hiroshima, your thoughts

[germanNiklas]

well, couple of days ago its been 60 years since the abomb explosion

yesterday i have seen a very interesting documentary

we all know the war has started with pearl harbour . . . i dont know the reasons why they attack it, once i read somewhere that the usa stopped giving the japanese oil or something like that and that was the reason
i think most of you know better than me

anyways

do you think it was "right" or "wrong" to throw a nuclear bomb on hiroshima
is there something as right or wrong for something like this?

on the documentary one veteran said "sadly they didnt throw 18 nuclear bombs on them, then it would have been over earlier"
when i heard that i was very angry and asked myself "how can he say something like that"

on the other hand i can understand him, he saw hundres of his own men dying and the japanese did "bad" things with war prisoners

they threw the abomb to "stop" the war as soon as possible

but in the documentary they said that truman knew japan wanted to surrender because tokio "phoned" to some japanese embassies and the us "got" these calls
. . sorry for my bad english i hope you know what i mean :(

some people say that they just launched the nuke because they wanted to "test" it and wanted to show the soviet how powerful the usa are

i dont know with my 17 years what i should think, if it was "right" or "wrong"
but war is never right is it . . . .

[zybch]

The only thing I don't understand is why the US didn't say to Japan, "Take a look into Toyko Harbour at XX tomorrow morning. If you don't to see a similar thing happen to one of your cities surrender now!"

Basically the bombs were dropped because the US wanted to find out what would happen when they nuked a real city instead of miles of uninhabited desert.

So much for the US harping on and on about WMDs. They are the only country to ever use any!

[Someone Stupid]

I smell a troll lurking in this thread.

[zybch]

Well wouldn't have exploding it in a sparsely populate area but still near a city have pursuaded japan to surrender? Just take a look at some of the footage from operation crossroads and imagine the japanese military and government desperatley surrendering in order to avoid such an event on one of their heavily populated cities.

Just so you know, those little things at the bottom right are massive warships, not canoes.
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/atmosphr/ustst07.jpg

In the footage taken from aeroplanes the force of the blast even displaces the clouds, amazing stuff, but not when its taking the lives of tens of thousands of people with the knowledge that many times that will die a long and lingering death from radiation poisoning for more than 60 years into the future.
This was known but the bomb was dropped anyway.

Hiroshima and then Nagasaki were simply used as overseas test grounds for 2 different types of nuclear devices (Little Boy - a gun type device, and Fat Man - an implosion type nuke). This is now historical fact.

[Someone Stupid]

Sigh - zybch, I wonder what (or if) you'd ever post if the US never existed.

Just because this boom was all bright and makes pretty pictures doesn't mean that it killed more people or was more atrocious than other acts. The Tokyo firebombings, Dresden, and countless other slaughters during the war took just as many lives, they just involved more planes and bombs. This is also now a historical fact.

I'm glad you pointed out those weren't canoes as I thought I saw an Indian in one with a paddle. :rolleyes:

[germanNiklas]

I smell a troll lurking in this thread.
hope you dont mean me
im just interested in this topic and in the last few days i read alot about hiroshima
i just want to know your thoughts
dont want to start any fights or something like that!

[zybch]

No single 'event' was responsible for as many deaths in an instant or over a 60 year period for that matter.
A split second changed the lives of more than 100,000 mainly innocent civilians, a split second that was clearly planned and executed with the knowledge that such casualties would result.
I can kind of understand Hiroshima, but not Nagasaki a few days later.

[Someone Stupid]

What is the difference between a split second and a nighttime or even a few days or weeks for that matter when it comes to taking a hundred thousand lives? There isn't any. Quit trying to make it seem like there is. Your looking back at history with 60 years of knowledge and forgetting that we could have blockaded Japan (which we would have) and had a million innocents dead from starvation before we even set foot on Japan.

You know why we firebombed Tokyo, because we knew that since most structures were wood that it'd be more effective than conventional bombing (it'd kill more people). Dresden was bombed more out of revenge than any real strategic reason - yet no harping on that either. At least there are reasons behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki. War is always going to be a series of regrettable actions as your having people who have no interest in killing each other, well killing each other all for some lines that are on maps.

[zybch]

I'm not looking back on 60 years of history. The effects of radiation poisoning were known shortly after the Curies made their discovery, and it was a known fact that the initial blast wouldn't kill the most people but insidiously poison many times as many over time.
A blockade might have had some limited success, but Japan was still reasonably self suficient (as much as any country at that time could be) and nowhere near as vulnerable as the UK was when it came to starvation and rations etc.
Those other places also needed a whole lot of planning and co-ordination, Hiroshima was just an 'easy' operation with a single plane against a target that didn't even know it was a target till after the event.
I'm certainly not saying that there wasn't the need for a bit of the old Shock and Awe to get the japs to give up, but the choice of a heavily populated city (2 of them) instead of an area where the explosion could be witnessed but result in minimal casualties was an evil thing to do.
Dropping the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki was nothing more than an excercise to try out the as yet untested implosion-type nuke. If you seriously think otherwise you should read some history books not written and sanctioned by the US government propoganda dept, the european ones would be a good place to start.

[germanNiklas]

but they didnt want to thorw the 2 bomb on nagasaki didnt they?
they wanted to hit an industrial district i think . . but the waether was bad so they threw it on nagasaki

not sure if thats true but i heard that

[j.m@talk]

hiroshima, your thoughts

I bet it was a bloody loud bang :rolleyes:

do you think it was "right" or "wrong" to throw a nuclear bomb on hiroshima

Err right .......... There were too many idiots around in those times beatin their chests :mad: It kinda shut em up, quick sharp :t

[germanNiklas]

hiroshima, your thoughts

I bet it was a bloody loud bang :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

[mireland]

was it the right thing to do? no..did it help end the war REAL quickly..yes....the U.S is ALWAYS doing the wrong thing..but if it works I guess.... :(

[j.m@talk]

Shouldda nuked Korea too .................... When you were there :D

[werz]

Because of the Japanese attitude to war, and there blatant contempt for any compassion, it should have been nuked back to the stoneage as an example to any other nation of what can happen when they totally disreguard the conventions by starving and murdering people, men women and children, out of the sadistic pleasure they derived from brutality.
I have sympathy for the victims, but it was necessary to revenge the millions of people from different nations they murdered indiscriminately.

[j.m@talk]

Ohhhh Fluck

[ukulele]

The Japanese were waging war in just as much a ruthless manner and let's not forget Pearl Harbor. It turns out they lost and we won. In retrospect it really never stopped war as was envisioned by the people who created the bomb. In fact the end result was the modern day blood-fests of Vietnam, the Russian war in Afghanistan and now the war in Iraq which is fought against armies in hiding and civilians in sheep's clothes. In fact the atomic bomb is the one single factor most responsible for the rise of terrorism. It is after all the only offensive action a ruthless people, in lust of power, can resort too anymore. In the end, it never brought the promise of world peace or a balance of power, it just changed the rules of engagement. Now with Iran and North Korea building nuclear stockpiles, Pakistan and India's recent entry into the WMD club seems mildly amusing now.

[MJCfromCT]

At the time, the US only had TWO nuclear weapons. They had considered bringing over members of the Japanese government and demonstrating the power of these weapons in the desert, but it was decided that it was too risky. If one of the weapons was a dud, the US would be in serious trouble.

The combined death toll from the two weapons directly and the estimates of deaths from radiation poisoning did not compare to the estimates of the number of casualties that would have resulted from an invasion of the Japan mainland.

And by the way, Hiroshima was not picked because it was a giant city filled with innocent civilians, it was picked because it was a major supply and logistics base for the Japanese military.

[MJCfromCT]

Also, Hiroshima was not picked because it was a bustling city filled with thousands of innocent civilians, it was picked because it was a major supply and logistics base for the Japanese military:

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

The city was mobilized for "all-out" war, with thousands of conscripted women, children and Koreans working in military offices, military factories and building demolition and with women and children training to resist any invading force

[ukulele]

Tokyo was not targeted because it was a cultural treasure.

[leprechaun_40]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/gargoyle1/Climax1.jpg :r

[cdroman]

"hiroshima, your thoughts"

It was 60 years ago. We can't change the past.

[j.m@talk]

Twas 20 years before I was born ......... However I'm not invoking that as a excuse ;)

[porsch1909]

we all know the war has started with pearl harbour . . . .

Dont ya mean that america decided to get their finger out and give the rest of the world a helping hand.

Since then they can't stop helping people out.....whether they want it or not :rolleyes:

But I think the bombs were cruel and well it is pretty rubbish for all the civilians that died and had nothing to do with the war. But it had to be done.


A guy posted on another forum which I would rather not mention (;)) that the iraq war would be over a lot quicker if they just nuked Baghdad :rolleyes:

To whcih a reply was that that would result in a full on nuclear war and a nuclear winter :(

If these terrorists get their hands on one of these.....well a lot more than 140000 will die :(

[j.m@talk]

A guy posted on another forum which I would rather not mention (;)) that the iraq war would be over a lot quicker if they just nuked Baghdad :rolleyes:

He could well be right ......... Perhaps Baghdad & all other locations in Iraq that have letters in there names too tho ;)

:-@

:t

[zybch]

[QUOTE=MJCfromCT]Also, Hiroshima was not picked because it was a bustling city filled with thousands of innocent civilians, it was picked because it was a major supply and logistics base for the Japanese military:

Conscription didn't care if you were for or against the war with the US. You got picked and that instantly made you a soldier or part of the jap war machine.
So don't lay that rubbish that they were all working for the military.
If they didn't they'd probably have been shot or beheaded.

[zybch]

He could well be right ......... Perhaps Baghdad & all other locations in Iraq that have letters in there names too tho ;)

:-@

:t

Course it would have been over. Just like if florida had been nuked during nov-2000 a complete prat would probably not have been able to get Iraq as f'ed up as it is now...

:rolleyes:

[Someone Stupid]

And conscription also makes you willing to fight until the last man in nearly every battle? No. Disillusioned men will not fight to the last.

[herosrest]

Fighting for your very survival - which Japan's mindset was in 1945 was the root of the problem.
The country was led and run by it's military. Always (always) recipe for disaster.
The military consisted of Army and Navy, who were rivals and followed a 'militaristic ' code, quasi religion called Bushido.
Pretty much the worst of all worlds.

The lesson of Japans wars during the 30's and 40's is repeated across the ages.
Ordinary Japanese were no different to any population - paying the price for poor leadership.
The population of a country must be able to remove it's leaders.
An aspect of the atomic bombings oft neglected was the ussr's declaration of war on Japan and invasion of Manchuria a couple of weeks before Hiroshima.

[MJCfromCT]

Conscription didn't care if you were for or against the war with the US. You got picked and that instantly made you a soldier or part of the jap war machine.
So don't lay that rubbish that they were all working for the military.
If they didn't they'd probably have been shot or beheaded.

When did I say that they were all working for the military? When you are at war, you attempt to destroy the enemy's military. That is a more plausible argument than your typical anti-US propoganda that you are spewing out.

[zybch]

"Also, Hiroshima was not picked because it was a bustling city filled with thousands of innocent civilians, it was picked because it was a major supply and logistics base for the Japanese military"

That seems to infer it quite well :) Any large city could be classified as a major supply and logistics base during the years of WW2. My country was attacked by the Japs, so please don't think that I have any lesser importance in being the 'victim' of the japanese agression than you do.
At least they bombed a US military base, not a non-military city like they did in Australia.
I'm not being anti-US, just anti-the twisted polititians who wanted to see what a nuke would do to a real city.
Also that they used the excuse of the mass ending of mainly non combatant lives (twice!) to end the war to cover their real aim (was just to see how much damage could be done to a populated city rather than to a stretch of desert occupied by nothing more than a few coyotes and mice).

[zybch]

No matter which side you take, it was still a very crappy thing to do to other human beings.

[MJCfromCT]

No matter which side you take, it was still a very crappy thing to do to other human beings.

War in general is a "very crappy thing to do to other human beings".

[zybch]

Especially when its NOT the guys actually responsible for starting it that are the ones to suffer the pain and consequences.
They stay well back like the spineless cowards they are, well out of any posibility of danger.
Makes you realy respect the old kings who would actually lead their armies into battle (King Harrold anyone?, 1066 wasn't?)

[MJCfromCT]

Especially when its NOT the guys actually responsible for starting it that are the ones to suffer the pain and consequences.

Indeed, like the 2,403 who died at Pearl Harbor, or the 3063 innocents who died on 9/11, or the thousands of innocent civilians who have died in Iraq.

[zybch]

Hard to imagine Dubya in the lead tank driving into Iraq isn't it :)
Or for that matter Hussein riding out in a humvee to meet him to duke it out man to man.

[MJCfromCT]

Well since Saddam is still alive (we think), maybe him and GW should duke it out. Put it on Pay-Per-View and donate the profits to some charity. That'd be a fight I'd pay to see. ;)

[zybch]

Justto make it fair, each should have to fight the other with the weapon arsenal of their opponent.
Hussein can use the might of the US military along with its lap-dogs (australia, Brittain etc), and Dubya can use all the WMDs that he knew and had proof that Hussein possessed.

That'd only be fair :)

[ukulele]

That'd only be fair

Kinda stupid going into a war looking for a fair fight ain't it?

[zybch]

Your Fuhrer, I mean leader would agree with you completely.

[mireland]

Your Fuhrer, I mean leader would agree with you completely.


http://www.fancysplace.com/smileys/smpbombe.gif

[ukulele]

Your Fuhrer, I mean leader would agree with you completely.


That's proof he's much smarter then you.

[mireland]

That's proof he's much smarter then you.


ok, not YOU two..not now.... :rolleyes:

[zybch]

tomorrow?

[Someone Stupid]

I think zybch is just jealous the US can use it's might on a global scale when he has to resort to his ebay rating to play superpower. :t

[werz]

superpower, superbully.
Same thing really.

[ukulele]

I think zybch is just jealous the US can use it's might on a global scale when he has to resort to his ebay rating to play superpower. :t

He has ferkeritis at times, otherwise known as annal retentive. :p

[zybch]

I think you're mistaking the word use for abuse.

[zybch]

He has ferkeritis at times, otherwise known as annal retentive. :p

Is that where you sit on things and retain them analy?
I assume old prostitutes get that :eek:

[Rabbitrunner51]

One word.. CATOSTROHIC tehy might have had it coming as some think ..but sometimes life leaves us little choice under certain unigue circumstances..and this was one.

I do believe we might have just won the war anyways... most likely as Japan was running out of resources. Rememeber the true underlying reason they went to war with us was because we imposed a trade embargo on oil and some of the things it needed just to survive and feed the many millions of people they had.

IN my truest of heart.. I today think that the Japnese people are the best of the best as far as the oriental classes of peoples are concerned, and all my deepest sympathy go out for what they endured and today still endure for those involved.

If not for that bomb..(as the saying goes ... good things come out of disaster ), they the Japanese developed a stronger bond to values and it made them rethink and find some spiritual determination beyoung the norm... to become the industrial giant they are today with the suto industry and esp. in Electronics.

[MJCfromCT]

Rememeber the true underlying reason they went to war with us was because we imposed a trade embargo on oil and some of the things it needed just to survive and feed the many millions of people they had.


And why did we impose those embargos?

http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/China/JapanManchuria.CP.html

Because Japan had invaded Manchuria and then was going on to the rest of China. The US decided this couldn't be allowed. Without American oil, Japan couldn't fuel their tanks, ships and planes.

[mireland]

Is that where you sit on things and retain them analy?
I assume old prostitutes get that :eek:


http://www.fancysplace.com/smileys/sickgrn.gif

[zybch]

And why did we impose those embargos?

http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/China/JapanManchuria.CP.html

Because Japan had invaded Manchuria and then was going on to the rest of China. The US decided this couldn't be allowed. Without American oil, Japan couldn't fuel their tanks, ships and planes.

But its quite okay for the US to invade a foreign nation unopposed?

[mireland]

But its quite okay for the US to invade a foreign nation unopposed?


U.S could invade Idaho if it wants too..with all the mexicans living in this state it's pretty much a foriegn(sic) country! :mad:

[zybch]

:)
Most of the southern states are like that right? I mean ful of illegals taking jobs and good, god fearing women from the rightful inhabitants.

[MJCfromCT]

But its quite okay for the US to invade a foreign nation unopposed?

I don't get where you are going with that...the US didn't invade Japan because Japan attacked Manchuria, all the US did was put an oil embargo on Japan...

*Edit* Oh, talking about Iraq? I never said it was justified, I was against it from the get-go. Now that we are over there though, I'm all for finishing the job.

[zybch]

If you had a twin, would you be the good twin, or the evil twin?

[ukulele]

:)
Most of the southern states are like that right? I mean ful of illegals taking jobs and good, god fearing women from the rightful inhabitants.

Zibby statistics again. :p No, ziby. No states are full of them. Where did you get that silly notion?

[zybch]

Where the hell could you have gotten the idea that statistics are anywhere in that posting?

[mireland]

Where the hell could you have gotten the idea that statistics are anywhere in that posting?


I swear I've heard that before... :rolleyes:

[zybch]

Uke seems caught up in stats. Perhaps he needs a break.

Leg, arm, just let me know and I'll find my baseball bat.

[j.m@talk]

Sheesh :rolleyes:

[zybch]

I'm not sure you can break a 'sheesh'.
But tell me where it is and I'll give it a go, I'm game for anything.

[werz]

http://www.baronage.co.uk/chivalry/chival5b.html
My father in law was on the 1st allied merchant ship into Hiroshima, after the end of hostilities.
He died of a melanoma at 55yrs old.

[zybch]

Whats so sad is that a lot of people today still think it was a good thing to do despite the well known effects its had to people, not just during, but decades after the detonation.

[ukulele]

Whats so sad is that a lot of people today still think it was a good thing to do despite the well known effects its had to people, not just during, but decades after the detonation.

What's even sader is the people that don't understand that the freedom as they know it would be very different today if we had not won the war against the Japanese and Germans. In fact had it not been for the demonstration of nuclear weapons, the Russians would have tried to conquer the world too.

There will always be the atrocity of war as long as there is people who can't let go of the past and get on with the future.

[genesound]

This is all with 60 years of hindsight guys. The one thing that remains is that China was prolly very satisfied with the outcome and remains quite placid considering what could happen. :rolleyes:

[tantone]

Sad that so many innocent people had to die to kick Japan in the nads hard enough to get them to surrender. The fact that it took TWO bombs makes me think that the Japanese pride replaced their rational thought.

Some of the Japanese survivors will tell you that it was an atrocity and that they no longer harbor any resentment over it. Other survivors will tell you that they thought it was what we had to do to get through to the Japanese. Others will say that they hate Americans.

What I find hard to fathom is that more American's, who were FAR too young to live through those days, find it harder to swallow than the Japanese survivors. Apparently, they think that book knowledge hindsight is more meaningful than booknowledge hindsight coupled with living through it.

[zybch]

You forget that the Japanese still don't openly acnowledge their war attrocities. The US does, even though it'd probably prefer that they not get mentioned.

[bob05]

As said before, it was unfortunate that civilians had to die. But sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do...in the case of Japan they weren't going to surrender without some form of 'incentive', period. I am someone who is directly effected by the dropping of the atomic bomb, my Grandfather received papers from the US Army in July, 1945 that he would be apart of an invasion of the Japanese mainland in November, 1945. Now what if the bomb wasn't dropped. I often wonder if I would be here today... :confused:

[tantone]

You forget that the Japanese still don't openly acnowledge their war attrocities. The US does, even though it'd probably prefer that they not get mentioned.
Some do. A couple of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki survivors who were involved in the Chinese war-crimes that the Japanese committed admitted such acts, and you can hear their tesimonials in the recent media articles surrounding the anniversary of the bombings. They're torn up about it, and--for lack of a better word--thank the US for dropping the bombs to bring about the end.

If Japanese civilians whose lives were directly affected by the blasts can move on, so can the Americans, whether they were involved at the time or simply read about it in history books.

[tantone]

As said before, it was unfortunate that civilians had to die. But sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do...in the case of Japan they weren't going to surrender without some form of 'incentive', period. I am someone who is directly effected by the dropping of the atomic bomb, my Grandfather received papers from the US Army in July, 1945 that he would be apart of an invasion of the Japanese mainland in November, 1945. Now what if the bomb wasn't dropped. I often wonder if I would be here today... :confused:
There's no telling if you'd be here or not. The hard truth, which it sounds like you understand, is that, without the bombs, the end would not have come when it did. We can only speculate as to what might have resulted from holding back.

[mcool61]

We only had 2 A bombs. We dropped the first one & waited. They didn't surrender. We dropped the second & they did. We won. It is regretable when innocent people die. Better them than us. Let their emporer sort the good from the bad.
As for those who are idiotic enough to whine about it, they should just be glad we did. It is obvious they are too stupid to learn to speak japanese.