Your opinions on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[GTsail]

*snip*Japan threatened our sovereignty

I agree

*snip* We were justified in not only winning the war, but in making them the 51st state

I agree that we were justified in winning the war, but in no way does that justify subjugating a country and its people. How can a Libertarian suggest this?

*snip*

Not the end-game. You can't justify your actions on the outcome, it's not possible. When a hostile nation attacks you on your soil, it is an attack on your citizens as well. You have to consider it an invasion. You have to assume that they want your country - regardless of what they tell you.

*snip*

I agree its hard to know the outcome. But it is possible to imagine some possiblities. I think it would be impairative to at least try.

I don't know why we have to assume an attack on our Navy to be an invasion of our county. It might be a prelude and it might not. I think that in this case it clearly was not a prelude to an invasion, so making this assumption would have been wrong.

I don't have to assume that the attacker wants our country. Making assumptions is something I try not to do. Not that it is easy to determine all the facts, just that I would like to know more.

Your example with the armed robber is too simple when we are talking about nations at war.

However, I would say that it almost proves my point. If you shoot the robber, that would be like shooting the Japanese Navy, and I agree that this would be the correct course of action (the robber is in your house and is performing a criminal act). If however, if you went and shot the robber's parents just because they were his parents and also his grand-parents, this would be wrong and similiar to bombing the citizens of Hiroshima who took no part in the naval action even though they were all Japanese.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[niky]

i never got why they did that.

This was World War II.

It wasn't just a war of bullets and bombs. It was an economic war. You don't just win with bullets and bombs. You win if you have better bullets, better bombs, better bullet and bomb delivery systems, and the ability to produce shiploads of the stuff on demand.

In other words, whoever had the highest industrial output wins. Which was why Churchill so famously predicted the outcome of the war when America joined it... because America had the biggest and the mostest.

And economic production of materiel and soldiers was the reason that wholesale bombing and attacking of civilian populations occured during the war, on all sides.

Who builds bombs? Civilians. Who designs the bombs? Civilians. Who do armies recruit when they run out of soldiers? Civilians. Who bolster the economy of a nation, giving it the ability to wage war? Civilians. You can kill as many soldiers as you want and take out all the planes, tanks and ships... but if you leave your enemy the ability to build more, he will build more. You can bomb the factories... then what? He still has the ability to build more factories. You pound him until he can't even do that.

There's also the psychology part of it. Nobody ever denied that bombing cities was done as a terror tactic. Demoralize an enemy enough and he will give up. This war wasn't waged during the kind and cuddly twenty-first century. This was World War II. This was before the Geneva convention was amended to include civilians. Nowadays, such actions are unthinkable. But back then, nobody thought twice about it.

----

The robber analogy is apt. If you refuse to kill your assailant outright, and don't have the means to disable him without giving him the chance to hurt or even kill you, then your chances of winning against him are low. Nowadays, we're given more humane ways to end fights and wars, but back then, we didn't have the luxury.

I don't know why we have to assume an attack on our Navy to be an invasion of our county.

Oops. Sorry we obliterated your Navy. No, we're not planning on completely annexing every free country in the Pacific region, we're simply showing proof of concept for our new long-range carrier-based bombers. Please don't retaliate. And don't pay any attention to the troop carriers landing in Manila.

Japan threatened our sovereignty. We were justified in not only in winning the war, but in making them the 51st state.

Something which has always puzzled me... but then, Japan surrendered, where Hitler did not... which may have had something to do with Japan's retaining sovereignty while Germany was sliced down the middle and wrapped up for take-out. And at this time, the US was already shedding some of its colonies (the Philippines was given independence after the war), so it's likely the politics of the time would have prevented the US from annexing Japan or installing its own government.

 

[Danoff]

I agree that we were justified in winning the war, but in no way does that justify subjugating a country and its people. How can a Libertarian suggest this?

You're trying to break a nation up into individual parts and pretending that some parts are guilty of crime and some are not. You cannot do this. When one nation declares war on another (via invasion or attack), both nations' sovereignty are at stake. This is exactly the same with individuals. If you try to kill someone, they might kill you.

By declaring war on them, you open yourself up to the real possibility that they could justifiably destroy you and seize your resources. You want my justification? It is lethal self-defense - and I expect ALL libertarians to support the right to use lethal self-defense.

 

[Dotini]

When one nation declares war on another (via invasion or attack), both nations' sovereignty are at stake.

By declaring war on them, you open yourself up to the real possibility that they could justifiably destroy you and seize your resources.

I expect ALL libertarians to support the right to use lethal self-defense.

A noted libertarian, Dr. Ron Paul, has recently remarked that mooted US sanctions on Iran constitute an act of war. It's also instructive that despite multitudinous US wars in the last 60+ years, Congress has totally abdicated their Constitutional responsibility to declare our wars. They are spineless creatures controlled by special interests.

I thoroughly support the right to self-defense. Although, as a small old guy with glasses, I personally reserve the right to run, run away from open-ended conflict.

With regard to the Nagasaki and Hiroshima A-Bombings , my father played a role. As cartographer, he drew the bombing run maps for both missions.

Tech note: This morning I learned that the core temperature of a fission-fusion explosion amounts to 35,000,000 degrees C.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[lbsf1]

We had to write an essay on this subject a couple of months ago for history.

Titled "Was trumans decision to drop the atomic bombs justified?"

In my essay I came to the conclusion that no it wasn't necessary at the time however in the long term it probably stoped a huge nuclear war.
I came to that conclusion for the last bit because since Truman used the bomb to end the war no one retaliated to him. Also people knew after that what the atom bomb would do. This meant that other countries wouldn't take the the decision to use them to start wars lightly because they then knew what it would do and by then other countries had developed them so would use them back. So in conclusion I think that the deaths of the people of Hiroshima And Nagaski probably saved more lives in the long term



*Disclaimer: I'm a teenager and this is my personal opinion, Some of my arguments may not have proof because this is only my opinion so if you dissagree please don't shout please be nice.

 

[Danoff]

Titled "Was trumans decision to drop the atomic bombs justified?"

In my essay I came to the conclusion that no it wasn't necessary

"Justified" and "necessary" aren't the same thing. Some things that are necessary aren't justified, and many things that are justified aren't necessary.

So in conclusion I think that the deaths of the people of Hiroshima And Nagaski probably saved more lives in the long term

...which makes no difference from the point of view of justification.

It sounds like you put some thought into your analysis and came to a decent conclusion. You clearly thought through your argument more than some people ever will. And given that you're a teenager, I don't necessarily expect that you'd have thought about the difference between justified actions and necessary actions - or why the ends cannot justify the means. It's not your fault, someone should actually be teaching these concepts along the way, and they don't.

However, you won't be able to claim youth forever. There's no time like the present to start learning/thinking about the philosophy of morality and justice.

 

[GTsail]

*snip*You're trying to break a nation up into individual parts and pretending that some parts are guilty of crime and some are not. You cannot do this......

Yes, I am trying to break up a nation into its individual parts.

I can, and I will do this.

How would the War of 1812 fit into your view of the moral subjugation of another countries citizens?

The United States declared war on England and attacked numerous British warships, and attacked numerous British and Canadian forts and cities near the Canadian border.

Would England be justified in subjugating the entire American nation in response?

The British Navy kidnapped American citizens, blockaded numerous coastal cities, attacked Baltimore, New Orleans and numerous smaller cities and forts.

Would the United States be justified in subjugating the entire British nation in response?

The War of 1812 ended without either side's citizens being subjugated by the other.

This outcome was far better than either side subjugating the other's citizens.

Except for a few disagreements over football/soccer, the relationship has been peaceful ever since. I do not think that this would have been the case if one side had subjugated the other.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[lbsf1]

I probably didn't say that in the best way then. I hope this says it a bit better.What I meant was that at the time of dropping the bomb it wasn't justified and was the wrong thing to do, due to the number of deaths caused and the suffering. However as history has panned out I think it has turned out to have been the better decision due to he reasons in my previous post.

In the actual essay I didn't give a yes or a no to the question because I didn't think there was one definative answer and explained that.

 

[Joel]

Well, today in my history class we had to write a 250 word + report on whether or not the bombings were justified, and I wrote this.



Can the Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Be Justified?


It is often pondered whether or not the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the Americans in World War Two were justified. Some will point to the fact that American lives were saved, and others will say that there is no way to justify killing over 80,000 people instantly. In light of the evidence, I believe the bombings were justified for two major reasons. First of all, the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbour completely unprovoked. Seconly, the Japanese had fought tooth and nail in the Pacific Campaign, sometimes taking three casualties to one American casualty, even though they were clearly beaten.




To understand the decision to drop the bombs, one must analyze the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941. America was at the time, a neutral country, and had not harmed Japan with any aggressive moves. To condemn the bombs for killing innocent civilians, whilst not condemning Pearl Harbour as much, or more is ignorant. The soldiers present at Pearl Harbour were just as “innocent” as the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki; as they were not at war at the time, and were attacked unprovoked. It is even possible to make the case for the soldiers killed at Pearl Harbour being more “innocent” than the civilians killed in the bombings.




World War Two was a total war, and every able bodied civilian was expected to do their part. Some joined the armed forces, while the rest stayed on the home front, and manufactured goods for the war. Both cities, especially Nagasaki, were important manufacturing cities for Japan. Nagasaki was one of the biggest industrial seaports in the country, and was manufacturing weapons and vehicles for the army. The army of course, was using these goods to fight the Americans, who were only fighting back after being attacked unprovoked. To use an argument used by objectors to the bombing, “what did the citizens of these cities do to deserve this”? I counter, “what did the more innocent soldiers at Pearl Harbour do to deserve an unprovoked attack”? The key words in those two statements are “innocent” and “unprovoked”. The soldiers at Pearl Harbour had done nothing whatsoever to the Japanese, and were attacked completely unprovoked. The citizens who were present in the two cities had supported the same army who attacked a base unprovoked, and the country of Japan had definitely provoked the US response. In conclusion, I believe the attack on Pearl Harbour was morally even worse than the bombings, because the innocent American soldiers there were attacked without a justification, whereas the not so innocent Japanese civilians were attacked with a justification.




In the Pacific campaign, the Japanese continued to fight for their islands, even after they had been clearly lost. In battles such as Okinawa and Iwo Jima, Japanese forces killed themselves rather than be captured by the American forces on the islands. The Japanese fought tooth and nail for these islands, regardless of how likely their victory would be. The Japanese would not have surrendered. This is evidenced by the fact that even after the second bombing at Nagasaki, Japanese high officials attempted to take and destroy the tape with Hirohito’s notice of surrender recorded on it.




Some may try to use fewer projected casualties as a justification for the bombings, but I don’t think the “ends justify the means”, but the beginnings do. And the “beginnings” of this conflict were Pearl Harbour, and the Japanese unwillingness to surrender, and I believe that they justify the bombings. The Japanese had killed 2500 completely 100% innocent soldiers at Pearl Harbour, and continued to drag American soldiers who were in the right, to their death. -Thanks to Danoff for the last part 👍






Comments? Criticism? I like my first 3 "sections" (can't really call them paragraphs), and my conclusion is OK, but the 4th section and conclusion aren't so strong in my opinion. I'm not going to hide behind being 15, give me the honest criticism. And yes, I used "unprovoked" way too many times.

 

[Danoff]

Except for a few disagreements over football/soccer, the relationship has been peaceful ever since. I do not think that this would have been the case if one side had subjugated the other.

I don't remember saying we HAD to. In fact, we DIDN'T take over Japan. We didn't want to. We felt it would be a bad idea. And that's fine. All I was saying was that we would have been justified in doing so.

Likewise, I think we were justified in dropping nuclear bombs. We didn't HAVE to. We certainly may have decided not to in favor of a different approach that we might have felt was a better course of action. But whether it was the best course of action, or even whether we should have taken a different course of action isn't really the point - at least not to me. If that is the point then I'm no longer particularly interested in the conversation.

To me the point was whether it was a legitimate response. Not whether it was the best possible response. I think it was a legitimate one, and happens to be one of the better responses.

Yes, I am trying to break up a nation into its individual parts.

I can, and I will do this.

No you can't. When you really think about it, it's silly. Consider the number of parts you could break a nation into... it would be roughly equivalent to the population of the country. If you want to arbitrarily divide the nation into parts, then your conclusion will be that whenever you fight with another country on the battlefield, you're justified only in fighting the troops that they send after you and no more. Only the individuals actually firing guns at you are legitimate targets and none others.

Obviously that's silly. Likewise it's silly to expect some other nation's military to conduct a survey to find out which civilians supported a particular military activity and which ones were opposed to it before dropping any bombs.

Can we be justified in dropping bombs on their financial centers to prevent them from funding a war? Yes. Even if the people getting killed are just helping to fund the war, and not necessarily shooting anyone? Yes.

You always want your response to be humane, obviously. If someone comes into my house to kill me, I'm not going to lock him up and torture him for 20 years. I'll try to defend myself as efficiently and humanely as I can. This is what America believed it was doing when it dropped those bombs. It wasn't an attempt to slaughter or torture. It was an attempt to defeat, quickly.

Comments? Criticism? I like my first 3 "sections" (can't really call them paragraphs), and my conclusion is OK, but the 4th section and conclusion aren't so strong in my opinion. I'm not going to hide behind being 15, give me the honest criticism. And yes, I used "unprovoked" way too many times

Nice use of my little catch phrase at the end. I'm happy to see that. I would ask you to credit me for that phrase, but I don't know how you'd do it and it's pretty obvious anyway. 👍

 

[Joel]

Nice use of my little catch phrase at the end. I'm happy to see that. I would ask you to credit me for that phrase, but I don't know how you'd do it and it's pretty obvious anyway. 👍

Well I gave it some thought, and the more I thought about it, the more it rings true. I would credit it, but I don't think my teacher would be too impressed by "Quote by some guy who goes by Danoff on a Gran Turismo internet message board's opinions forum"

 

[Dotini]

, I used "unprovoked" way too many times.

Actually there were provocations.

Historians know that steel and oil were the strategic commodities of the 1930's. The US systematically went about denying these to the Japanese Empire. Everyone at the time knew we threatened their strategic lifelines and Imperial ambitions.

However, that we provoked them into a deadly trap at Pearl Harbor is not proven.

 

[niky]

Try using the "provoked" argument on any of the territories in Asia that Japan invaded or attempted to invade (including Australia). Japan was being embargoed precisely because their government and military were hell-bent on imperialistic expansion, way before the start of the war. In fact, the Japanese had been at war in Asia long before the start of the more general conflict.

 

[Joel]

Try using the "provoked" argument on any of the territories in Asia that Japan invaded or attempted to invade (including Australia). Japan was being embargoed precisely because their government and military were hell-bent on imperialistic expansion, way before the start of the war. In fact, the Japanese had been at war in Asia long before the start of the more general conflict.

Do you mean that the Japanese were right to attack Pearl Harbour because of the embargoes? Or that the Japanese invasions are justifications for the bombs?

 

[Frizbe]

Some may try to use fewer projected casualties as a justification for the bombings, but I don’t think the “ends justify the means”, but the beginnings do(Danoff)
There you go noob616, for future reference thats all you have to do to CYA.

As far as the thread goes, if memory serves right (I haven't read but the first and last two pages) didn't Truman receive estimations numbering in something like2.5M+ total for and invasion and something like 500K for the bombings? Giving the 500K number has nearly 0 Allied deaths in it, which would seem more likely for the Allied leader at the time?

(It's been about 6 years damn... since I last looked into this stuff so the memory is a little fuzzy)

 

[niky]

Do you mean that the Japanese were right to attack Pearl Harbour because of the embargoes? Or that the Japanese invasions are justifications for the bombs?

Didn't say anywhere that it is. Just that the idea of there being provocations doesn't hold true for any of the territories... Korea, Taiwan, China, the Philippines, the island territories. Japan's war was always one of imperial conquest. The embargoes were merely put in place to check Japanese imperialist expansion.

This was in response to and refuting Dotini's post, not reinforcing it.

-

I already answered regarding the bombing of civilian populations. Nowadays, such things are unthinkable. But that's because we have the tools and options to avoid wholesale slaughter when conducting a war. Back then, we didn't, and military leaders thought a little differently.

But justification? If someone invades your country, kills your men, rapes your women and generally makes life miserable for everyone else they leave alive, what is the appropriate response? Beat them back with sticks, careful not to bruise anyone in their nether regions, lest you kill their unborn?

I don't completely agree with Danoff on his way of thinking, but he has a point... the mere act of assault justifies a response. The nature and level of that response depends on what you're capable of, but you're not exactly sitting there while he pounds on you wondering how little response you can get away with to make him stop. You do your best to stop him, and if that means accidentally killing him... too bad.

Now, yes, you can't treat a country as a single person. But the analogy still holds. A country's population, again, provides raw material for producing the weapons, money and soldiers needed to wage a war. It's not very humane to think of people as chess counters or statistical production units, but that's the reality of what was happening at the time, and destroying a country's capability to wage war was the only sure way of forcing them to surrender.

What else would you do? Surround the Japanese islands with the US fleet, bomb only airports and harbors (because civilians... hundreds upon thousands of civilians... work in the war factories) and engage them in battle every time they build enough aircraft to strike against your fleet? Wage a war from house to house with a highly-disciplined homeland defense composed of volunteers (men, women and even children) willing to die for their country, whatever the odds? If it had come to that, the car-bomb or bomb-vest might have been invented much sooner.

While it's debatable whether or not Japan would have surrendered without the bombing... leaders at the time didn't have the benefit of hindsight. They had to make decisions based on what they knew. And they did, for better or for worse.

 

[GTsail]

Well written niky

I agree with how you've laid out the issues involved.

To my mind, the reason's behind the use of the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki stem from the three and a half years of a long and bloody war, the cost in Allied soldier and Japanese civilian lives from the invasion of the Japanese main islands, and how un-likely it was that the Japanese would surrender any time soon without their use.

It was not some knee-jerk reaction to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

The decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki closely followed the real evidence from the invasion and battle for Okinawa that took place from April to June 1945.

This island battle cost anywhere from 200,000 to 400,000 civilian and military casualties. And I think it emphatically proved how tough and bloody it was going to be to invade the Japanese mainland.

The decision to drop the bombs was a seemingly necessary (and terrrible) step taken to end a long and bloody war, quickly and without additional bloodshed on all sides (after the admittedly terrible cost to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

Japan had recently ignored a request to surrender via the Potsdam Declaration that was issued on July 26, 1945. So to some extent, it was as if the United States had asked nicely for surrender, and was ignored, so a more forceful request was going to be made.

Hiroshima was picked not to disable Japan's war-making capacity, but to show the kind of country-wide devastation that would occur if Japan did not surrender.

Hiroshima had some military importance, but that was not the point. The point was to have a sufficiently spectacular blast with widespread devastation, that would immediately and completely convince the Japanese military and civilian high command that surrender was necessary.

I would have preferred that the bombs be dropped on a more "pure" military target, but I don't think that there was such a target available. At this point in the war, the Japanese Fleet had been largely destroyed so there was no major naval base to bomb similar to the US base at Pearl Harbor or the British base at Scapa Flow.

I really wish that it had not been necessary, but given the circumstances at the time, and the aftermath as we know it (and the history that niky laid out), it does seem to have been the correct choice.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[dxm8975]

Japanese people usually think that the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are terrible, only two american nuclear bombs resulted taking away many lives at the 2 places in Japan, as destroying many houses and buildings also. But some American people seem to think that was good for Japan, I found a programme about World War II while watching TV. They were saying if they didn't drop them on those places above the American army would land on the continent of Japan to invade and attack, that may have killed more people who lived there, though it wasn't actually executed since the bombs were dropped..

I think that is dreadful like most Japanese people do, I guess Japan should've accepted the Potsdam declaration..

 

[Joel]

Some may try to use fewer projected casualties as a justification for the bombings, but I don’t think the “ends justify the means”, but the beginnings do(Danoff)
There you go noob616, for future reference thats all you have to do to CYA.

As far as the thread goes, if memory serves right (I haven't read but the first and last two pages) didn't Truman receive estimations numbering in something like2.5M+ total for and invasion and something like 500K for the bombings? Giving the 500K number has nearly 0 Allied deaths in it, which would seem more likely for the Allied leader at the time?

(It's been about 6 years damn... since I last looked into this stuff so the memory is a little fuzzy)

Yeah, those facts are correct. And I'm not trying to debate that the bombs were a bad thing, far from it. I just don't think you can use that as justification for it. I'm sure the Allied leader likely did use it as justification, but even without those figures I still believe there was justification for the bombings.




PS: Do you really think that I care about what a person on the internet thinks of me? Honestly? No offence to Danoff, but I don't particularly care what he thinks of me. My ideas, sure; but me personally, I don't give a flying 🤬.

 

[mafia_boy]

Japanese people usually think that the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are terrible, only two american nuclear bombs resulted taking away many lives at the 2 places in Japan, as destroying many houses and buildings also. But some American people seem to think that was good for Japan, I found a programme about World War II while watching TV. They were saying if they didn't drop them on those places above the American army would land on the continent of Japan to invade and attack, that may have killed more people who lived there, though it wasn't actually executed since the bombs were dropped..

That's true for the most part. The allied forces (USA, UK & Australia) were pushing the Japanese army back through Borneo, a lot of ships in the Imperial Fleet were destroyed (such as the Yamato) and the air force wasn't really gaining in numbers due to the amount of kamikaze strikes performed on the allied forces. At the rate of land being reclaimed, the entire South of Japan would've been invaded by the allies by the end of 1945 regardless if the bombs hadn't been dropped as they already had Okinawa and Iwo Jima, and all the allies resources were concentrated on Japan now as Germany had already been defeated but a lot more men would've been lost to the war as well.

I think that is dreadful like most Japanese people do, I guess Japan should've accepted the Potsdam declaration..

It's not like the allies didn't warn the heads of government and military in Japan.....the alternative for surrendering being "prompt and utter destruction" was pretty precise after what did happen.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

I do remember you saying that you support the bombing, but what is your reasoning (out of curiosity)?

I think for "beginnings", Pearl Harbour was a completely unprovoked attack, and the Japanese were committed to no surrender, and fighting to the last man.

The Japanese Government was committed to that, but they had lost the people long before that. Japan was decimated as a military force and basically quarantined unto themselves. The Allies didn't even need to go in, they could have waited out Japan and the system would have collapsed on itself. The people were tired of seeing their cities burned to the ground and being told that things would get better as they scraped around for nuts to eat. However, when you have these fancy new weapons that you want to try out, and to show off to anyone who might be thought of as a threat, it's an opportunity not to miss.

 

[dxm8975]

It's not like the allies didn't warn the heads of government and military in Japan.....the alternative for surrendering being "prompt and utter destruction" was pretty precise after what did happen.

Yeah, the allies warned Japan to stop the war as Germany already surrendered due to the destruction of its capital(Italy had been defeated in 1943), it was the only one country that stood on the Axis (side) when the declaration was issued.

 

[Jim Prower]

I had a thought...

I mean, I assume the use of nuclear weapons is a major sticking point, here...but if we didn't drop the bomb, still won somehow...what could keep us from using the more powerful, more destructive bombs developed later?

and now I leave.

 

[Blitz187]

I had a thought...

I mean, I assume the use of nuclear weapons is a major sticking point, here...but if we didn't drop the bomb, still won somehow...what could keep us from using the more powerful, more destructive bombs developed later?

and now I leave.

Nothing....

If those bombs werent dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they wouldve been used for some other purpose during the Cold War. This could have had even more devastating effects than those bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The ones used to end the war were light weights compared to what was developed after by the U.S., USSR, France and other countries who participated in A and H bomb tests. I mean it got to the point where bombs of 15 kilotons (about the same size as the Hiroshima bomb) were engineered to be shot off by Howitzer type stationary cannons for "precise" bombing (see link: http://www.vce.com/grable.html)... No need for a B-29 or B-52 anymore... I've always had an interest and sort of morbid fascination of A and H bombs so Ive read up on it a lot and watched many documentaries... One I would recommend is "Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb movie".... this movie portrays very well how people thought about the bomb back then and their fascination of it. Back then people didnt know exactly what it could do or what long term effects it had. They would just send whole army platoons with nothing but the clothes on their back and some googles to witness the test explosions first hand. Not knowing the devastating effects radiation has on the body... People were just more innocent and naive in that era... the mindset was totally different from what it is today...

I'm drifting off topic here though, so I'll stop

 

[dxm8975]

Nothing....

If those bombs werent dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they wouldve been used for some other purpose during the Cold War. This could have had even more devastating effects than those bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The ones used to end the war were light weights compared to what was developed after by the U.S., USSR, France and other countries who participated in A and H bomb tests. I mean it got to the point where bombs of 15 kilotons (about the same size as the Hiroshima bomb) were engineered to be shot off by Howitzer type stationary cannons for "precise" bombing (see link: http://www.vce.com/grable.html)... No need for a B-29 or B-52 anymore... I've always had an interest and sort of morbid fascination of A and H bombs so Ive read up on it a lot and watched many documentaries... One I would recommend is "Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb movie".... this movie portrays very well how people thought about the bomb back then and their fascination of it. Back then people didnt know exactly what it could do or what long term effects it had. They would just send whole army platoons with nothing but the clothes on their back and some googles to witness the test explosions first hand. Not knowing the devastating effects radiation has on the body... People were just more innocent and naive in that era... the mindset was totally different from what it is today...

I'm drifting off topic here though, so I'll stop

Haha, that sounds interesting, actually I've watched some videos about those bombs you mentioned in your message on youtube, I remember it was just awesome, though I only watched them with a bit interest.

 

[Blitz187]

Haha, that sounds interesting, actually I've watched some videos about those bombs you mentioned in your message on youtube, I remember it was just awesome, though I only watched them with a bit interest.

Yes, you can find a lot of it on youtube... 👍 And I guess the thing that fascinates me so much in the end about these weapons, is that something SO small can cause this much destruction when it reaches critical mass. It's just mind blowing for me Its not just the bombs though, that interest me but also the whole process that goes along with it to get to that devastating release of energy. Very interesing stuff if you read up on it... Also the design of the Hiroshima bomb was pretty simple compared to the "implosion" type bomb they used on Nagasaki. Then you have the Hydrogen bombs (much later after WWII) which is a whole different ball game and much more destructive as well.

 

[dxm8975]

Yes, you can find a lot of it on youtube... 👍 And I guess the thing that fascinates me so much in the end about these weapons, is that something SO small can cause this much destruction when it reaches critical mass. It's just mind blowing for me Its not just the bombs though, that interest me but also the whole process that goes along with it to get to that devastating release of energy. Very interesing stuff if you read up on it... Also the design of the Hiroshima bomb was pretty simple compared to the "implosion" type bomb they used on Nagasaki. Then you have the Hydrogen bombs (much later after WWII) which is a whole different ball game and much more destructive as well.

Yes, they are so small but can be so mighty that they can destroy the whole city just by exploding themselves... Humans are capable of making those kind of destructive weapons if they really try to.. And I'm not sure about their design, I only know they are clearly distinct in something, and, yes. Hydrogen bombs are much more powerful than Atomic bombs as you pointed out. I think they're the strongest bombs of all which were developed to be used for a war or some other purpose..

 

[magburner]

Remember also that we had literally just saved the world by being the armoror for the Allies.

Ahem... Who saved the world? I think you will find that America helped to save the world, but America cannot take full responsibility for the victory in Europe, because some of the most decisive battles of WWII (within the European theater) were won without ANY support from America. One of the most decisive of all, was the Battle of Britain. It was the first major defeat of the NAZI war machine, and marked a pivotal turning point in the war.

Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.

Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'

Winston Churchill was not kidding either. If we had lost the Battle of Britain, then Hitler would have had free reign over the entire European Continent. There would have been no bombing raids into the German manufacturing heartlands, and Hitler would have been free to amass a vast military machine. There may have also been no D-Day landings...

So, by the time America entered WWII (or at the very least, started to supply the allies with equipment), Great Britain HAD 'literally just saved the world'. 👍
​

 

[niky]

Actually, if anybody actually broke the Nazi's backs, it was the Russians. With a little help from the Russian winter. And then you have the British beating the Germans in Africa, denying them access to vital petroleum supplies. (or was it the Americans? Can't remember if it was Montgomery or Patton who pounded Rommel to a bloody pulp)

There is no doubt that the huge amount of materiel that US factories produced played a pivotal role in the war, but if Germany had not broken truce with the Russians, the outcome of the war might have been much different.

 

[Joel]

It's a combination of a few things. Canada and Britain in the Battle of Britain, the BCATP (British Commonwealth Air Training Plan), Hitler's stupid decision with Operation Barbarossa, and then when America came into the war it was just too much for Germany to handle on 2 fronts