Hiroshima

[apac]

I have mixed feelings about the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, quoted as "promoting a hope to end the existence of all nuclear weapons". Why should it be specific to Nuclear weapons? 1 atomic bomb is no different than 10000 normal bombs. If there weren't nuclear weapons, there would be something else. They are not the problem. Maybe the problem was Japan starting an unnecessary, selfish war in the Pacific.

 

[jalaram]

Originally posted by: Aikouka
Heh, the comments are mostly anti-American. Although that's not too surprising since anything showing American military prowess (regardless of how old) tends to result in such comments.

Or it could be that people in other countries are taught different "facts" about history than what Americans are taught. It's quite likely they won't feel that the bombs were necessary evils as many here do.

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
http://www.google.com/hostedne...ZcKpbfBFySNxFUyBybcXmA

Wow, what bad luck.

IMHO, bad luck would be surviving Hiroshima only to die in Nagasaki. Surviving both sounds like good luck to me.

 

[thegimp03]

The comments under those pictures are about as bad as the majority of articles in P&N. Gotta love people who forget Pearl Harbor and the atrocious things the Japanese did during WWII to satisfy their own agenda in putting down the U.S.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
http://www.google.com/hostedne...ZcKpbfBFySNxFUyBybcXmA

He's in the city, gets nuked.

Goes to another city, that one gets nuked.

Wonder what was going through people's thoughts at the third city he went to?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: K1052
A little known fact also was that the Japanese food situation was beyond dire. Had the war been allowed to grind on for another 6 months millions more Japanese would have certainly died of famine.

I've read that as well; the rice crop essentially failed that year, and rationing was down to ridiculous levels - something like the equivalent of 1000 calories per person per day, or similar. POWs were getting basically nothing. Almost immediately after occupying Japan, the U.S. had to rush in millions of tons of emergency food supplies for the population.

Additionally, post-war intelligence confirmed that the Japanese had basically guessed correctly the primary landing sites the U.S. had chosen to assault mainland Japan, and any invasion would've been a bloodbath for both sides. It's really hard to honestly argue against the idea that by ending the war when they did, the atomic bombs saved lives - most likely millions of lives.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: jalaram

Originally posted by: Aikouka
Heh, the comments are mostly anti-American. Although that's not too surprising since anything showing American military prowess (regardless of how old) tends to result in such comments.

Or it could be that people in other countries are taught different "facts" about history than what Americans are taught. It's quite likely they won't feel that the bombs were necessary evils as many here do.

there are no different "facts". There are just facts. What is being taught unfortunately is opinion. Teachers/professors need to stop trying to mold students into junior versions of themselves and let students develop their own views.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: apac
I have mixed feelings about the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, quoted as "promoting a hope to end the existence of all nuclear weapons". Why should it be specific to Nuclear weapons? 1 atomic bomb is no different than 10000 normal bombs. If there weren't nuclear weapons, there would be something else. They are not the problem. Maybe the problem was Japan starting an unnecessary, selfish war in the Pacific.

10,000 "normal" bombs don't cause deaths from radiation, they don't cause increases in birth defects, and many other differences.

Using "normal" bombs, you won't cause people to die over the course of days/weeks/months/years slowly and in a LOT of pain.

 

[OCGuy]

Who cares what people say? Our government saved countless young American men. That is their job.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
http://www.google.com/hostedne...ZcKpbfBFySNxFUyBybcXmA

He's in the city, gets nuked.

Goes to another city, that one gets nuked.

Wonder what was going through people's thoughts at the third city he went to?

Here comes the Anti-Christ?

 

[randay]

140,000 innocent civilians. the price of war is too high.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: K1052
A little known fact also was that the Japanese food situation was beyond dire. Had the war been allowed to grind on for another 6 months millions more Japanese would have certainly died of famine.

I've read that as well; the rice crop essentially failed that year, and rationing was down to ridiculous levels - something like the equivalent of 1000 calories per person per day, or similar. POWs were getting basically nothing. Almost immediately after occupying Japan, the U.S. had to rush in millions of tons of emergency food supplies for the population.

Additionally, post-war intelligence confirmed that the Japanese had basically guessed correctly the primary landing sites the U.S. had chosen to assault mainland Japan, and any invasion would've been a bloodbath for both sides. It's really hard to honestly argue against the idea that by ending the war when they did, the atomic bombs saved lives - most likely millions of lives.

Many of them civilian, of course. After reading about the "suicide cliffs" of Okinawa, I think it is reasonable to expect that many Japanese would have behaved in a similar manner. The propaganda they were being force fed, said we would rape and torture them, and even eat their small children and infants.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: K1052
A little known fact also was that the Japanese food situation was beyond dire. Had the war been allowed to grind on for another 6 months millions more Japanese would have certainly died of famine.

I've read that as well; the rice crop essentially failed that year, and rationing was down to ridiculous levels - something like the equivalent of 1000 calories per person per day, or similar. POWs were getting basically nothing. Almost immediately after occupying Japan, the U.S. had to rush in millions of tons of emergency food supplies for the population.

Additionally, post-war intelligence confirmed that the Japanese had basically guessed correctly the primary landing sites the U.S. had chosen to assault mainland Japan, and any invasion would've been a bloodbath for both sides. It's really hard to honestly argue against the idea that by ending the war when they did, the atomic bombs saved lives - most likely millions of lives.

How about the fact that peace was recognized as the only option since January of that year, and was being seriously debated since June of that year. They just wouldn't accept an unconditional surrender.

But, I guess it's just speculation, since the opportunity was never given.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: K1052
A little known fact also was that the Japanese food situation was beyond dire. Had the war been allowed to grind on for another 6 months millions more Japanese would have certainly died of famine.

I've read that as well; the rice crop essentially failed that year, and rationing was down to ridiculous levels - something like the equivalent of 1000 calories per person per day, or similar. POWs were getting basically nothing. Almost immediately after occupying Japan, the U.S. had to rush in millions of tons of emergency food supplies for the population.

Additionally, post-war intelligence confirmed that the Japanese had basically guessed correctly the primary landing sites the U.S. had chosen to assault mainland Japan, and any invasion would've been a bloodbath for both sides. It's really hard to honestly argue against the idea that by ending the war when they did, the atomic bombs saved lives - most likely millions of lives.

Many of them civilian, of course. After reading about the "suicide cliffs" of Okinawa, I think it is reasonable to expect that many Japanese would have behaved in a similar manner. The propaganda they were being force fed, said we would rape and torture them, and even eat their small children and infants.

Absolutely. Evidence suggests the Japanese military was preparing to 'militarize' the entire civilian population to resist the US invasion. Of course, most would've been armed with nothing more than sharpened sticks, since rifles were scarce, and would've been sent, wave after wave, into the slaughter. If anyone's interested in this topic, I recommend the book "Downfall" by Richard Frank. Great book on the last days of the Imperial Japanese Empire.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: K1052
A little known fact also was that the Japanese food situation was beyond dire. Had the war been allowed to grind on for another 6 months millions more Japanese would have certainly died of famine.

I've read that as well; the rice crop essentially failed that year, and rationing was down to ridiculous levels - something like the equivalent of 1000 calories per person per day, or similar. POWs were getting basically nothing. Almost immediately after occupying Japan, the U.S. had to rush in millions of tons of emergency food supplies for the population.

Additionally, post-war intelligence confirmed that the Japanese had basically guessed correctly the primary landing sites the U.S. had chosen to assault mainland Japan, and any invasion would've been a bloodbath for both sides. It's really hard to honestly argue against the idea that by ending the war when they did, the atomic bombs saved lives - most likely millions of lives.

How about the fact that peace was recognized as the only option since January of that year, and was being seriously debated since June of that year. They just wouldn't accept an unconditional surrender.

But, I guess it's just speculation, since the opportunity was never given.

Recognized by who? True, many members of the civilian gov't recognized that the war was unwinnable as early as Jan. 1945, but the military command (who actually ruled the country) was having none of that. A formalized, official request for peace terms was never made by Japan. Most of the civilian gov't was far too scared to even mention peace negotiations amongst themselves; they were far too scared of the military.

 

[jalaram]

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: jalaram

Originally posted by: Aikouka
Heh, the comments are mostly anti-American. Although that's not too surprising since anything showing American military prowess (regardless of how old) tends to result in such comments.

Or it could be that people in other countries are taught different "facts" about history than what Americans are taught. It's quite likely they won't feel that the bombs were necessary evils as many here do.

there are no different "facts". There are just facts. What is being taught unfortunately is opinion. Teachers/professors need to stop trying to mold students into junior versions of themselves and let students develop their own views.

Okay, what are the facts?

1. US dropped an A-bomb
2. Thousands of civilians are dead

If we leave it at that, what views would the students form? Let's add:

3. The US and Japan were at war

That's a fact and it adds context. Some would still feel that it was a barbaric act. Are they wrong after learning just the facts? All the points brought up above by other posters are not facts. They're conjecture to add context and support the decision. That's no different than your "teachers" trying to mold views.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: jalaram

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: jalaram

Originally posted by: Aikouka
Heh, the comments are mostly anti-American. Although that's not too surprising since anything showing American military prowess (regardless of how old) tends to result in such comments.

Or it could be that people in other countries are taught different "facts" about history than what Americans are taught. It's quite likely they won't feel that the bombs were necessary evils as many here do.

there are no different "facts". There are just facts. What is being taught unfortunately is opinion. Teachers/professors need to stop trying to mold students into junior versions of themselves and let students develop their own views.

Okay, what are the facts?

1. US dropped an H-bomb
2. Thousands of civilians are dead

If we leave it at that, what views would the students form? Let's add:

3. The US and Japan were at war

That's a fact and it adds context. Some would still feel that it was a barbaric act. Are they wrong after learning just the facts? All the points brought up above by other posters are not facts. They're conjecture to add context and support the decision. That's no different than your "teachers" trying to mold views.

You left out #4 The US and Japan were at war after Japan launched an unannounced surprise attack on the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor resulting in 2300 deaths.

 

[funkymatt]

It would be interesting to know if any nuclear bombs were dropped that were duds, we always hear about the massive destruction they cause but never the duds.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: jalaram


Okay, what are the facts?

1. US dropped an H-bomb
2. Thousands of civilians are dead

If we leave it at that, what views would the students form? Let's add:

3. The US and Japan were at war

That's a fact and it adds context. Some would still feel that it was a barbaric act. Are they wrong after learning just the facts? All the points brought up above by other posters are not facts. They're conjecture to add context and support the decision. That's no different than your "teachers" trying to mold views.

Even your facts are wrong, the first U.S. test of the H-bomb was 1952

The 10.4-megaton blast on the far away Enewetak Atoll was hundreds of times more powerful than the A-bomb explosion at Hiroshima.

Unlike that device which tapped energy by splitting atomic nuclei, the Enewetak weapon forced together nuclei of hydrogen to unleash an even greater destructive force.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: jalaram

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: jalaram

Originally posted by: Aikouka
Heh, the comments are mostly anti-American. Although that's not too surprising since anything showing American military prowess (regardless of how old) tends to result in such comments.

Or it could be that people in other countries are taught different "facts" about history than what Americans are taught. It's quite likely they won't feel that the bombs were necessary evils as many here do.

there are no different "facts". There are just facts. What is being taught unfortunately is opinion. Teachers/professors need to stop trying to mold students into junior versions of themselves and let students develop their own views.

Okay, what are the facts?

1. US dropped an H-bomb
2. Thousands of civilians are dead

If we leave it at that, what views would the students form? Let's add:

3. The US and Japan were at war

That's a fact and it adds context. Some would still feel that it was a barbaric act. Are they wrong after learning just the facts? All the points brought up above by other posters are not facts. They're conjecture to add context and support the decision. That's no different than your "teachers" trying to mold views.

Um, the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT H-bombs. Those weren't developed until a few years later, and have never been used in war.

 

[jalaram]

Originally posted by: Kadarin
Um, the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT H-bombs. Those weren't developed until a few years later, and have never been used in war.

Ooops. My bad. I'll fix that.

Originally posted by: Linflas
You left out #4 The US and Japan were at war after Japan launched an unannounced surprise attack on the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor resulting in 2300 deaths.

That's mostly the same as my #3 because Pearl Harbor led to the war, not to the specific bombing.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: K1052
A little known fact also was that the Japanese food situation was beyond dire. Had the war been allowed to grind on for another 6 months millions more Japanese would have certainly died of famine.

I've read that as well; the rice crop essentially failed that year, and rationing was down to ridiculous levels - something like the equivalent of 1000 calories per person per day, or similar. POWs were getting basically nothing. Almost immediately after occupying Japan, the U.S. had to rush in millions of tons of emergency food supplies for the population.

Additionally, post-war intelligence confirmed that the Japanese had basically guessed correctly the primary landing sites the U.S. had chosen to assault mainland Japan, and any invasion would've been a bloodbath for both sides. It's really hard to honestly argue against the idea that by ending the war when they did, the atomic bombs saved lives - most likely millions of lives.

How about the fact that peace was recognized as the only option since January of that year, and was being seriously debated since June of that year. They just wouldn't accept an unconditional surrender.

But, I guess it's just speculation, since the opportunity was never given.

What do you mean the opportunity was never given? They always had the opportunity to unconditionally surrender, and they didn't even do it after the first atomic bomb destroyed one of their cities.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: jalaram

Ooops. My bad. I'll fix that.

While you are at it, look up Kyujo Incident

Barbaric act my ass! Part of the military did not want to surrender, so attempted a coup. And for good reason too, as some knew damned well they were going down for war crimes.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Kadarin

Originally posted by: jalaram

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: jalaram

Originally posted by: Aikouka
Heh, the comments are mostly anti-American. Although that's not too surprising since anything showing American military prowess (regardless of how old) tends to result in such comments.

Or it could be that people in other countries are taught different "facts" about history than what Americans are taught. It's quite likely they won't feel that the bombs were necessary evils as many here do.

there are no different "facts". There are just facts. What is being taught unfortunately is opinion. Teachers/professors need to stop trying to mold students into junior versions of themselves and let students develop their own views.

Okay, what are the facts?

1. US dropped an H-bomb
2. Thousands of civilians are dead

If we leave it at that, what views would the students form? Let's add:

3. The US and Japan were at war

That's a fact and it adds context. Some would still feel that it was a barbaric act. Are they wrong after learning just the facts? All the points brought up above by other posters are not facts. They're conjecture to add context and support the decision. That's no different than your "teachers" trying to mold views.

Um, the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT H-bombs. Those weren't developed until a few years later, and have never been used in war.

The first H-Bomb was detonated in March 1954, nearly ten years after the war...and it was a hell of a bang.

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

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: jalaram

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: jalaram

Originally posted by: Aikouka
Heh, the comments are mostly anti-American. Although that's not too surprising since anything showing American military prowess (regardless of how old) tends to result in such comments.

Or it could be that people in other countries are taught different "facts" about history than what Americans are taught. It's quite likely they won't feel that the bombs were necessary evils as many here do.

there are no different "facts". There are just facts. What is being taught unfortunately is opinion. Teachers/professors need to stop trying to mold students into junior versions of themselves and let students develop their own views.

Okay, what are the facts?

1. US dropped an A-bomb
2. Thousands of civilians are dead

If we leave it at that, what views would the students form? Let's add:

3. The US and Japan were at war

That's a fact and it adds context. Some would still feel that it was a barbaric act. Are they wrong after learning just the facts? All the points brought up above by other posters are not facts. They're conjecture to add context and support the decision. That's no different than your "teachers" trying to mold views.

we dropped 2 A bombs not H

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: K1052
A little known fact also was that the Japanese food situation was beyond dire. Had the war been allowed to grind on for another 6 months millions more Japanese would have certainly died of famine.

I've read that as well; the rice crop essentially failed that year, and rationing was down to ridiculous levels - something like the equivalent of 1000 calories per person per day, or similar. POWs were getting basically nothing. Almost immediately after occupying Japan, the U.S. had to rush in millions of tons of emergency food supplies for the population.

Additionally, post-war intelligence confirmed that the Japanese had basically guessed correctly the primary landing sites the U.S. had chosen to assault mainland Japan, and any invasion would've been a bloodbath for both sides. It's really hard to honestly argue against the idea that by ending the war when they did, the atomic bombs saved lives - most likely millions of lives.

How about the fact that peace was recognized as the only option since January of that year, and was being seriously debated since June of that year. They just wouldn't accept an unconditional surrender.

But, I guess it's just speculation, since the opportunity was never given.

What do you mean the opportunity was never given? They always had the opportunity to unconditionally surrender, and they didn't even do it after the first atomic bomb destroyed one of their cities.

I remember watching the History Channel once about this and they said that since all of the communication lines from Hiroshima was so badly destroyed, military leaders did not know to what extent what had happened in Hiroshima. They did not surrender immediately because of that.