Your opinions on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[Sureboss]

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had huge military importance. I don't think I can ever condone the death of hundreds of thousands of people in such a manner as they did, but it was a neccessary evil that brought to an end of the Japanese army and resistance, which completely ignored the Potsdam Declaration despite the intense fire bombing of Japanese cities that had occured before Big Boy and Little Man were dropped.

Horribly, it almost had to happen.

 

[analog]

The Second World War was perhaps the first war which didn't fully centre on the frontlines due to the importance of the airplane.
The First World War was largely fought in the trenches or at least on frontlines meaning army to army.
The rules of engagement were therefore possibly made up in the process and only after the 4th Geneva Convention in the late forties it could be classified as a warcrime ( although that didn't stop the same sort of atrocities afterwards ).

Although the rather cynical term collateral damage was invented decades later this was not a case of collateral damage but an intentional attack on civilians to persuade an emperial goverment not chosen by these people ( as opposed to Nazi-Germany to an extend ).
And as someone said, a rather easy impersonal one, as the victims were never seen eye to eye by those flying Enola Gay.

Whether or not a different outcome could be achieved by a lesser amount of victims ( or at least civilians ) will never be proven, but this subject needs a more sensible or sensitive approach than saying they were begging for it.
This macho talk is quite easy sitting from a different perspective, be it from a distant time and place ( never experienced the suffering occured ) or be it as a member of a democracy where you can choose your goverment and its actions.

 

[Famine]

I know, but if japanese army was killing civilians, didn't justify that americans had to do it too.
The american army was superior, I don't know, but perhaps they could have destroyed only military targets.

All of the candidate targets had military importance - as did the RAF raid on Dresden and Luftwaffe campaigns against London, Liverpool, Hull, Sheffield, Coventry, Glasgow, Birmingham, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Sunderland, Exeter, Belfast, Aberdeen and others.

They just also happened to be civilian population centres.

 

[ledhed]

They saved a brutal land campaign and a split of Japan into Soviet and US zones along with with countless millions of lives .
Not to mention they where less brutally cruel as the firebombing campaign and we could not produce bombs at the time like conventional weapons . They also restrained Stalin.

 

[Agent_47]

What opinion is there to have? It prevented having to do a huge land invasion and forced Japan to surrender. ^^ and yeah they didn't need another Berlin there.

 

[Dotini]

What opinion is there to have? It prevented having to do a huge land invasion and forced Japan to surrender. ^^ and yeah they didn't need another Berlin there.

It's quite possible to believe the Japanese were at the point of surrender, but toyed with by the Allies until the bombs were used for the purpose of better terms, and to drive home the forceful stamp of authority of American military power over generations to come.

It's also possible to think that the entire nuclear bomb and power industry, with hundreds of open air tests, accidents and rivers of pollution has lead directly to the explosion of cancer rates from ~1950, and indirectly to the explosion of autism rates beginning about a generation later.

In my opinion, the world would be a better, safer place if wars were fought by knights on horseback, armed with lance and sword, and led by the King who started the war. I wish that machine guns and atomic bombs were never developed.

You may be amused to know that my father played a role in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki missions. He drew the navigation and bombing run maps. A geologist before the war, he worked as a cartographer for the USAAF on Guam.
Ironically, he died young of brain cancer.

 

[Lizard]

Personally I go with the line war is war, do what you have to do to win on conflicts of this scale. Besides more people were killed in the carpet bombing of Tokyo. Although being a lover of Japan I kind of wish it didn't happen.

What I find more disgusting is what happened almost 100 years earlier when America told Japan trade with us and give up a portion of your sovereignty or we will shoot you on first ever diplomatic contact. Eventually the negotiations got to the point where the Japanese were handed 2 white flags and told to raise them when they wanted the American ships to stop firing. America were the first to fire on Japan not the other way round.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Not in the mood to read the whole thread right now, but:

It's quite possible to believe the Japanese were at the point of surrender, but toyed with by the Allies until the bombs were used for the purpose of better terms, and to drive home the forceful stamp of authority of American military power over generations to come.

Isn't it already considered a historical fact, that the Japanese would've surrendered without the nukes?
I'm pretty sure I've read and seen this in several documentations about it.

It's also possible to think that the entire nuclear bomb and power industry, with hundreds of open air tests, accidents and rivers of pollution has lead directly to the explosion of cancer rates from ~1950, and indirectly to the explosion of autism rates beginning about a generation later.

No doubt about that.

 

[synchromesh]

They bombed U.S. territory, and Nagasaki was a plan-B. That's what I know. Yes, civilians dead was a bad thing but what else was the Allies supposed to do?
What I would've done? Avoid weapons and war in any means possible, but I guess they had to do what they had to do.

 

[Danoff]

It's quite possible to believe the Japanese were at the point of surrender, but toyed with by the Allies until the bombs were used for the purpose of better terms, and to drive home the forceful stamp of authority of American military power over generations to come.

That's a tough one to prove.

It's also possible to think that the entire nuclear bomb and power industry, with hundreds of open air tests, accidents and rivers of pollution has lead directly to the explosion of cancer rates from ~1950, and indirectly to the explosion of autism rates beginning about a generation later.

Even tougher.

 

[Dotini]

That's a tough one to prove.



Even tougher.

I make no attempt to prove anything. It's an opinion expressed in an opinion thread in an opinion forum.

 

[Rage Racer]

They saved a brutal land campaign and a split of Japan into Soviet and US zones along with with countless millions of lives .

Naah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Soviet_intentions
The Soviet Union has got what they wanted - the Kuril Islands and South Sakhalin, lost after the Russo-Japanese war in 1905. Invasion of Hokkaido was considered (although it wasn't arranged on the Yalta conference), but non taken. It wouldn't be worth the consequences, plus Stalin had more interest on Europe than Far East.

 

[Exorcet]

In my opinion, the world would be a better, safer place if wars were fought by knights on horseback, armed with lance and sword, and led by the King who started the war. I wish that machine guns and atomic bombs were never developed.

To willingly give up technology is to make yourself vulnerable. It's often been said that if it was possible to make people forget how to develop atomic weapons the world would be a better place. Instead it would lead us to the 1940's where a hostile fascist group was racing to be the first to acquire nuclear weapons. We're better off now with them being common place. No one wants to send knights to invade a nation with nuclear warheads.

 

[Dotini]

To willingly give up technology is to make yourself vulnerable. It's often been said that if it was possible to make people forget how to develop atomic weapons the world would be a better place. Instead it would lead us to the 1940's where a hostile fascist group was racing to be the first to acquire nuclear weapons. We're better off now with them being common place. No one wants to send knights to invade a nation with nuclear warheads.

You misunderstand me. I would not send a knight to invade a nation with machine guns or nukes!!

Let me say it this way: If I could wave a magic wand and replace all machine guns and nukes with swords and lances, I'd do it. Wouldn't you??

 

[Dude27]

What I was always be bothered about is not Hiroshima, a very bloody attempt to force another nation to give their will to fight and also a good warning for the Russian allies, but about Nagasaki... from the first bomb, the Japanese power had already a good taste of what to expect next... so why the second A-bomb? Which IMHO demonstrated a much more political gesture to make the USA the new and mighty standing superpuissance more than break an already broken Japanese's back. I think Nagasaki was completely avoidable and a very cruel move by the "good guys" to stand their new hegemonist point.

Another possible and much more cynical explanation was that it was just another experimental test in situation for a different kind of bomb (both bombs were of different technology).

 

[Danoff]

What I was always be bothered about is not Hiroshima, a very bloody attempt to force another nation to give their will to fight and also a good warning for the Russian allies, but about Nagasaki... from the first bomb, the Japanese power had already a good taste of what to expect next... so why the second A-bomb? Which IMHO demonstrated a much more political gesture to make the USA the new and mighty standing superpuissance more than break an already Japanese's back. I think Nagasaki was completely avoidable and a very cruel move by the "good guys" to stand their new hegemonist point.

Another possible explanation was that it was just another (cynical) experimental test in situation for a different kind of bomb (both bombs were of different technology).

It was a demonstration that this was not a one-off capability that should not be expected in the future. This was repeatable... something that could easily be done again. It was done as an overwhelming show of force to leave absolutely no doubt.

 

[Dude27]

The first one was already a very powerful show of force.. if they really wanted to make a point, they should have pointed the next one to a visible inhabited island to the Japanese government and say" see, it's not just one, we get more of them "(which was a big lie anyway at the time, there was only 2 bombs + the trinity test).

 

[Dennisch]

It has been 70 years. Let it go.

 

[Exorcet]

You misunderstand me. I would not send a knight to invade a nation with machine guns or nukes!!

Let me say it this way: If I could wave a magic wand and replace all machine guns and nukes with swords and lances, I'd do it. Wouldn't you??

I understood. You wouldn't sent knights to invade a nuclear power because it's a hopeless war. This is true even if you're a nuclear power. Nuclear weapons in a way make war pointless to the point where no one is going to try it, at least between nuclear powers. The thawing of the Cold War was partially down to each side realizing that anything else was pointless.

I would never "uninvent" nuclear weapons or any technology. That would make them uncontrolled. It also seems to be a silly way to think about war. War is serious. You only go to war to defend yourself ideally. It's a last resort when you've been wronged, and you're going to fight seriously to win. There's no point in evening the playing field or limiting your strength (so long as you aren't causing undue harm to a third party or something).

 

[Dotini]

If I were in league with a powerful alien race, I would suggest to them that humanity would be better off if you (aliens) stole all the technology, then altered human DNA so that IQ would be permanently capped at 60 or so.

We would still be able to play, enjoy sex and simple toys, but completely unable to develop WMD.

 

[Dennisch]

altered human DNA so that IQ would be permanently capped at 60 or so.

Best.

Idea.

EVER!

 

[Katiegan]

Well, my opinion is...

Japan went over to Pearl Harbour and was all,

PEW PEW PEW!

And then the US didn't like that and was all,

PEW PEW PEW!

And then Japan was like,

PEW PEW PEW TO YOU TOO!

And then the war in the west ended but it was still going in the east so America wanted to hang out with the cool kids (Europe) so decided to end the war in the east and was like,

BOOM BOOM BOOM!

...all over Hiroshima but then they didn't think that was enough so then they were like,

BOOM BOOM BOOM!

...all over Nagasaki too and then Japan was like,

NO PEW PEW PEW!

And then Japan surrendered and the US was like,

YEAH PEW PEW PEW FREEDOM!


/history

 

[MatskiMonk]

If I were in league with a powerful alien race, I would suggest to them that humanity would be better off if you (aliens) stole all the technology, then altered human DNA so that IQ would be permanently capped at 60 or so.

We would still be able to play, enjoy sex and simple toys, but completely unable to develop WMD.

I'm beginning to think the Aliens invented the internet to this very end.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If I were in league with a powerful alien race, I would suggest to them that humanity would be better off if you (aliens) stole all the technology, then altered human DNA so that IQ would be permanently capped at 60 or so.

Yeah but THEN how long would the "Should Kaz Resign" thread be? :\

On topic, ish: I have three small stones from Hiroshima. I like to hold them and think sometimes, strange but true.

The jovial figure overlooking them at present is Gizza (Occupation, Nun).

 

[Dennisch]

Also, SPAM.

Reported.

 

[ledhed]

https://www.google.com/search?q=soviet plans for japan invasion wwii&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=LyKFU_qVKeHEsATRx4C4Dw&ved=0CEgQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=643
The wall fell and history came out .


When the Russians invaded Manchuria, they sliced through what had once been an elite army and many Russian units only stopped when they ran out of gas. The Soviet 16th Army — 100,000 strong — launched an invasion of the southern half of Sakhalin Island. Their orders were to mop up Japanese resistance there, and then — within 10 to 14 days — be prepared to invade Hokkaido, the northernmost of Japan’s home islands. The Japanese force tasked with defending Hokkaido, the 5th Area Army, was under strength at two divisions and two brigades, and was in fortified positions on the east side of the island. The Soviet plan of attack called for an invasion of Hokkaido from the west.

http://warincontext.org/2013/05/31/stalin-not-the-bomb-made-japan-surrender-ending-ww2/
https://www.google.com/search?q=map of japan by island&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=xCSFU4naD83jsASqn4C4CA&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=643

You can take history in context of time now as not all info is coming from victors or even the same sides . We have Japanese and Soviet and US accounts from the time and not later arm chair opinion , but you have to study hard as even then it was a hard call and many wanted an invasion .

Consider the Pacific war was only matched in time by Eastern front or medieval butchers , if that. It was brutal beyond most human understanding.

 

[photonrider]

I make no attempt to prove anything. It's an opinion expressed in an opinion thread in an opinion forum.

👍 👍 👍

Quite often some people have no idea about the difference between fact and opinion, and have quite semanticised opinions of such, having nothing more to do than talk to themselves continuously or try to engage others in splitting the semantic atom into squarks of illogicality that keep pumping the same old neuropeptides to the same locations in their brains. It's an addiction.

My copy of the AP Stylebook (a bible for journalists) clearly states that the difference between an opinion and a fact is that the former cannot be proved - the latter can.

 

[Rage Racer]

Let me say it this way: If I could wave a magic wand and replace all machine guns and nukes with swords and lances, I'd do it. Wouldn't you??

Na-ah.
People would wave their swords every time they wanted to. And blade slashing isn't much more "beautiful" than gun fighting, hehe... But the consequences are not fearing enough to stop people from fighting.

Nukes are the weapon of deterrence. No one would want to attack someone if he knows he's gonna get his balls hit with a nuclear hammer. This is why we don't have a Third World War.
And one must be a clinical idiot to check if the attacked hesitates to use the nukes or not.

 

[Liquid]

Nukes are the weapon of deterrence. No one would want to attack someone if he knows he's gonna get his balls hit with a nuclear hammer. This is why we don't have a Third World War.
And one must be a clinical idiot to check if the attacked hesitates to use the nukes or not.

We have come close though.

1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident

Stanislav Petrov

On September 26, 1983, [Petrov] was the duty officer at the command center for the Oko nuclear early-warning system when the system reported that a missile was being launched from the United States. Petrov judged the report to be a false alarm, and his decision is credited with having prevented an erroneous retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its NATO allies that could have resulted in large-scale nuclear war. Investigation later confirmed that the satellite warning system had indeed malfunctioned.

Petrov cited his belief and training that any U.S. first strike would be massive, so five missiles seemed an illogical start.

 

[Dotini]

There can be a nuclear war in an instant, whether by design or by accident.

Russian doctrine, I believe, relies heavily on literally thousands of "battlefield" nukes which are deployed by commanders at the field level. These can be mishandled, stolen, used by rogue commanders, or deliberately used in a last-ditch attempt to avoid defeat. The US has battlefield nukes, too, though not as many.

This is why I dislike the EU, US and NATO provoking the Russian bear in eastern Europe. Too much to lose and not much to gain.