Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
119 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Was there a third atomic bomb? (Original Post) roamer65 Aug 2017 OP
"You have a possibility of seven, with a good chance of using them... " PoliticAverse Aug 2017 #1
Yup. Scary isn't it. roamer65 Aug 2017 #6
There should never have been one malaise Aug 2017 #2
We can't change history, malaise. roamer65 Aug 2017 #5
Yes we do malaise Aug 2017 #23
Cat... let me introduce you to Bag. Adrahil Aug 2017 #7
Absolutely correct. roamer65 Aug 2017 #9
And I can safely predict we will do very little on each. NutmegYankee Aug 2017 #37
Sad to say, I agree. roamer65 Aug 2017 #38
Climate change and nuclear energy are intimately connected. If we abandon nuclear energy... NNadir Aug 2017 #42
Nuclear energy, as it exists in nuclear fission plants Warpy Aug 2017 #48
Especially when we meltdown obsolete reactors loaded with MOX fuel. roamer65 Aug 2017 #50
Bullshit. This tiresome crap was clearly insane 20 years ago, but as things are now, it's worse. NNadir Aug 2017 #55
New architecture beats all of them. nt fleabiscuit Aug 2017 #56
How? hunter Aug 2017 #84
Great post hueymahl Aug 2017 #101
Thank you for your kind words. NNadir Aug 2017 #115
The projections for an invasion of Japan would have been carnage LittleBlue Aug 2017 #51
+ millions Foamfollower Aug 2017 #53
Every World War II military leader disagrees with you Jim Lane Aug 2017 #63
"Every WWII military leader"? Really? EX500rider Aug 2017 #82
You want evidence? I've got evidence. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #90
The quotes in that article are not persuasive stevenleser Aug 2017 #112
I specifically distinguished the concepts you say I'm conflating. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #114
A blockade however, could have been both efficient and effective as per Tsuyoshi Hasegawa LanternWaste Aug 2017 #73
The blockade was very effective LittleBlue Aug 2017 #75
And would have killed many more civilians than the atomic bombs hack89 Aug 2017 #98
And yet somehow causing the deaths of children through induced famine is a morally superior Marengo Aug 2017 #104
It's the time factor. More moral to spread the deaths out hack89 Aug 2017 #105
I love the Annual fight over the use of nukes. NutmegYankee Aug 2017 #3
Yup. It's a DU tradition. roamer65 Aug 2017 #4
It wasn't a fair fight. Igel Aug 2017 #8
Here's some important history they didn't tell you about in school Jim Lane Aug 2017 #64
Ive often wondered Eko Aug 2017 #10
Robert Oppenheimer wanted a test in the Pacific with Japanese emissaries as witnesses. roamer65 Aug 2017 #12
Huh, Eko Aug 2017 #14
Np. I love history. roamer65 Aug 2017 #20
Me too. Eko Aug 2017 #22
That is not even remotely true. Only a small subset of Manhattan Project scientists, not... NNadir Aug 2017 #44
My mistake. It was the Chicago group that suggested it. roamer65 Aug 2017 #46
Oppenheimer was a very complex and deep man, Truman less so, but in my opinion... NNadir Aug 2017 #52
My concern is yours. roamer65 Aug 2017 #54
Exactly what we should have done. A deserted island would have been better. Hoyt Aug 2017 #13
I agree, but I think maybe the Soviet invasion of Manchuria... roamer65 Aug 2017 #17
It wouldn't have worked. Kentonio Aug 2017 #59
They were surrounded and beaten. Not like they were going to attack us at that point. Hoyt Aug 2017 #61
People (including many allied POWs) were dying in large numbers every day Kentonio Aug 2017 #65
I'll trust scholars like H Zinn. Truthfully, I think it had a lot to do with we were bombing Asians Hoyt Aug 2017 #70
Claiming that Japan tried to surrender is pure revisonism Kentonio Aug 2017 #76
Maybe you need to brush up on your high school history. Hoyt Aug 2017 #81
That is complete and total bullshit Kentonio Aug 2017 #93
Ha. What do you call rationalizing the destruction of 150,000 innocent women and children? Hoyt Aug 2017 #95
At that time that's exactly what they were forced to do. Kentonio Aug 2017 #96
Forced to do? At that point, Japan was about as much a threat to us as Vietnam and Iraq. Hoyt Aug 2017 #97
The Japanese were holding an estimated 125,000 prisoners when they surrendered. Kentonio Aug 2017 #99
What about the thousands of innocents dying every day in Japanese occupied countries hack89 Aug 2017 #100
Would we not have used a nuke on Germany if any were available prior to the surrender? Marengo Aug 2017 #106
Doubt it. We didn't round them up in mass and intern them like Asians either. Hoyt Aug 2017 #109
According to General Groves, President Roosevelt expressed a desire to do so shortly before Yalta. Marengo Aug 2017 #110
So it's OK for Roosevelt to have a desire, but you won't accept the Japanese were beaten Hoyt Aug 2017 #113
Apparently you don't understand. According to General Groves, FDR, being alarmed by the German... Marengo Aug 2017 #117
I understand completely. People who are into guns are also into nuking people like Japanese women Hoyt Aug 2017 #118
That doesn't answer any of my questions to you, how about you try again? In your own words... Marengo Aug 2017 #119
And yet the tonnage of the aerial bombs US forces dropped on Germany was far greater than Japan Marengo Aug 2017 #111
3.4 million Japanese military personnel in the occupied territories at the time of surrender. Marengo Aug 2017 #107
Approximately 3.4 million Japanese military personnel in the occupied territories at the time... Marengo Aug 2017 #67
I'm arguing we had the most destructive weapon ever and were itching to use it. Just like Hoyt Aug 2017 #69
Those who arguably suffered the most from Japanese aggression, the Chinese, have little... Marengo Aug 2017 #71
200,000 largely civilians - many of whom were children, killed or injured directly by the bomb Ms. Toad Aug 2017 #27
They then changed it again. roamer65 Aug 2017 #29
The fight over an island the size of 10 Washington DC's cost about that many lives. NutmegYankee Aug 2017 #30
I am suggesting you are minimizing the human damage we chose to inflict. Ms. Toad Aug 2017 #32
My reference to monsters refers to the national downplaying of Japan to it's wartime atrocities. NutmegYankee Aug 2017 #33
My point is, you are minimizing, and dehumaninzing the damage we chose to inflict. Ms. Toad Aug 2017 #34
And it appears you never read my original point. NutmegYankee Aug 2017 #35
I read your point. It was precisely what I was replyitng to. Ms. Toad Aug 2017 #36
No you did not understand my point. NutmegYankee Aug 2017 #40
Discussing this with my WWII era parents is always interesting nini Aug 2017 #28
I only argue with the second bomb Yupster Aug 2017 #45
To be fair to them, every day meant thousands more casualties. Kentonio Aug 2017 #60
Also, they didn't surrender after the first one Warpy Aug 2017 #49
First bomb dropped on Aug 6 Yupster Aug 2017 #58
Those bombs saved my fathers life HAB911 Aug 2017 #68
Same thing my mom has told me over and over nini Aug 2017 #79
My dear departed dad, a Purple Heart recipient and spent four years PCIntern Aug 2017 #91
We go berserk every time some country wants a nuke, yet we are the only country vile Hoyt Aug 2017 #11
Then I guess only "vile" countries want them Dreamer Tatum Aug 2017 #15
We darn sure would not have invaded Iraq and butchered thousands if they had nukes. Hoyt Aug 2017 #16
Then you must be agog over N Korea's nukes Dreamer Tatum Aug 2017 #18
Quit reading by pointing at one word at a time. Not "agog" at it, but don't think Hoyt Aug 2017 #21
"assuming they even can" ?? EX500rider Aug 2017 #39
They can't launch them. Terror, Terror, Terror. Hoyt Aug 2017 #62
Yet is the key word there... EX500rider Aug 2017 #77
Christ, sounds like you -- like Trump -- are promoting war. Sorry, I'd call it another Iraq, but NK Hoyt Aug 2017 #78
Pointing out that NK is working towards a working nuke.. EX500rider Aug 2017 #80
Iraq had no military or WMD's. That's why bush invaded Iraq and why countries like NK want nukes. Hoyt Aug 2017 #83
Iraq had quite a big military... EX500rider Aug 2017 #85
BS, no air force, no navy, and an army that went home. Plus, no weapons. Hoyt Aug 2017 #86
Pointing out facts, I know, what's with that?! lol EX500rider Aug 2017 #87
Geez, my small state has an air force bigger than that. And not a one of the few planes Iraq had, Hoyt Aug 2017 #89
Yep malaise Aug 2017 #24
Add in the threat of Trump and those like him, and every country will want nukes. Hoyt Aug 2017 #25
Isn't that the truth malaise Aug 2017 #26
You get China,Russia,Pakistan,India,France,UK,NK,Israel.. EX500rider Aug 2017 #41
By 1950 the U.S.A. had 120 "Fat Man" type bombs... hunter Aug 2017 #19
Both Germany and Japan were working on atomic bombs -- eppur_se_muova Aug 2017 #31
Neither program was even remotely close to success. n/t NNadir Aug 2017 #43
Yes, but how could the allies have known that? hueymahl Aug 2017 #102
They couldn't and they didn't. They were surprised by both programs. NNadir Aug 2017 #116
Thank you, it's conforting to know this. Foamfollower Aug 2017 #47
So Sad DarthDem Aug 2017 #57
Ahhh the wonders of 20/20 hindsight dembotoz Aug 2017 #66
There were 120 Fat-Man type bombs by 1950. hunter Aug 2017 #72
So much history will never be taught dembotoz Aug 2017 #74
I remember reading once that MacArthur wanted to use some of them in Korea. roamer65 Aug 2017 #88
You say 'obviously' but they actually came much closer to being used than people think. Kentonio Aug 2017 #94
PBS Documentary: "The Bomb" moondust Aug 2017 #92
He had a chance to surrender before the second Blue_Tires Aug 2017 #103
No sympathy for the Japanese from me. Ever. nt LexVegas Aug 2017 #108

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
1. "You have a possibility of seven, with a good chance of using them... "
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 08:15 PM
Aug 2017

"prior to the 31st of October."

"They come out approximately at the rate of three a month.".

roamer65

(36,739 posts)
5. We can't change history, malaise.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 08:26 PM
Aug 2017

But, I think you and I would agree on complete nuclear disarmament going forward.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
7. Cat... let me introduce you to Bag.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 08:32 PM
Aug 2017

Technology advanced to the point that they were possible. Can't reverse that, I'm afraid.

roamer65

(36,739 posts)
9. Absolutely correct.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 08:43 PM
Aug 2017

The two biggest know risks to humanity are global climate change and nuclear proliferation.

We have the power to end both of those risks, if we truly desire it.

NutmegYankee

(16,177 posts)
37. And I can safely predict we will do very little on each.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 11:47 PM
Aug 2017

I think nuclear disarmament is far likelier a choice than dealing with climate change. We can understand the immediate danger of nuclear war. The climate change problem is the type of long term hazard that people are bad (as a species) with dealing with.

NNadir

(33,368 posts)
42. Climate change and nuclear energy are intimately connected. If we abandon nuclear energy...
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 12:10 AM
Aug 2017

...we will cook the planet for sure.

Without a commitment to nuclear energy, nuclear disarmament is impossible.

I wrote about this elsewhere: On Plutonium, Nuclear War and Nuclear Peace

Unfortunately ignorance is so fashionable that nuclear energy is often confused with nuclear war.

It is interesting, terrible but interesting, that no one ever speaks of banning petroleum even though petroleum has been used to kill more people after being diverted into weapons of mass destruction, vastly more, than nuclear war ever did.

Since petroleum (and coal and gas) waste is killing millions of people each year as air pollution and will kill, apparently much of the planet's ecosystem, it is a sign of the awful and ignorant logic of our times, that we choose instead to focus on so called "nuclear waste" which has killed no one.

And please don't tell me about how wonderful solar and wind energy are. We spent two trillion dollars on this planet on this toxic useless junk fad in the last ten years alone, with the result that climate change gases are increasing at the fastest rate ever observed, consistently close to 3.00 ppm per year.

Warpy

(110,902 posts)
48. Nuclear energy, as it exists in nuclear fission plants
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 12:55 AM
Aug 2017

will make large parts of the earth uninhabitable. See: Chernobyl and Fukushima and don't give me any crap about outmoded designs. The best designs are run by fallible human beings on an unstable planet.

Fusion might prove safer if we can ever get there. That's a big "if."

In the meantime, reducing use is key, something people have been doing for years as they buy energy star appliances and use low wattage light bulbs and eventually make the switch to either hybrid or electric cars. Leapfrog technology in the developing world has reduced their per capita needs right from the start.

Solar and wind can certainly produce much of our power, especially during peak hours. More research like https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170726131744.htm might make elctrolysis economical enough to run large scale fuel cell power generators, a smaller "if" than fusion.

I sincerely doubt there will be one solution for all humanity's power needs. It's likely to be fragmented and messy. I just find the risk/benefit equation regarding nuclear fission power unacceptable.

roamer65

(36,739 posts)
50. Especially when we meltdown obsolete reactors loaded with MOX fuel.
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 12:58 AM
Aug 2017

Fukushima Daiichi reactor 3. The explosion at it was a nuclear criticality explosion. TEPCO had utterly NO business loading MOX fuel into an obsolete GE Mark 1 reactor.

This comment ought to get some debate going, and rightly so...

NNadir

(33,368 posts)
55. Bullshit. This tiresome crap was clearly insane 20 years ago, but as things are now, it's worse.
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 01:40 AM
Aug 2017

It's rather tiresome to hear bourgeois people sitting at their computer in the United States talking about "conservation."

It's fine to say that if you live in a country where the average continuous power consumption is close to 10,000 watts while there are billions of people who lack even basic sanitation services, electricity or clean water on a planet where the average continuous power consumption of all human beings is 2500 watts, with some people having access to less than 10 watts of power.

This is as myopic as it is immoral, a "let them eat cake" type remark.

I made this point at some length elsewhere almost 3 years (and 100 billion metric tons of dumped carbon dioxide) ago: Current Energy Demand; Ethical Energy Demand; Depleted Uranium and the Centuries to Come

Solar and wind are trivial forms of energy, incapable after the expenditure of trillions of dollars (and the poisoning of 10% of the Chinese rice crop in Southern China) of producing even 5 of the 570 exajoules humanity is now consuming.

I'm an old man, who's lived through half a century of stupid hype about the solar money sucking scam. I've spent the last 30 years of my life buried deeply in the primary scientific literature - not dumb promo pages - studying energy and the environment.

Right now, 7 million people are being killed each year, every year by air pollution, half from dangerous fossil fuel waste, half from the combustion of "renewable" biomass.

A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (Lancet 2012, 380, 2224–60: For air pollution mortality figures see Table 3, page 2238 and the text on page 2240.)

And you want to talk about Chernobyl? You are burning electricity that is almost certainly coming from dangerous fossil fuels.

Which killed more people, Chernobyl and Fukushima or the coal, oil and gas burned by people running computers to comment on Chernobyl and Fukushima?

The big bogey men raised by people who never opened a science book in their lives, Chernobyl and Fukushima, combined didn't kill as many people as will die tomorrow from air pollution.

And I note that the nuclear energy industry is more than half a century old, with a death toll dwarfed by automobiles, oil wars, air pollution, human consumption of bad water, airline crashes, and, in fact, natural gas explosions. That people don't give a shit about any kind of death except a radiation death is morally appalling.

Nuclear energy need not be perfect, it not be without risk to be vastly superior to everything else. It only needs to be vastly superior to everything else which it is, as has been experimentally observed.

It is immoral to oppose nuclear energy, particularly as we raced past 410 ppm this year while people sat on their asses praising the failed so called "renewable energy" industry. It didn't work, it isn't working, and it won't work.

Nuclear energy saves lives: Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

It follows that anti-nuke ignorance kills people.

Note that this reference is not from a dumbed down internet page, but from the primary scientific literature, a paper written by one of the world's most prominent climate scientists.

You can sit around like D'Estragon waiting for Godot for the Grand Renewable Energy future that never comes, but you are not serving humanity or the environment in doing so. Quite the contrary. You are damaging humanity and the environment.

Have a nice week.

hueymahl

(2,415 posts)
101. Great post
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 10:09 AM
Aug 2017

We differ somewhat on the viability long term of renewables (I believe we are on-track to conservatively have half our power needs met by renewables in 50 years), but in the short and medium term, your points are dead-on.

NNadir

(33,368 posts)
115. Thank you for your kind words.
Wed Aug 9, 2017, 06:38 AM
Aug 2017

I'm not usually subject to praise for these views, but 30 years of library research on this topic has made me firm in my commitment to nuclear energy. I actually believe that anti-nukism on the left is our equivalent of creationism. It is, in fact, a dangerous attitude.

All this said, I disagree with you on so called "renewables." I don't believe they are cost or resource effective or, actually, safe. Therefore I don't think they are desirable.

The analogy I that recently occurred to me in the solar case is the example of asbestos. In the early part of the 20th century, and well past its midpoint, asbestos was thought of as being a wonder material, and was widely distributed, found even in common kitchen products, as well as buildings, automotive brakes and many other consumer and industrial products. Now we understand that this was a huge mistake.

I think the distribution of solar cells, which contain some fairly toxic materials and involve hazardous and occasionally deadly chemical processing, will be equivalent to asbestos in the long run. This is clear in some circles in the scientific literature, but culturally we have given solar energy a bye on its risks, which are real and nontrivial.

The solar industry will never be as safe nor as sustainable as the nuclear industry. People don't like to hear that, and they deny it through inattention and selective attention, but it's true. As of now, there have been more deaths from the processing of trichlorosilane in Japan than from radiation from Fukushima. That's a fact. That we don't pay any attention whatsoever to the former, while carrying on endlessly about the latter does not mean that the trichlorosilane deaths didn't happen. They did.

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
51. The projections for an invasion of Japan would have been carnage
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 01:03 AM
Aug 2017

I hate the bombs but an invasion would have been the biggest bloodbath in the history of the world. We only avoided mass carnage because the Japanese emperor agreed to be our puppet.

They weren't like Europeans at all, at the time. Millions would have thrown their lives away on hopeless attacks and suicides. Many millions lived because of the pragmatic decisions of the Japanese government.

 

Foamfollower

(1,097 posts)
53. + millions
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 01:14 AM
Aug 2017

and hindsight quarterbacking the decisions based upon information only known after the war is the height of idiocy when it comes to the decision to use these weapons to end the war!

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
63. Every World War II military leader disagrees with you
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 05:46 AM
Aug 2017

Not that an invasion would have been a bloodbath -- they disagree with your implicit assumption that it would have been necessary. The consensus was that Japan would have surrendered without the atomic bombings AND without an invasion of the home islands.

In any event, there would have been no invasion before November 1945. It would have been worth deferring the bombings a couple weeks to see the effect of the Russian entry into the war, which the US knew would occur three months after V-E Day. On the agreed-upon date, Russia declared war on Japan and the largest army in the world attacked Japanese holdings in Manchuria; Japan surrendered shortly thereafter.

EX500rider

(10,518 posts)
82. "Every WWII military leader"? Really?
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 05:53 PM
Aug 2017

FDR?
Truman?
Stalin?
Churchill?
General Patton?
RAF Air Marshal Harris?
USAF General Curtis LeMay?

Or time for a goal-post movement?

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
90. You want evidence? I've got evidence.
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 09:26 PM
Aug 2017

FDR, I hate to break it to you, was dead. Truman, Stalin, and Churchill were political leaders, not military leaders. The military leaders you name:

Patton and Harris - Okay, I have to move the goal posts a wee bit; I meant the American World War II military leaders who expressed an opinion, not every one of the scores of thousands of military leaders the whole world over. I don't know whether Patton or Harris ever addressed the subject.

Major General Curtis LeMay - Now we're getting somewhere. LeMay had been in charge of the strategic bombing of Japan. He said that “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.” (from "The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It")

While LeMay was leading the air war, the overall theater commander in the Pacific was General Douglas MacArthur. One of MacArthur's consultants during the occupation reported having asked MacArthur about the bombings, and reported, "He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." (from "Who Disagreed with the Atomic Bombing?")

Let's add a few more military leaders, from the above-linked sources and from "Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary?":

General Dwight D. Eisenhower
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman
Admiral William “Bull” Halsey Jr., Commander of the US Third Fleet


Were these military leaders correct? We have the benefit of a postwar evaluation, quoted in "Who Disagreed with the Atomic Bombing?":

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 .... :

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." {emphasis added}


On the other side, we have the rationalizations from Truman and his apologists, who WANTED the bombings to be defensible as a military necessity. Perhaps you'll advance the discussion by presenting the views of the military leaders who supported that conclusion. I think they're a decided minority.
 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
112. The quotes in that article are not persuasive
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 05:01 PM
Aug 2017

All of the quotes in that article seem to me to
Be much more along the lines of "Japan was militarily finished" which they were and everyone knew that. There is no argument along those lines.

That does not mean an invasion of the home islands wouldn't have been a bloodbath.

I think you are conflating two distinct concepts.

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
114. I specifically distinguished the concepts you say I'm conflating.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 10:25 PM
Aug 2017

In #63 I wrote:

Every World War II military leader disagrees with you

Not that an invasion would have been a bloodbath -- they disagree with your implicit assumption that it would have been necessary.


The supporters of the bombings talk incessantly about the casualties of an invasion. This is irrelevant if there would have been no invasion. As I pointed out in #90, that issue was expressly addressed. The key point is best set forth in the conclusion of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group:

Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.


A subsidiary point is the option of a short delay. The invasion of the Japanese home islands would not have been undertaken before November 1, 1945 in any event. The U.S. government knew (as Japan did not) that Russia would declare war in early August. The U.S. government also knew that the consequent invasion of Manchuria would be a significant blow to Japan. It would have been quite feasible to continue preparation for the invasion (as was being done anyway) but to wait to see if the Russian entry would prompt Japanese surrender, without the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If you believe that the bombings saved many American and Japanese lives, they would have saved just as many if deferred a month.
 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
73. A blockade however, could have been both efficient and effective as per Tsuyoshi Hasegawa
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 02:42 PM
Aug 2017

A blockade however, could have been both efficient and effective as per Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research on this matter (this was the strategy pursued by the navy pursuant to General Order 1244 issued in June of '44, yet opposed by the army) but the joint Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender issued after the Potsdam conference denied Washington this opportunity.

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
75. The blockade was very effective
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 03:53 PM
Aug 2017

The mining of the sea routes was one of only three effective tactics. The other two were the atomic bombs and firebombing.

There's one big problem with the blockade. The emperor and the elite would have been the first to eat. The populace would have faced starvation. We can't know how many would have died from hunger before the ruling class of Japan threw in the towel. They were very callous toward the lower classes.

What really alarms me is that the Japanese didn't capitulate even after Hiroshima. Which makes me think starvation wouldn't have been effective to secure unconditional surrender, at least not before many more would have died.

 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
104. And yet somehow causing the deaths of children through induced famine is a morally superior
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 11:06 AM
Aug 2017

Position.

NutmegYankee

(16,177 posts)
3. I love the Annual fight over the use of nukes.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 08:22 PM
Aug 2017

It's pretty simple - The Japanese put up ferocious defenses of every island to make the USA think twice about invading the home islands.

So we did. Twice.

I especially love how some act as though the Japanese were victims - they started the war and were brutal monsters throughout the conflict. They gave orders to murder all POWs -http://www.theprisonerlist.com/order-to-kill-all-pows.html
They massacred 100,000 people in Manila, Philippines alone despite orders to just leave the city.
They caused the death of 17-22 MILLION Chinese.

But hey, we're the bad guys for trying to end the war without a bloodbath.

Igel

(35,191 posts)
8. It wasn't a fair fight.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 08:40 PM
Aug 2017

It may be right for us to bring a gun to a knife fight, but everybody else has to play even.

They use rocks, we have to use rocks. At best.

They also rely crucially on hopes that a backchannel the Japanese had through Russians to the US president that didn't actually exist would certainly have worked--and, according to some, would have worked if "no" hadn't been the answer.

Of course, if they stopped and thought about it ... Russia was hankering for Japanese humiliation after that whole 1905 episode and when it looked like Japan was about to be defeated opted to invade so make sure they were at the table for the spoils of war: territorial acquisition, if nothing else. So of course Russia would like peace to have unexpected broken out.

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
64. Here's some important history they didn't tell you about in school
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 06:07 AM
Aug 2017

You write that "when it looked like Japan was about to be defeated {Russia} opted to invade ...."

The USSR did not invade Manchuria because the use of the atomic bomb made Japanese surrender inevitable. Rather, the Soviet declaration of war had been agreed to long before then, in February 1945. Russia was not very industrialized and didn't have a fleet of C-130s. Therefore, it was recognized that, after Germany's surrender, Russia would need time to move its huge army across the length of Asia. The agreement among the Allies at Yalta was that the Soviet Union would enter into war against Japan within three months after the end of the war in Europe. (You can find the full text of the Yalta Accords here. The "Agreement Concerning Japan" is at the end, after the fourteen numbered sections.) The Soviet Union did so.

If your response is that, by February, the inevitability of Japan's defeat it was already obvious, even to people who didn't know about the atomic bomb, then that supports the view that Japan would have been defeated without the bombing and without an invasion.

Eko

(7,170 posts)
10. Ive often wondered
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 08:49 PM
Aug 2017

If we should have just dropped them outside of a large city first. Scare the mess out of them.

roamer65

(36,739 posts)
12. Robert Oppenheimer wanted a test in the Pacific with Japanese emissaries as witnesses.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 08:51 PM
Aug 2017

But the idea was rejected.

NNadir

(33,368 posts)
44. That is not even remotely true. Only a small subset of Manhattan Project scientists, not...
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 12:20 AM
Aug 2017

...including Oppenheimer made this suggestion.

There was a huge celebration at Los Alamos after Hiroshima, and Oppenheimer got a lot of back slapping.

You may wish to read any serious history book to disabuse yourself of this too common myth.

roamer65

(36,739 posts)
46. My mistake. It was the Chicago group that suggested it.
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 12:54 AM
Aug 2017

Oppenheimer went into Truman's office in October 1945 and said "i have blood on my hands". He was kicked out of the Oval Office.

NNadir

(33,368 posts)
52. Oppenheimer was a very complex and deep man, Truman less so, but in my opinion...
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 01:09 AM
Aug 2017

...both were great men with vastly differing points of view, who were united in this one event in history.

It was not feasible or practical to conduct a "demonstration" of the bomb. In fact, there's a number of very good history books that make the point that the Japanese were relying, with less and less evidence to support it - they were grasping at straws in August of 1945 - on a diminution of American will.

This point is made very clearly in a well researched but strongly opinionated, if excellent, book by Max Hastings, Retribution

As it happens I just finished the book last week.

I agree with Hastings' conclusion that the bombings were necessary even if they were also inevitable. I believe that they did in fact end the war - only by the barest margin, since many of the military in Japan were still resistant to surrender - and I would also argue that they prevented several other wars, most notably a war rising out of the 1948 Berlin crisis.

They put a note of sobriety into twentieth century realpolitik. Unfortunately the memory of nuclear war has faded and we now have some very dangerous and ill informed and mindless people who didn't grow up in the real world and who are extremely ignorant in possession of these weapons. I am speaking of course of the US "President" and that dangerous little moron in North Korea. The latter is not as much of a threat as the former actually.

roamer65

(36,739 posts)
54. My concern is yours.
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 01:30 AM
Aug 2017

Kim Jong Crazy and Dump just may end up starting World War III. It may not happen right away, but we all know the eventual destination of the next world war will be the use of nuclear weapons.

Two mindless twits with nukes.

roamer65

(36,739 posts)
17. I agree, but I think maybe the Soviet invasion of Manchuria...
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:02 PM
Aug 2017

and Sakhalin Island in the north made them push the timetable faster. We knew that the next target for the Soviets would be Hokkaido.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
59. It wouldn't have worked.
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 04:23 AM
Aug 2017

Even after destroying two cities, many of the Japanese high command didn't want to surrender.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
65. People (including many allied POWs) were dying in large numbers every day
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 07:10 AM
Aug 2017

The war needed to end, and to accomplish that it either meant invasion at the likely cost of millions of lives, or something like this. It's worth noting that at one point the US military were even looking into using chemical weapons to try and reduce what they knew would be a staggering loss of American lives.

Nuclear weapons are horrific and should never be used in a just world. During WW2 however it wasn't a just world. They were having to make decisions that today are inconceivable. I can't judge them too harshly for this one.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
70. I'll trust scholars like H Zinn. Truthfully, I think it had a lot to do with we were bombing Asians
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 11:51 AM
Aug 2017

just like our invasion of Vietnam was just killing Asians, "so what" said the white folks.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/30/books/did-we-need-to-drop-it.html?pagewanted=all


And, I'll take Howard Zinn's opinion -- Japan attempted to surrender before bomb was dropped, but it was dropped anyway to ensure America had influence in Japan before Russia could get in.

Yep, kill several hundred thousand Asians, show our mite and willingness to butcher.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
76. Claiming that Japan tried to surrender is pure revisonism
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 05:01 PM
Aug 2017

They refused unconditional surrender and offered terms which would have left the Japanese way of life in place as was. No-one was going to accept that from a nation that had helped cause a global war.

There was indeed a lot of racism back then, but as much from the Japanese as from anyone else. Their adventurism killed millions of people and any 'historian' who tries to skirt over that to push a negative narrative about the allies motives is not worth a second of my time.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
81. Maybe you need to brush up on your high school history.
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 05:46 PM
Aug 2017


"The Navy Museum acknowledges what many historians have long known: It was only with the entry of the Soviet Union’s Red Army into the war two days after the bombing of Hiroshima that the Japanese moved to finally surrender.

"The top American military leaders who fought World War II, much to the surprise of many who are not aware of the record, were quite clear that the atomic bomb was unnecessary, that Japan was on the verge of surrender, and—for many—that the destruction of large numbers of civilians was immoral. Most were also conservatives, not liberals. Adm. William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir I Was There that “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.… in being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

"The commanding general of the US Army Air Forces, Henry “Hap” Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a New York Times reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”

“It was a mistake.... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.” —Adm. William “Bull” Halsey . . . . .

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/



"Japanese students were generally taught a very different narrative: that Japan already had been defeated and dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki three days apart was a geopolitical calculation to keep the Soviet Union at bay. . . . . ."

https://www.stripes.com/news/special-reports/world-war-ii-the-final-chapter/wwii-victory-in-japan/would-japan-have-surrendered-without-the-atomic-bombings-1.360300#.WYjfaFWGOpo


" However that wasn’t the case: the U.S. had already intercepted communications from Japan showing that the emperor had asked the Russians to mediate a surrender, and almost every top U.S. military leader from the time later came forward saying that Japan was already defeated before the bombs were dropped."

http://classroom.synonym.com/evidence-japan-going-surrender-10861.html



Do you also think Vietnam and Iraq were a threat to us?
 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
93. That is complete and total bullshit
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 03:15 AM
Aug 2017

If they're teaching that at your local high schools, then the kids are being done a huge disservice. Maybe you should stop brushing up your high school history and reading random web links that support your theories and engage with the wider history which will very quickly show you that what you believe is mistaken.

One of the key points of error is that the Japanese trying to mediate a surrender were NOT trying to mediate the unconditional surrender that all the allies insisted on. They wanted to maintain the emperor system, have no occupation of the home islands and a number of other points that were not acceptable.


Picking out random quotes from historical figures, often made long after the fact, is an extremely flawed way of analyzing historical events. People can fall out with former friends, want to try and shape a narrative to paint themselves in a better light, or just be wrong. You have to consider the situation in which those kind of statements are made. Statements can also be twisted by those who wish to revise history. That Hap Arnold quote is an interesting example of this. Arnold was involved in the planning for the raid long in advance of it actually happening, and raised no objections to it at the time. His quote isn't actually wrong you'll notice, the Japanese position was hopeless in terms of any kind of victory, the only issue was how to actually end the war without a final vast allied death toll.

On basically any major event however you'll find people speaking in disagreement with it. The problem with cherry picking quotes how you have here however is that you completely disregard the countless quotes from people who supported the decision which included you may remember the President and the British Prime Minister along with countless military leaders.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
96. At that time that's exactly what they were forced to do.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 08:44 AM
Aug 2017

Can you even imagine being in a position where you had to make decisions like that? Which would you have chosen? Would you have ordered an invasion, and potentially killed a million US and British troops and millions of Japanese both military and civilian? Would you have delayed and perhaps seen tens of thousands of Allies POWs and civilian prisoners murdered? Would you have accepted the Japanese peace offer that left them intact and unpunished and a continuing threat to world peace with their war criminals charged only in Japanese courts?

There were no easy or humane options available. They rationalized the deaths of 150,000 innocent men, women and children because the other options weren't really any better.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
97. Forced to do? At that point, Japan was about as much a threat to us as Vietnam and Iraq.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 09:09 AM
Aug 2017

We did it because we could and to show the world we are bigots, willing to use a big bomb on a defeated enemy's women and children.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
99. The Japanese were holding an estimated 125,000 prisoners when they surrendered.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 09:23 AM
Aug 2017

They had a policy of executing all prisoners when the allies invaded. In some cases those orders had already been issued such as in Thailand and were only not carried out because Japan surrended before the scheduled date. The Japanese were not just sat peacefully on the Japanese home islands, they were still capable of causing huge numbers of innocent deaths.

Please don't revise history and smear the reputations of people who don't deserve it.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
100. What about the thousands of innocents dying every day in Japanese occupied countries
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 09:27 AM
Aug 2017

like China? The Japanese were responsible for the deaths of millions of Chinese. Didn't their lives matter?

 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
110. According to General Groves, President Roosevelt expressed a desire to do so shortly before Yalta.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 04:48 PM
Aug 2017
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
113. So it's OK for Roosevelt to have a desire, but you won't accept the Japanese were beaten
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 08:43 PM
Aug 2017

and ready to surrender. Not a real surprise.

 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
117. Apparently you don't understand. According to General Groves, FDR, being alarmed by the German...
Wed Aug 9, 2017, 09:50 AM
Aug 2017

Ardennes offensive, expressed an interest in the possibility of deploying nuclear weapons against Germany. In other words, your insistence that we would have not done so based on racist considerations does not seem supported by evidence.

As for the Japanese, if they were so ready to surrender, by hadn't they done so prior to Hiroshima? The Okinawa campaign had ended in June, so they had plenty of time to examine their position. If they were so ready to surrender, why bother with Ketsugo? If they were so ready to surrender, why didn't they do so immediately after Hiroshima? Why was a second weapon needed?

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
118. I understand completely. People who are into guns are also into nuking people like Japanese women
Wed Aug 9, 2017, 02:44 PM
Aug 2017

and children. You can rationalize it however you wish, but plenty of scholars and generals say it wasn't necessary. For some reason, those who fancy and carry guns are also supportive of nuking of innocent, starving and beaten Asians.



“The use of this barbarous weapon…was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.” —Adm. William Leahy, Truman's Chief of Staff

“It was a mistake.... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.” —Adm. William “Bull” Halsey

"Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, for his part, stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives…” He later publicly declared “…it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” Even the famous “hawk” Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”"

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/

 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
119. That doesn't answer any of my questions to you, how about you try again? In your own words...
Thu Aug 10, 2017, 10:11 AM
Aug 2017

No links, and spare the diversionary personal derision tactic. That's nothing more than a dodge.

As I asked you in the previous post...

If the Japanese were so ready to surrender, by hadn't they done so prior to Hiroshima? The Okinawa campaign had ended in June, so they had plenty of time to examine their position. If they were so ready to surrender, why bother with Ketsugo? If they were so ready to surrender, why didn't they do so immediately after Hiroshima? Why was a second weapon needed?

Again, answer in your own words please. That shouldn't be difficult if you position is well constructed.

 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
111. And yet the tonnage of the aerial bombs US forces dropped on Germany was far greater than Japan
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 04:57 PM
Aug 2017
 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
107. 3.4 million Japanese military personnel in the occupied territories at the time of surrender.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 12:00 PM
Aug 2017

What about the lives of those in the occupied territories, don't they matter?

 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
67. Approximately 3.4 million Japanese military personnel in the occupied territories at the time...
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 08:20 AM
Aug 2017

Of surrender. Are you arguing they were harmless?

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
69. I'm arguing we had the most destructive weapon ever and were itching to use it. Just like
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 11:30 AM
Aug 2017

people who carry guns regularly for so-called "defense" and intimidation.

 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
71. Those who arguably suffered the most from Japanese aggression, the Chinese, have little...
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 01:52 PM
Aug 2017

Reservation about it. I have not encountered a single Chinese in all my travels and work there who gave their opinion on our use of nuclear weapons of Japan to be critical of the decision. I'm sure there are, but that would be a distinctly minority opinion.

Ms. Toad

(33,915 posts)
27. 200,000 largely civilians - many of whom were children, killed or injured directly by the bomb
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 10:09 PM
Aug 2017

or the immediate effects of the radiation. Countless others were killed indirectly by the bombs as a result of developing radiation induced cancer years later.

That's hardly "without a bloodbath."

Argue that the bombs ended the war earlier than it might otherwise have ended, if you want, but it is insincere to pretend it wasn't a bloodbath - or that the civilians who were the primary victims of the bomb, including children, were brutal monsters, or that a large urban area wasn't chosen as a psychological tactic - for much the same reason that Isis targets civillian targets in Syria - to generate international outrage.

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 described as "an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focusing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target."

Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson struck Kyoto from the list because of its cultural significance, over the objections of General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project. According to Professor Edwin O. Reischauer, Stimson "had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier."

On July 25, Nagasaki was put on the target list in place of Kyoto.


http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Bombing_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

roamer65

(36,739 posts)
29. They then changed it again.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 10:33 PM
Aug 2017

The original target for Bockscar was Kokura, but it was obscured by clouds and smoke. The plane then proceeded to the secondary target...Nagasaki.

...so never, ever curse a cloudy day. It may be there for a reason.

NutmegYankee

(16,177 posts)
30. The fight over an island the size of 10 Washington DC's cost about that many lives.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 10:34 PM
Aug 2017

Many of those also women and children. Now image that spread across the home islands of Japan. BLOODBATH.

Ms. Toad

(33,915 posts)
32. I am suggesting you are minimizing the human damage we chose to inflict.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 10:44 PM
Aug 2017

You are arguing over whether it was justified or not.

It was a bloodbath that killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians, including children. Even if you believe it was justified, it is offensive to pretend it was not a bloodbath and did not deliberately target civilians, including children (not monsters) for the purpose of creating maximum psychological impact.

NutmegYankee

(16,177 posts)
33. My reference to monsters refers to the national downplaying of Japan to it's wartime atrocities.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 11:17 PM
Aug 2017

Namely, school textbooks - The atomic bombings are heavily focused on and the mass murder of Koreans, Filipinos, Chinese, etc are overlooked.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21226068 - What Japanese history lessons leave out

Ms. Toad

(33,915 posts)
34. My point is, you are minimizing, and dehumaninzing the damage we chose to inflict.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 11:33 PM
Aug 2017

If you really believe it was justified, own it. Stop minimizing the human cost of that choice by calling the targets monsters, and implying our actions did not intentionally cause a bloodbath.

Ms. Toad

(33,915 posts)
36. I read your point. It was precisely what I was replyitng to.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 11:47 PM
Aug 2017

Your minimization of the human damage we chose to inflict is offensivef, as is the dehumanization of the victime. If you believe it was necesssary, own the reality of our choice.

NutmegYankee

(16,177 posts)
40. No you did not understand my point.
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 12:02 AM
Aug 2017

I'm well aware of the horrific carnage of the Nuclear attacks. I have read John Hersey's book Hiroshima. But I also balance the bombings with the world of 1945, namely a massive war consuming the globe and millions of lives and the chance to end that war with a decisive weapon. I also balance the knowledge that some effects, like radiation poisoning, were not fully understood prior to the attacks and the outcome horrified many of the scientists who had created the bombs.

I was pointing out how the modern narrative makes Japan (as a whole) seem like a victim when they were a fully competing adversary in a modern total war. A war where cities were major targets by all parties, and the US mainland just happened to avoid attacks by the luck of geography and a strong navy.

My point is that the bombings were not some horrible war crime - it was a legitimate military attack against our adversary and against a standard target of that war (cities), albeit ones with horrible and grotesque results. It's overall carnage however is comparable to similar attacks that we carried out. For instance, on the night of 9–10 March 1945, Operation Meetinghouse, a firebombing of Tokyo killed 100,000 and left 1,000,000 people homeless.

nini

(16,670 posts)
28. Discussing this with my WWII era parents is always interesting
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 10:26 PM
Aug 2017

My dad was in the Philippines and New Guinea.

Their take was if the bombs weren't dropped many many more would have died if the war went on. It haunted my dad the rest of his life but I understand their point.

Before my dad died he had a Filipina nurse who when she found out he was in the Philippines she took his hand and started to cry. She said the Japanese tortured her family and killed her grandparents in front of all their children. She thanked him for helping saving the rest of them. He was overwhelmed with that. It was an amazing moment.



Yupster

(14,308 posts)
45. I only argue with the second bomb
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 12:39 AM
Aug 2017

I don't think we left enough time between the first and second bombing. Three days was not enough time for the Japanese government to get down to Hiroshima, and see how bad things were and then get the government together to make a rational decision.

What difference would it have made if we waited 10 days between the first and second bombing?

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
60. To be fair to them, every day meant thousands more casualties.
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 04:30 AM
Aug 2017

Plus the pressing matter of vast numbers of POWs who were facing execution at any given moment. Amidst all that chaos and carnage, it doesn't surprise me that acting quickly seems like the rational answer.

Warpy

(110,902 posts)
49. Also, they didn't surrender after the first one
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 12:57 AM
Aug 2017

They had to be frightened out of their wits by the fiction that we had a whole stockpile of them to surrender, something the second one accomplished.

Yupster

(14,308 posts)
58. First bomb dropped on Aug 6
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 02:48 AM
Aug 2017

Second one on Aug 9.

That didn't give the Japanese government a whole lot of time to get people to the scene, get analysis and reports back to the capital and have the government meet to decide to surrender.

The transportation system was in ruin.

My opinion is we should have waited a few days between the two bombs.

HAB911

(8,811 posts)
68. Those bombs saved my fathers life
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 08:38 AM
Aug 2017

and that of his three brothers in service in the Pacific, one of which lost his mind fighting through the islands. Like all the abortion threads lately, no one likes it, but it had to be done.

PCIntern

(25,344 posts)
91. My dear departed dad, a Purple Heart recipient and spent four years
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 10:01 PM
Aug 2017

In the Pacific Theater said the exact same thing: that I wouldn't have existed if they hadn't dropped the bombs. The older GI's were slated to go in first to near-certain death.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
11. We go berserk every time some country wants a nuke, yet we are the only country vile
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 08:51 PM
Aug 2017

enough to drop them on innocent people.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
16. We darn sure would not have invaded Iraq and butchered thousands if they had nukes.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:00 PM
Aug 2017

As long as we have them, what gives us the authority to say No?

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
21. Quit reading by pointing at one word at a time. Not "agog" at it, but don't think
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:10 PM
Aug 2017

we have the moral high ground to bomb them to keep them from getting one, assuming they even can.

EX500rider

(10,518 posts)
39. "assuming they even can" ??
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 12:00 AM
Aug 2017

You do know the N Korean's have already detonated 6 of them, right?

I think we are way past "if they can".

EX500rider

(10,518 posts)
77. Yet is the key word there...
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 05:26 PM
Aug 2017

....they are working on all the aspects of that though, miniaturizing the warhead designs, working on a usable nose cone and guidance system and even sub launching.

May not scare you if NK has working nukes soon but Japan and S Korea may not feel that way.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
78. Christ, sounds like you -- like Trump -- are promoting war. Sorry, I'd call it another Iraq, but NK
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 05:33 PM
Aug 2017

actually has a military. NK wouldn't even be interested in nukes if we didn't think we rule the world.

EX500rider

(10,518 posts)
80. Pointing out that NK is working towards a working nuke..
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 05:44 PM
Aug 2017

Last edited Mon Aug 7, 2017, 08:54 PM - Edit history (1)

....is "promoting war" to you?

lol, ok, I guess i can stick my head in the sand instead...

And the Iraq military was 10 feet tall in the news before it turned out it wasn't.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
83. Iraq had no military or WMD's. That's why bush invaded Iraq and why countries like NK want nukes.
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 05:54 PM
Aug 2017

It's the best way to protect yourself from the only country to ever nuke innocents.

EX500rider

(10,518 posts)
85. Iraq had quite a big military...
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 06:02 PM
Aug 2017

....they just folded like a house of cards though.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) estimated the army's composition immediately after the 1991 War as 6 'armoured'/'mechanised' divisions, 23 infantry divisions, 8 Republican Guard divisions and four Republican Guard internal security divisions.

In the days leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the following Iraq War, the army consisted of 375,000 troops, organized into five corps. In all, there were 11 infantry divisions, 3 mechanized divisions, and 3 armored divisions. The Republican Guard consisted of between 50,000 and 60,000 troops (although some sources indicate a strength of up to 80,000).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Army#Invasion_of_2003

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
86. BS, no air force, no navy, and an army that went home. Plus, no weapons.
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 06:06 PM
Aug 2017

Christ, what's with people who support wars and guns?

EX500rider

(10,518 posts)
87. Pointing out facts, I know, what's with that?! lol
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 06:42 PM
Aug 2017
In August 1990, Iraq had the largest air force in the region even after the long Iran–Iraq War. The air force at that time had 929 combat aircraft in its inventory.

By 2003, Iraq's air power numbered an estimated 180 combat aircraft, of which only about half were flyable.
On the brink of the US led invasion, Saddam Hussein disregarded his air force's wishes to defend the country's airspace against coalition aircraft and ordered the bulk of his fighters to be disassembled and buried.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Air_Force#1990s_.E2.80.93_Persian_Gulf_War_and_no-fly_zones

You under the impression the the North Korean AF of old Chinese & Soviet junk is any better?

The North Koreans have only a handful of modern aircraft—the most capable of which are Pyongyang’s fleet of 35 or so Mikoyan MiG-29 Fulcrums. Other relatively modern planes in Pyongyang’s inventory include 56 MiG-23 Floggers and 34 Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot close air support aircraft. However, the overwhelming majority of Pyongyang’s arsenal is made up of 1950s and 1960s vintage machines, with pilots often receiving fewer than 20 annual flight hours.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/should-the-world-fear-north-koreas-air-force-20315
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
89. Geez, my small state has an air force bigger than that. And not a one of the few planes Iraq had,
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 09:11 PM
Aug 2017

took off in baby bush's crusade.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
25. Add in the threat of Trump and those like him, and every country will want nukes.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:26 PM
Aug 2017

Wish there were a way to go back to no nukes.

malaise

(267,801 posts)
26. Isn't that the truth
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:36 PM
Aug 2017

The thought that this lunatic of a Con has the code is really really scary. The good news is that I doubt that he has the capacity to use them.

EX500rider

(10,518 posts)
41. You get China,Russia,Pakistan,India,France,UK,NK,Israel..
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 12:04 AM
Aug 2017

....to give up their and then we'll talk...lol...good luck with that.

Quite the pipe dream.
There is no chance in hell of it happening because one country hides theirs and pretends to give them up and later can use them with no fear of nuclear retaliation.
Or do you trust all those countries that much?

hunter

(38,264 posts)
19. By 1950 the U.S.A. had 120 "Fat Man" type bombs...
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:06 PM
Aug 2017

... and we were retiring those to build more improved bombs.


eppur_se_muova

(36,227 posts)
31. Both Germany and Japan were working on atomic bombs --
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 10:41 PM
Aug 2017

Japan actually had at least two independent efforts going, because the different branches of the military wouldn't work with each other. And the Soviets had their own program -- not all based on spying on the American project, by any means.

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

Chieko Takeuchi, widow of the atomic scientist, recalled her husband saying, "If we'd built the bomb first, of course we would have used it. I'm glad, in some ways, that our facilities were destroyed."

http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-japan-bomb-20150805-story.html


Nice to think we might have pulled our punches, but we didn't know for *certain* if it was safe to do so -- and being wrong would have been massively fatal. Any alternate histories of WWII have to include the possibility of up to four nuclear-armed belligerents.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/11-secret-weapons-developed-by-japan-during-world-war-2-1669775923

NNadir

(33,368 posts)
116. They couldn't and they didn't. They were surprised by both programs.
Wed Aug 9, 2017, 08:08 AM
Aug 2017

The Alsos team - the intelligence team tasked with investigating the progress of the German nuclear program - headed by Boris Pash with a science team lead by Samuel Goudsmit, a very prominent physicist - was surprised how primitive the German program was. The Germans had a small reactor under construction, but were no where near building a bomb.

Goudsmit argued that a totalitarian state could not have the intellectual freedom in order to build a bomb, based on his understanding of the German program, which was severely hampered by extreme antisemitism (which in fact fed the American program). His argument was invalidated when the Soviets detonated a bomb a few years after the war, in part because of information provided by Karl Fuchs, the Soviet spy in the Manhattan Project.

The great debate after the war was as to whether Heisenberg wanted to build a bomb but was incompetent to do so, or whether he didn't build a bomb because of moral scruples. Michael Frayn's wonderful play (and movie) Copenhagen makes the case for the latter; materials released recently by the family of Neils Bohr makes the case for the former. I don't believe the Germans were held up from building nuclear weapons by moral scruples. Any scientist who remained in Nazi Germany during the Hitler regime was morally compromised by merely being there, and it is dubious to assert that they wouldn't participate in an advanced weapons program.

Everyone was surprised to learn that the Japanese had a program at all. After Hiroshima, American scientists dropped leaflets to the attention of Yoshio Nishina, Japan's leading atomic physicist, appraising him of the fact that the bomb was, in fact, nuclear. (Nishina did not see the letter until after the war.)

Nishina was in fact working on a bomb, but was severely under funded and not very advanced at all. His laboratory was destroyed by conventional American bombs, bombs which, by the way, killed more people than the combined atomic attacks.

 

Foamfollower

(1,097 posts)
47. Thank you, it's conforting to know this.
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 12:54 AM
Aug 2017

No matter what, the war would have ended with minimal loss of Allied lives regardless of how stupid the Japanese government may have chosen to be.

DarthDem

(5,253 posts)
57. So Sad
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 02:46 AM
Aug 2017

I always think of the people of Kokura, who amazingly lived despite being the secondary target the first time and the primary target the second time.

I also wish we had given them more than three days and perhaps spared the people of Nagasaki.

dembotoz

(16,737 posts)
66. Ahhh the wonders of 20/20 hindsight
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 07:30 AM
Aug 2017

I always wondered about having more bomb in the pipeline. That was helpful.
Think Truman made what he thought was the best decision given the facts he had on hand

hunter

(38,264 posts)
72. There were 120 Fat-Man type bombs by 1950.
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 02:35 PM
Aug 2017

And these were already obsolete and being replaced with new and improved bombs.

I think the impression most people have is that a few bombs were put together for use against Japan, and that was that, until Russia got the Bomb and the Cold War heated up. That was the impression I had in grade school.

But there was a pipeline, three bombs a month at first, starting with the Trinity test and the Fat-Man bomb dropped on Nagasaki. Bomb production was only briefly interrupted when Japan surrendered, mostly to refit the factory. Risky and expensive production practices in war are not so acceptable when the war is over.

If Japan hadn't surrendered the plan was to keep dropping atomic and conventional bombs on them until they did surrender, or until there was nothing left of Japan. The moment the Trinity test was successful all plans of a ground invasion of Japan, and any claims of U.S. soldiers "saved," were moot. History is what it is, not what might have been.

It's horrifying, but some of the incentive for bombing Nagasaki was to see what a Fat-Man bomb would do to a living city, a last chance to test these plutonium "A-Bombs of the future" in actual warfare.

The Uranium bomb that destroyed Hiroshima was already obsolete. It was too expensive and too dangerous, the sort of munition that can light off fully or partially in an "oops, I dropped it" or airplane crash sort of accident. It was literally a big sawed off gun barrel firing a larger chunk of Uranium 235 into a smaller chunk of Uranium 235 at the other end. Multiple accidents have occurred with plutonium bombs in the years following World War II, including plane crashes, but none have lit off.


roamer65

(36,739 posts)
88. I remember reading once that MacArthur wanted to use some of them in Korea.
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 08:53 PM
Aug 2017

He wanted to use them on the Chinese when it was looking bad in Korea.

It was turned down, obviously.

moondust

(19,917 posts)
92. PBS Documentary: "The Bomb"
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 11:31 PM
Aug 2017

Watched this yesterday. It fills in a lot of details about the development and use of the bomb(s). It briefly mentions the alternative plan to detonate a bomb in the Pacific as a demonstration to scare the Japanese into surrender, but only says it probably wouldn't have worked.

Two hours, recommended:

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Was there a third atomic ...