Hiroshima -the first place on Earth where nuclear weapons were used in warfare 72 years ago today

[malaise]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2017/aug/06/life-after-the-bomb-exploring-the-psychogeography-of-hiroshima
<snip>

Some 140,000 people were killed in 1945 atomic bomb, with another 74,000 bombed to death three days later in Nagasaki.

Japan marked 72 years since the world's first nuclear attack on Hiroshima on Sunday, with the nation's traditional contradictions over atomic weapons again coming into focus.

The anniversary came after Japan sided last month with nuclear powers Britain, France and the US to dismiss a UN treaty banning atomic weapons, which was rejected by critics for ignoring the reality of security threats such as North Korea.

Japan is the only country to have suffered atomic attacks, in 1945.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, speaking at the annual ceremony at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park near the ground zero, said Japan hoped to push for a world without nuclear weapons in a way that all countries can agree.
------------------------
Destroy all nukes.

[USALiberal]

1. I am shocked and happy Nukes have not been used since. n/t

[malaise]

8. Very good point

They must never be used again

[localroger]

14. Well, technically one more was used since

Nagasaki's anniversary will be coming up in a couple of days.

[hedda_foil]

2. One of our most inhuman acts along with slavery and the devastation of native Americans.

[malaise]

5. All three were inhumane but if the numbers are correct re native Americans

and slavery, then just in terms of numbers they were worse.

[CrispyQ]

28. +1 in solemness for truth.

[still_one]

33. Excuse me, but that is what war is, inhuman. Have you heard of Nanking or Auschwitz?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

Perhaps you are familiar with an island called Okinawa?

There were more than 150,000 casualties on both sides, and tens of thousands of civilians killed in that 3 month battle, and it was a painful preview of what an invasion of the Japanese homeland would bring. Very few Japanese soldiers surrendered at that battle, because it was considered a dishonor to surrender.

Truman made the decision to drop the bomb, because he realized that an invasion of Japan would result in massive U.S. casualties

[Docreed2003]

36. Excellent post but one caveat...

Truman knew there would be massive casualties from all sides from an invasion of the Japanese mainland. Like you said, Okinawa was a mere preview.

[still_one]

38. You are right, and I am also quite sure that those Americans slated to be part of the invasion of

Japan were quite relieved that did not happen

[Docreed2003]

39. My grandfather would have turned 99 today...

He was training for the invasion of the Japanese mainland on his birthday in 1945.

[still_one]

40. That is amazing. No wonder you have a sense of history. I hope he had an opportunity to share his

reflections with you on a lot of things

[hedda_foil]

41. Of course I have. In fact I'm Jewish and preparing to teach a class on the rise of Hitler.

[still_one]

42. I am Jewish also, and that is not relevant to my point, which I stand by

[Solly Mack]

3. K&R

We're a brutal species.

[malaise]

7. Yes we are a brutal species

until we need blood and body parts - then we like to think we're all equal.

[MineralMan]

4. I was born just 10 days before the Hiroshima bomb.

We must never forget that the United States of America is the only nation that has ever used nuclear weapons against anyone. Whether it was justified or not is a matter of discussion, but we remain the only nation that has ever used a nuclear weapon against others.

In that, we are exceptional and we should never forget that we did that. Other nations do not forget.

I'm an Atom Bomb Baby. That is not a distinction of which I am proud. Not one bit.

[malaise]

6. 100%

[still_one]

35. I am sure it mattered to those Americans who were going to be sent to invade Japan. The battle of

Okinawa was a preview of the massive loss of life that would result from an invasion of Japan.

While it is a fact that the U.S. is the only nation to ever use a nuclear weapon against others, one would hope that nuclear weapons will never be used again.

[Archae]

9. The fact we never did use another in war, as a species says much.

It's good.

The Bom was looked at back then as just a bigger bomb, mostly.
War is not played by the Marquis De Queensberry rules, it is brutal, and slaughter of innocents is inevitable.

As is, even AFTER Emperor Hirohito decided to surrender, a group of fanatical junior officers killed their CO and tried to stp the broadcast on August 14th. They failed and then killed themselves.

If we look at what would have happened had we invaded the main islands of Japan, it really would have been awful.

But all this is academic, and again, I'm grateful even above-ground nuclear tests have ended.

The Soviet Union set off one air-delivered bomb, the "Tsar Bomba," that was 57 megatons.

[localroger]

12. And the Tsar Bomba was dialed down

As designed, it was capable of over 100 megatons. They dialed it down so that the pilots who delivered the test assembly would have a chance to survive.

[hunter]

27. "If we look at what would have happened had we invaded the main islands of Japan..."

That became an alternate history fantasy the moment the Trinity nuclear test was successful.

All the "what ifs..." went out the window, and plans were made to drop a couple of atom bombs on Japan every month until they surrendered or there was nothing left of them.

The plutonium production reactors at Hanford were built big. 120 Fat Man type bombs had been built by 1950, despite a pause in production immediately after the war, partly to improve plant safety. Risks acceptable in war are not so acceptable in time of peace.

The math is easy. The U.S.A. could have bombed Japan back into the stone age.

History is what it is, not what it might have been.

The U.S.A. had the bomb and they were willing to use it.

[guillaumeb]

30. Absolutely.

And the US is still willing to use them.

[FLPanhandle]

10. Lots of debate on should it have been used or not.

I believe it helped end the war by giving the Emperor a good excuse to accept surrender and save face. The firebombing of Japanese cities killed more people and destroyed more square miles of area, but that is forgotten by many. Also, the firebombing was not enough to get the Japanese leadership to consider surrender.

The debate will rage on but the atomic bomb, while not as destructive as the continuous firebombings, was the prime reason the emperor used to call an end to the war. That cannot be debated.

The key part of the Emperor's speech..
-------------------------------
"But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone – the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of our servants of the state, and the devoted service of our one hundred million people – the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.

Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Such being the case, how are we to save the millions of our subjects, or to atone ourselves before the hallowed spirits of our imperial ancestors? This is the reason why we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers.
--------------------------------

To me, there isn't much of a dichotomy between the atomic bombings and the firebombing of Tokyo or Dresden. Let's hope neither option is needed/used again.

[localroger]

13. The Emperor was trying to end the war before the bombing

We had broken their codes and intercepted a transmission where relaying the surrender terms they would accept. After Trinity, the Potsdam Declaration was crafted to make sure it _did not_ include those terms, even though they were eventually granted after the final post-bombing surrender (mostly that Japan remain a country with its own polity, and that the Emperor retain his mostly ceremonial throne).

[FLPanhandle]

15. The Emperor could have ended the war a year earlier if he was trying.

By that time, it was obvious the Japanese military was beaten.

If he was trying earlier, then it wasn't a very hard effort. The atomic bombs gave him the "out" to surrender while saving face for the military (which is why he used them as a reason in his address).

[BzaDem]

34. I'm not so sure that the Emperor could have ended the war a year earlier, even if he wanted to.

Even after Nagasaki, when the Allies made public to the Japanese people (by leaflet) Japan's offer of surrender, there was an (unsuccessful) military coup to attempt to prevent it. Previously, the principals tried strenuously to avoid the vast majority of the Japanese military from finding out about discussions of surrender, to avoid such a coup. Yet even after two atomic bombs with the imminent threat of more, there was still an attempted coup.

I don't think that the Emperor necessarily wanted to end the war a full year before. But I doubt he would have been able to if he tried (and knowledge of this probably affected his thinking). It took the utter destruction of Japan (up to and including the atomic bombs) to get the Emperor to a point where he (and the others in the Japanese government wishing to end the war) could get all Japanese institutions to agree.

[roamer65]

11. What really made the Japanese capitulate was the conventional air raids after Nagasaki.

It was so intense that water actually boiled in the canals in the cities.

Their last oil refinery was gone after this blitz as well. They stripped the guns out of the B-29's to lighten them up and put up nearly 1500 sorties. They would fly back to Tinian, fuel up and go right back.

[FLPanhandle]

16. Most of the firebombings were before Nagasaki, not afterwards.

The US bombed Tokyo in March but the Japanese surrendered just days after Nagasaki.

Any bombings after Nagasaki were few and meaningless. Look up the dates of the major firebombings if you want confirmation.

[roamer65]

17. 449 B-29's in a daylight bombing raid on August 14th is not small.

With another 372 planes that night.

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/bombings-worse-nagasaki-hiroshima/

I don't agree with the opinions of the article, but he does quote historical record.

They stripped them of guns and utterly leveled the last functioning Japanese oil refinery as well. What began as a war over oil supply, ended with the destruction of it for the Japanese.

I had a relative who was AAF on Tinian. I remember him telling me that they hit them even harder after the 2 nukes were dropped.

[FLPanhandle]

18. Even your link shows most of the major damage was done months before the atomic bombings

Quoting your own link, the 8/14 bombing raid was not the deadliest.

By the time the atomic bombs were dropped, the major Japanese cities were already mostly destroyed by earlier firebombings. The 8/14 was a show of force but not the deadliest nor most damaging. Frankly, there was little to destroy by then.

[roamer65]

19. But you call them insignificant after Nagasaki.

They were not.

[FLPanhandle]

20. Lots of planes, not much more damage.

There is a reason your link says the raid is forgotten, it didn't do much damage. Historians call that insignificant regardless of the number of planes involved.

It certainly wasn't a factor in the Japanese surrender.

I stand by the insignificant comment.

[roamer65]

21. Well...we can disagree.

[FLPanhandle]

22. Shoot, historians have been disagreeing for years, so can we!

[roamer65]

24. Read my post on the rumored 3rd bomb.

Dug it out of the GWU nat'l security archives. There was a third one, available to be used as soon as August 19th. It was ready to go.

[BzaDem]

32. The Japanese already signaled acceptance of a near-unconditional surrender days before that bombing.

Japan told the Allies that they accepted the Potsdam declaration on August 10th (one day after Nagasaki), so long as the "prerogatives of the Emperor" were not prejudiced. (The Potsdam declaration was intentionally vague about the position of Emperor, since the US and British disagreed about whether the position should be abolished.)

The reason it took 5 days to announce it to the public was that the Japanese cabinet was divided on whether to accept. (The U.S. responded to Japan's offer with a statement that remained vague about the Emperor, so some of that time was spent trying to parse what the U.S. was implying.) In addition, there was an attempted military coup by officers who did not want to surrender.

So while the August 14th bombing may have played a role in speeding up consensus in Japan's political system, the Emperor's wishes were already clear days before the bombing, and it was only a matter of time before they would be put into effect.

[liquid diamond]

23. We finished what they started.

The war was lost, but they wouldn't quit. We weren't going to lose thousands more American soldiers trying to invade the main island of Japan. Even Japanese civilians were training to kill our soldiers.

I have no sympathy for the Japanese empire. If you do, I suggest you look up the rape of Nanking, the Bataan death march, and the Burma railway. Lovely people.

[guillaumeb]

31. Sheer speculation as to potential casualties.

And the Japanese force projection capability was minimal at that time.

[still_one]

37. I wonder how many think about Okinawa and what happened there. There were more than 150,000

casualties on both sides, and tens of thousands of civilians were killed in that 3 month battle. What that battle demonstrated was a preview of the massive casualties that would have resulted from an invasion of Japan. very FEW Japanese soldiers surrendered at that battle because it was considered a dishonor to surrender.

The invasion of Japan was planned for November. Truman made the decision to drop the bomb to save American lives, and that was directly influenced by the battle of Okinawa.

It is easy to talk about things in theoretical terms, but if you are a soldier who is slated to be part of an invasion force of the Japanese homeland, would they really feel the same way about what happened?

[roamer65]

43. There was actually unrest on some of the ships taking soldiers...

from the European theater to the Pacific one. They felt they had done their duty in Europe. Can't say I disagree with them.

[still_one]

44. Of course they would, they were in the war years before our involvement

[ProudLib72]

25. Those scientists in Los Alamos were excited to be working on the bomb

Everyone was excited at the prospect of tapping into the power of the atom. But let's not forget what happened after they saw its real potential. It scared them to their core.

Every single person in this country should be forced to take the tour of the atomic museum at Los Alamos. It does a good job of differentiating exciting theory from stark reality.

[applegrove]

26. .

[Codeine]

29. Don't start no shit, won't be no shit. nt

[liquid diamond]

45. QFT