTaxi]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: LuckyTaxi
So I was reading up on what transpire on the day of the bombing. it seems the Japs didn't intercept the bombers in flight. what would've happened if they did? We didnt have any fighter jets accompanying the bombers.

We didn't have figher jets period

ok kinda make sense now ... japs thought the planes were doing recon and therefore said F it they're not bothering us.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: LuckyTaxi
So I was reading up on what transpire on the day of the bombing. it seems the Japs didn't intercept the bombers in flight. what would've happened if they did? We didnt have any fighter jets accompanying the bombers.

We didn't have figher jets period

Well, not operational ones, but we already had jet fighter prototypes flying at the time.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: LuckyTaxi
So I was reading up on what transpire on the day of the bombing. it seems the Japs didn't intercept the bombers in flight. what would've happened if they did? We didnt have any fighter jets accompanying the bombers.

We didn't have figher jets period

Well, not operational ones, but we already had jet fighter prototypes flying at the time.

/sigh




😛

 

[alphatarget1]

Horrific destruction...

With that said, it sounds heartless and all but I'm sure most Asians you talk to (sans the Japanese) would tell you that they deserved it.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: LuckyTaxi
So I was reading up on what transpire on the day of the bombing. it seems the Japs didn't intercept the bombers in flight. what would've happened if they did? We didnt have any fighter jets accompanying the bombers.

We didn't have figher jets period

Incorrect, the Navy started taking delivery of P-80's in June 1945. They never saw combat, but we technically did have operational jets before the war ended.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: LuckyTaxi
So I was reading up on what transpire on the day of the bombing. it seems the Japs didn't intercept the bombers in flight. what would've happened if they did? We didnt have any fighter jets accompanying the bombers.

We didn't have figher jets period

Incorrect, the Navy started taking delivery of P-80's in June 1945. They never saw combat, but we technically did have operational jets before the war ended.

Got me on a technicality. grats

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: LuckyTaxi
So I was reading up on what transpire on the day of the bombing. it seems the Japs didn't intercept the bombers in flight. what would've happened if they did? We didnt have any fighter jets accompanying the bombers.

We didn't have figher jets period

Incorrect, the Navy started taking delivery of P-80's in June 1945. They never saw combat, but we technically did have operational jets before the war ended.

Really? Didn't know that - thanks.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Horrific destruction...

With that said, it sounds heartless and all but I'm sure most Asians you talk to (sans the Japanese) would tell you that they deserved it.

Arguably they did. The Japanese decided to wage a sadistic war without mercy at enormous cost to millions of innocent lives in the name of empire. The horrors of Japanese occupied Asia make the tragedies of Europe almost pale in comparison.

 

[Oralloy]

Originally posted by: LuckyTaxi
So I was reading up on what transpire on the day of the bombing. it seems the Japs didn't intercept the bombers in flight. what would've happened if they did? We didnt have any fighter jets accompanying the bombers.

Japanese fighters helped chase the second A-bomb away from its primary target (Kokura Arsenal), thereby dooming Nagasaki.

The bomber crew was more concerned with the flack guns beginning to get a bearing on their position though, than they were worried about the fighters.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: Oralloy

Originally posted by: LuckyTaxi
So I was reading up on what transpire on the day of the bombing. it seems the Japs didn't intercept the bombers in flight. what would've happened if they did? We didnt have any fighter jets accompanying the bombers.

Japanese fighters helped chase the second A-bomb away from its primary target (Kokura Arsenal), thereby dooming Nagasaki.

The bomber crew was more concerned with the flack guns beginning to get a bearing on their position though, than they were worried about the fighters.

It was weather conditions, not Japanese fighters, that made them move to Nagasaki.

 

[xalos]

The atomic bombings of Japan was more propaganda than anything else. I admit that it ended up saving a lot of lives. However, its possible that merely containing the Japanese to their island and not having a land invasion would've caused their surrender eventually. It would've caused tons of Japanese civilian deaths due to famine and lack of resources on the island. Since resources was the whole reason that Japan entered WW2 and attacked us. (We didn't support their war on China)

I don't feel that the U.S. leaders (Truman) really had the best interest of ending the war at heart. The U.S. could've forced a trade embargo against Japan and kept them pinned to their island with minimal military casualties. It would've gone on for some time until Japan surrendered but the cost wouldn't have been too much to bear.

But, with the breaking down of communications with the USSR after Roosevelt's death and Truman not getting along with Stalin. Truman used the atomic bombs to prove our might to Stalin. Truman found out the atomic bombs were a success at Potsdam Conference and that's why Truman started acting like a douche at the conference.

The Cold War and nuclear arms race might have never happened had the U.S. not bombed Japan. But, it's hard to say in retrospect what courses were the best options and what would have and would not have happened. Maybe everything was played perfectly, maybe not. But, the U.S. wasn't exactly evil when they dropped the bombs. However, we wasn't completely fighting for peace (lol.. that phrase kills me) either.

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: OCguy
I like how kids these days think war is all snipers and smart bombs and only soldiers die.

War is terrible, and people die. Always has been this way, always will be. If you dont want your civilians to die, dont attack someone.

Yeah, but the difference is the civs that die in Iraq get in the way. They aren't targeted directly by US forces. That wasn't the case with Hiroshima. Civilians were directly targeted.

Those civilians were still part of Japan's war production facilities, transportation and communication as much of the building facilities went 'underground'. Also...

Target Selection

Between 10 and 11 May 1945, Oppenheimer led a committee which came up with a list of cities most potentially suitable as targets of atomic attacks. The committee eventually arrived at the recommendation of four targets: Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and Kokura.

Hiroshima was chosen as the first target due to its military and industrial values. As a military target, Hiroshima was a major army base that housed the headquarters of the Japanese 5th Division and the 2nd Army Headquarters. It was also an important port in southern Japan and a communications center. The mountains surrounding Hiroshima also contributed to Hiroshima being among one of the top choices among the short list of potential targets, for that the mountains might contain the destructive forces of an atomic blast in the target area, increasing the level of destruction.

...

The city of Nagasaki was one of the most important sea ports in southern Japan. Although it was not among the list of potential targets selected by Oppenheimer's committee, it was added later due to its significance as a major war production center for warships, munitions, and other equipment.

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=49

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: xalos
The atomic bombings of Japan was more propaganda than anything else. I admit that it ended up saving a lot of lives. However, its possible that merely containing the Japanese to their island and not having a land invasion would've caused their surrender eventually. It would've caused tons of Japanese civilian deaths due to famine and lack of resources on the island. Since resources was the whole reason that Japan entered WW2 and attacked us. (We didn't support their war on China)

I don't feel that the U.S. leaders (Truman) really had the best interest of ending the war at heart. The U.S. could've forced a trade embargo against Japan and kept them pinned to their island with minimal military casualties. It would've gone on for some time until Japan surrendered but the cost wouldn't have been too much to bear.

But, with the breaking down of communications with the USSR after Roosevelt's death and Truman not getting along with Stalin. Truman used the atomic bombs to prove our might to Stalin. Truman found out the atomic bombs were a success at Potsdam Conference and that's why Truman started acting like a douche at the conference.

The Cold War and nuclear arms race might have never happened had the U.S. not bombed Japan. But, it's hard to say in retrospect what courses were the best options and what would have and would not have happened. Maybe everything was played perfectly, maybe not. But, the U.S. wasn't exactly evil when they dropped the bombs. However, we wasn't completely fighting for peace (lol.. that phrase kills me) either.

The Soviets had fairly extensive knowledge of the US atomic bomb effort through their intelligence services. Stalin was very much interested in the bomb and would have developed it regardless of the US decision to use it against Japan.

The US already had a fairly effective blockade of the home Japanese islands. We also already sank most of the merchant fleet and reduced the rail network to ruins. That combined with the rice crop failure was hurtling Japan into a famine that would have killed a substantial percentage of it's population.

 

[keird]

Originally posted by: Terzo
One of the posts on the Boston site linked the following article. I found it to be an interesting read.
It's about 5 pages, pdf format.
Why Truman Dropped the Bomb

Thanks for pointing out that document. It was an informative read.

 

[KMFJD]

It shortened the war and saved hundreds of thousand if not millions of lives in the process...

/My aunt was in a Japanese Concentration camp during WW2 and would not be here today if those bombs had not been dropped along with the rest of the people in those camps.

 

[Oralloy]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: Oralloy

Originally posted by: LuckyTaxi
So I was reading up on what transpire on the day of the bombing. it seems the Japs didn't intercept the bombers in flight. what would've happened if they did? We didnt have any fighter jets accompanying the bombers.

Japanese fighters helped chase the second A-bomb away from its primary target (Kokura Arsenal), thereby dooming Nagasaki.

The bomber crew was more concerned with the flack guns beginning to get a bearing on their position though, than they were worried about the fighters.

It was weather conditions, not Japanese fighters, that made them move to Nagasaki.

"Sweeney and his crew were under orders to only bomb visually. When they got to Kokura they found the haze and smoke obscuring the city as well as the large ammunition arsenal that was the reason for targeting the city. They made three unsuccessful passes, wasting more fuel, while anti-aircraft fire zeroed in on them and Japanese fighter planes began to climb toward them. The B-29s broke off and headed for Nagasaki."

http://www.hiroshima-remembere...ry/nagasaki/page3.html


"Two more passes over the target still produced no sightings of the aiming point. As an aircraft crewman, Jacob Beser, later recalled, Japanese fighters and bursts of antiaircraft fire were by this time starting to make things "a little hairy." Kokura no longer appeared to be an option, and there was only enough fuel on board to return to the secondary airfield on Okinawa, making one hurried pass as they went over their secondary target, the city of Nagasaki."

http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/nagasaki.htm


"On an ordinary mission, Sweeney might have ordered a radar run. Or he could have used a river as a landmark to bomb by dead reckoning. But his orders were to bomb only if the target could be clearly seen.

He started the first bomb run at 30,000 feet over Kokura, hoping to find a break in the haze. Nothing.

Anti-aircraft fire began to burst around the two B-29s. Sweeney opted for a second run a couple of thousand feet higher to confuse the anti-aircraft gunners.

Again no luck, and Bock's Car kept burning fuel.

The radio man reported increased traffic on frequencies used by Japanese fighter planes. The tail gunner thought he spotted 10 fighters taking off.

Sweeney opted for a third run anyway.

No luck again.

Japanese Zero fighters began to show up.

Sweeney and Ashworth decided to head to Nagasaki. "We had enough problems," Sweeney said."

http://www.hanfordnews.com/his...v-print/story/358.html

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: Oralloy

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: Oralloy

Originally posted by: LuckyTaxi
So I was reading up on what transpire on the day of the bombing. it seems the Japs didn't intercept the bombers in flight. what would've happened if they did? We didnt have any fighter jets accompanying the bombers.

Japanese fighters helped chase the second A-bomb away from its primary target (Kokura Arsenal), thereby dooming Nagasaki.

The bomber crew was more concerned with the flack guns beginning to get a bearing on their position though, than they were worried about the fighters.

It was weather conditions, not Japanese fighters, that made them move to Nagasaki.

"Sweeney and his crew were under orders to only bomb visually. When they got to Kokura they found the haze and smoke obscuring the city as well as the large ammunition arsenal that was the reason for targeting the city. They made three unsuccessful passes, wasting more fuel, while anti-aircraft fire zeroed in on them and Japanese fighter planes began to climb toward them. The B-29s broke off and headed for Nagasaki."

http://www.hiroshima-remembere...ry/nagasaki/page3.html


"Two more passes over the target still produced no sightings of the aiming point. As an aircraft crewman, Jacob Beser, later recalled, Japanese fighters and bursts of antiaircraft fire were by this time starting to make things "a little hairy." Kokura no longer appeared to be an option, and there was only enough fuel on board to return to the secondary airfield on Okinawa, making one hurried pass as they went over their secondary target, the city of Nagasaki."

http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/nagasaki.htm


"On an ordinary mission, Sweeney might have ordered a radar run. Or he could have used a river as a landmark to bomb by dead reckoning. But his orders were to bomb only if the target could be clearly seen.

He started the first bomb run at 30,000 feet over Kokura, hoping to find a break in the haze. Nothing.

Anti-aircraft fire began to burst around the two B-29s. Sweeney opted for a second run a couple of thousand feet higher to confuse the anti-aircraft gunners.

Again no luck, and Bock's Car kept burning fuel.

The radio man reported increased traffic on frequencies used by Japanese fighter planes. The tail gunner thought he spotted 10 fighters taking off.

Sweeney opted for a third run anyway.

No luck again.

Japanese Zero fighters began to show up.

Sweeney and Ashworth decided to head to Nagasaki. "We had enough problems," Sweeney said."

http://www.hanfordnews.com/his...v-print/story/358.html

Right...they couldn't get a visual because of the weather...

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: LuckyTaxi

ok kinda make sense now ... japs thought the planes were doing recon and therefore said F it they're not bothering us.

japan had very few fighters left by august 1945 and they were probably around more important targets than hiroshima.

by early 1945 the US navy had more destroyers than the IJN had airplanes. and the IJN had even fewer qualified pilots.

 

[xalos]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: xalos
The atomic bombings of Japan was more propaganda than anything else. I admit that it ended up saving a lot of lives. However, its possible that merely containing the Japanese to their island and not having a land invasion would've caused their surrender eventually. It would've caused tons of Japanese civilian deaths due to famine and lack of resources on the island. Since resources was the whole reason that Japan entered WW2 and attacked us. (We didn't support their war on China)

I don't feel that the U.S. leaders (Truman) really had the best interest of ending the war at heart. The U.S. could've forced a trade embargo against Japan and kept them pinned to their island with minimal military casualties. It would've gone on for some time until Japan surrendered but the cost wouldn't have been too much to bear.

But, with the breaking down of communications with the USSR after Roosevelt's death and Truman not getting along with Stalin. Truman used the atomic bombs to prove our might to Stalin. Truman found out the atomic bombs were a success at Potsdam Conference and that's why Truman started acting like a douche at the conference.

The Cold War and nuclear arms race might have never happened had the U.S. not bombed Japan. But, it's hard to say in retrospect what courses were the best options and what would have and would not have happened. Maybe everything was played perfectly, maybe not. But, the U.S. wasn't exactly evil when they dropped the bombs. However, we wasn't completely fighting for peace (lol.. that phrase kills me) either.

The Soviets had fairly extensive knowledge of the US atomic bomb effort through their intelligence services. Stalin was very much interested in the bomb and would have developed it regardless of the US decision to use it against Japan.

The US already had a fairly effective blockade of the home Japanese islands. We also already sank most of the merchant fleet and reduced the rail network to ruins. That combined with the rice crop failure was hurtling Japan into a famine that would have killed a substantial percentage of it's population.

Yeah, Stalin allegedly knew that the bomb testing was a success before Truman..lol Spies are everywhere! But, its hard to say whether or not the size or yields of the arsenals would've gotten as large as they did had the U.S. not used it on Japan.

Who knows?.. The arms race might have been preventable or inevitable, at least no bombs have been detonated on live targets since.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
Attitudes were obviously different in those days. No way in hell dropping atomic weapons on civilians would be acceptable these days, regardless of the reason. These days it would be a war crime.

of course.

we would just drop loads more of conventional bombs that would kill the same number of people; but at least we can claim the moral high ground.

:roll:

Oh really? No idea we targeted citizens these days.

It was WW2, they didn't have guided munitions. The reason they had hundreds of planes dropping bombs is it was the only way back then to be sure you hit your target.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: xalos

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: xalos
The atomic bombings of Japan was more propaganda than anything else. I admit that it ended up saving a lot of lives. However, its possible that merely containing the Japanese to their island and not having a land invasion would've caused their surrender eventually. It would've caused tons of Japanese civilian deaths due to famine and lack of resources on the island. Since resources was the whole reason that Japan entered WW2 and attacked us. (We didn't support their war on China)

I don't feel that the U.S. leaders (Truman) really had the best interest of ending the war at heart. The U.S. could've forced a trade embargo against Japan and kept them pinned to their island with minimal military casualties. It would've gone on for some time until Japan surrendered but the cost wouldn't have been too much to bear.

But, with the breaking down of communications with the USSR after Roosevelt's death and Truman not getting along with Stalin. Truman used the atomic bombs to prove our might to Stalin. Truman found out the atomic bombs were a success at Potsdam Conference and that's why Truman started acting like a douche at the conference.

The Cold War and nuclear arms race might have never happened had the U.S. not bombed Japan. But, it's hard to say in retrospect what courses were the best options and what would have and would not have happened. Maybe everything was played perfectly, maybe not. But, the U.S. wasn't exactly evil when they dropped the bombs. However, we wasn't completely fighting for peace (lol.. that phrase kills me) either.

The Soviets had fairly extensive knowledge of the US atomic bomb effort through their intelligence services. Stalin was very much interested in the bomb and would have developed it regardless of the US decision to use it against Japan.

The US already had a fairly effective blockade of the home Japanese islands. We also already sank most of the merchant fleet and reduced the rail network to ruins. That combined with the rice crop failure was hurtling Japan into a famine that would have killed a substantial percentage of it's population.

Yeah, Stalin allegedly knew that the bomb testing was a success before Truman..lol Spies are everywhere! But, its hard to say whether or not the size or yields of the arsenals would've gotten as large as they did had the U.S. not used it on Japan.

Who knows?.. The arms race might have been preventable or inevitable, at least no bombs have been detonated on live targets since.

With Stalin in charge of the USSR, the cold war and its associated arms was inevitable, imo. That was one crazy mean mass murderin mofo.

edit: just to add, I certainly wouldn't be here if the bombs hadn't been dropped. My dad was on leave when they surrendered. He then got a telegraph giving him his release. If they'd surrendered a few days later, he would've started his B-29 training and gone through his third tour.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
It never ceases to amaze me how easily Americans can rationalize dropping nuclear weapons on civilians. You guys really do have a... uhh... different perspective.

Sorry, we were to busy defending the world to worry about offending candy ass pansies.