DescentBB

thaaat's right. We had 3 different A-bombs (enriched uranium)

oh, update. Hiroshima was a Uranium bomb, Nagasaki was a plutonium bomb. Also, Nagasaki was a secondary target.

Wiki wrote: The goal of the weapon was to convince Japan to surrender unconditionally in accordance with the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. The Target Committee stated that "It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.

I always wondered why Tokyo wasn't targeted. (there's more on that page that explains why)

CUDA wrote:

Bull Halsey wrote:"Kill Japs, Kill Japs, Kill More Japs!" The more of the little yellow bastards you kill, the quicker we go home

You're acting too childish and your "historical facts" are mixing post war numbers with pre war numbers. I would have listened to the commanders who were intelligent enough to think of the moral consequences associated with their decision rather than the mentality of the quote above. This total disregard for human life or "cowboy mentality" that you seem to embrace is what cost japanese children to die en masse.

Truman dropped the bombs for a political power play. Nothing more.

Bee

really Bee. Talk to your GrandParents.

Bet51987 wrote:...

Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe, General Eisenhower advised President Truman on Jul 20, 1945, that "The atomic bombs were not necessary to end the war against Japan. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." ....

Bee don't ignore the political motives for Eisenhower and others Monday morning quarterbacking the A-bomb decision.
Truman could have run against Eisenhower in the next election if he wanted to and the republican party needed all the bad press they could muster to keep his chances slim.

\"It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it.\" - Robert Edward Lee

Japan tried to take over the pacific rim…and more, that’s what cost all those little children their lives.

I think (correct me if I am wrong Cuda) the battle for Okinawa was a indicator of what the Japanese would do if invaded. The level of fanaticism and dying to the last man that was the hallmark of Okinawa, showed the Americans what the battle for Japan itself would be like. When you had Japanese mothers throwing their kids off a cliff and then jumping after them, showed the level of brainwashing they had been subjected to. The question is did anyone really think our troops would just pull to their homeland and all the Japanese would bow down to them?

Even more telling after the first bomb was dropped, Japan still would not surrender. Again I ask you, do you really believe the Japanese would give up when American ships steamed into view of their beaches? Would one more American soldiers life be worth not dropping the bombs? Picture how you felt when you found out who was behind 9/11. If we had a weapon that would of annihilated enough Al Queda and their support, would you have said no? Would you have said lets send our 18 and 19 years to do the job instead even tho many of them would die in the process? Now you have some inkling as to why we dropped nukes on the Japanese.

your right Wood.

Bee see's what she wants to see and ignores what history says about it. she does have some validity to the point of Truman dropping the bomb being political, he was a politician after all. but alas she goes right back to calling him a baby killer

yet it seems that Bee would Ignore facts like this

NANKING MASSACRE (December, 1937)

Known historically as the 'Rape of Nanking'. In 1937 (the real start of World War II) the Chinese capital had a population of just over one million, including over 100,000 refugees. On December 13, the city fell to the invading Japanese troops. For the next six weeks the soldiers indulged in an orgy of indiscriminate killing, rape and looting. They shot at everyone on sight, whether out on the streets or peeking out of windows. The streets were soon littered with corpses, on one street a survivor counted 500 bodies. Girls as young as twelve, and women of all ages were raped by gangs of 15 or 20 soldiers, crazed by alcohol, who roamed the town in search of women. At the Jingling Women's University, students were carted away in trucks to work in Japanese army brothels. Over a thousand men were rounded up and marched to the banks of the Yangtze river where they were lined up and gunned to death to give practice in machine-gun traversing fire. Thousands of captured Chinese soldiers, many wounded, were simililary murdered. In the following six weeks, the Nanking Red Cross units alone, buried around 43,000 bodies. About 20,000 women and girls had been raped, most were then murdered. Department stores, shops, churches and houses were set on fire while drunken soldiers indulged in wholesale looting and bayoneting of Chinese civilians for sport. It is estimated that over 150,000 Chinese civilians and soldiers were killed in this, the most infamous atrocity committed by the Japanese army.

Ironically the Japanese killed as many people in the Rape of Nanking then died in the initial blasts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and yet we are called the in-humane ones. and they did this sort of thing everywhere they went, Korea, the Philippines. But alas you can only blame the US for things if your uninformed and don't know or don't care to know history and facts.

here's some more Japanese atrocities she could look up, but I doubt she'll make the effort


YELLOW RIVER FLOOD (1938)
HONG KONG ATROCITIES (December 25, 1941)
THE LAHA AIRFIELD EXECUTIONS (February 9, 1943)
PHILIPPINES MASSACRE
BANGKA ISLAND MASSACRE (St. Valentine's Day, February 14, 1942)
THE PARIT SULONG MASSACRE
TOL PLANTATION ATROCITY (February 4, 1942)
MASSACRE ON BALIKPAPAN (February 24, 1942)
THE CHEKIANG MASSACRES
ATROCITY ON LUZON
THE TRUK MASSACRE (February, 1944)
DEATH ON TANOURA BEACH
MURDER ON WAKE ISLAND (January 12, 1943)
KOKOPO AND BALLALAE MASSACRES
THE 'AKIKAZE' EXECUTIONS (March 18, 1943)
THE PORT BLAIR MASSACRES (March 23, 1942)
REVENGE MURDER
MASSACRE ON ANDAMAN (August 14, 1945)
MASSACRE ON PALAWAN (December 14, 1944)
THE PIG BASKET ATROCITY
THE KALAGON MASSACRE
LOA KULU MASSACRE (July 30, 1945)
RETALIATION IN INDONESIA (1945/46)
THE CHERIBON ATROCITY (July, 1945)
THE HOSPITAL MASSACRES
GENOCIDE IN SINGAPORE
THE HANKOW REPRISAL
SAN FERNANDO CEMETERY (1944)

I can go on but I probably made my point.

The evil somebody else commits doesn't change how evil you are.

War is a evil job. The quicker it ends the better off everyone is. Of course with a non evil person in charge, America would of done nothing and simply surrendered to Japan after Pearl Harbor.

Pandora wrote:The evil somebody else commits doesn't change how evil you are.

I agree with that 100% but, the more evil someone else is will probably determine how evil the response will be. (not conceding that dropping the bombs was evil)

People are forgetting just how insanely angry the US was at that time. (again not conceding that anything was done wrong) Nice to be able to look back…

Bee, just what political message was Truman trying to send? And to whom?

Spidey wrote:Bee, just what political message was Truman trying to send? And to whom?

In the spirit of objectivity. he was telling Stalin to watch out. Russia was grabbing too much power in europe and it had the west scared

Pandora wrote:The evil somebody else commits doesn't change how evil you are.

agreed but to say there was no evil on the other side or to intentionally ignore said evil, just so you can infer that it was all us is wrong also

CUDA wrote:

Spidey wrote:Bee, just what political message was Truman trying to send? And to whom?

In the spirit of objectivity. he was telling Stalin to watch out. Russia was grabbing too much power in europe and it had the west scared

And the sad thing, from seeing Bee's perspective, is Eisenhower proved to be the nuclear option guy much more than Truman! I don't fault Eisenhower for flaunting the nukes because he kept the USSR at bay with relative ease and little expense having that attitude but Truman was not the nuke 'em and let God sort them out kind of guy.
Truman's attitude was much more 'humanistic' trying to win the hearts and minds with diplomacy and foreign aid etc. where Eisenhower was basically an elite prick who would spend most of his presidency on the golf course!
Truman was a relatively gracious and compassionate guy who made a hard choice.

[Request @ Admin #2: This thread really needs a split.]

Duper wrote:You think that dropping the only 2 bombs we had was bad? Look into the kind of damage and horror that was created by the fire bombing we did. That, by FAR, was worse. ... most folks forget about that. We killed more and did more property damage to civilian and industrial quarters than the bombs did together.

Yes, absolutely, the fire-bombings of Tokyo and Dresden were far worse in terms of damage and civilians killed. Yes, those attacks are often forgotten.

Honestly, I've heard that point made many times before, but it makes little sense to me. Is "we've done worse" supposed to be a defense for the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings? I'm sorry, but that's hardly an ethical high ground.

Duper wrote:Talk to your GrandParents.

I know that suggestion wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to answer it.

I've talked with my maternal grandparents about the subject. My grandmother lived near Pearl Harbor during the attack; she mostly tells stories about the imposed blackouts on the islands during the war, but never says a word on the topic of the bombings. My grandfather served in the Navy, and staunchly defends the use of the bombs, based on a numerical figure he read somewhere about projected troop losses.

What's interesting is their perspective. Despite my grandmother's love for Japanese culture, when it comes to the war, their stories often depict "the Japs" as a sort of faceless evil (men, women, soldiers, civilians, there's not much distinction made) with the U.S. military men as the heroic figures. I don't blame them for feeling that way; after all, they lived through things I never experienced. However, talking with them about it did provide me some perspective on common perceptions, and how such an unthinkable decision could be made.

Will Robinson wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Spidey wrote:Bee, just what political message was Truman trying to send? And to whom?

In the spirit of objectivity. he was telling Stalin to watch out. Russia was grabbing too much power in europe and it had the west scared

And the sad thing, from seeing Bee's perspective, is Eisenhower proved to be the nuclear option guy much more than Truman! I don't fault Eisenhower for flaunting the nukes because he kept the USSR at bay with relative ease and little expense having that attitude but Truman was not the nuke 'em and let God sort them out kind of guy.
Truman's attitude was much more 'humanistic' trying to win the hearts and minds with diplomacy and foriegn aid etc. where Eisenhower was basically an elite prick who would spend most of his presidency on the golf course!
Truman was a relatively gracious and compassionate guy who made a hard choice.

AGREED Will,

also in the spirit of full disclosure. My wifes 1st cousin is a Truman. Grand nephew of Harry, so I do have a little more personal in-sight on Truman than most. I'm sure that Bee will imply that it has biased me. but that would not be the case

Foil wrote:

Duper wrote:Talk to your GrandParents.

I know that suggestion wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to answer it.

I've talked with my maternal grandparents about the subject. My grandmother lived near Pearl Harbor during the attack; she mostly tells stories about the imposed blackouts on the islands during the war, but never says a word on the topic of the bombings. My grandfather served in the Navy, and staunchly defends the use of the bombs, based on a numerical figure he read somewhere about projected troop losses.

What's interesting is their perspective. Despite my grandmother's love for Japanese culture, when it comes to the war, their stories often depict "the Japs" as a sort of faceless evil (men, women, soldiers, civilians, there's not much distinction made) with the U.S. military men as the heroic figures. I don't blame them for feeling that way; after all, they lived through things I never experienced. However, talking with them about it did provide me some perspective on common perceptions, and how such an unthinkable decision could be made.

people grow tired of war quickly. and there was a HUGE propaganda machine that tried to de-humanize the Japanese and make them out to be as evil as possible. which in reality was not a far stretch where the military was concerened. the series Victory at sea is a prime example(still an excellent series regardless). also watch the news-reels that they broadcast before movie's in the local theaters

CUDA wrote:

Pandora wrote:The evil somebody else commits doesn't change how evil you are.

agreed but to say there was no evil on the other side or to intentionally ignore said evil, just so you can infer that it was all us is wrong also

agreed!

Foil wrote:... I'm sorry, but that's hardly an ethical high ground.

heh, no, not defense or ethical high ground in my case, just simply that it was possibly the lesser of two evils and that previous attacks were more damaging and appalling.

the Grand-parent thing was to gain perspective; on the difference in the times, culture, attitude and fears. 1943 in the midst of a war where Many were dieing and resources were being nearly rationed and recycled for the war effort, people viewed life a good deal differently than we do now.

Here was my understanding of the situation:

It looked like the Japanese were not going to just surrender, and the war would drag on for a long time until either the people gave on their emperor, or the allied forces had occupied most of Japan.

So, the call was either do something horrible that would (hopefully) end it quick, or let it drag on for who know how long resulting in who know how much loss on both sides.

Did they operate on bad intelligence? Certainly. Intelligence is always flawed. Did they lick at their chops as they did it? I think not. Did Japan come out better for it? Maybe, Maybe not. (A long-drawn out invasion is not easy on your people.) Did the US come out better for it? Certainly.

All in all it made things a lot worse for some of the Japanese people. Who's to blame? Well, Truman pulled the trigger, but at the same time the US was desperately trying to stay out of the war until the Japanese dragged them into it. At the end of the day, I'd blame the Japanese leaders more than anything else.

snoopy wrote:Here was my understanding of the situation:

It looked like the Japanese were not going to just surrender, and the war would drag on for a long time until either the people gave on their emperor, or the allied forces had occupied most of Japan.

So, the call was either do something horrible that would (hopefully) end it quick, or let it drag on for who know how long resulting in who know how much loss on both sides.

Did they operate on bad intelligence? Certainly. Intelligence is always flawed. Did they lick at their chops as they did it? I think not. Did Japan come out better for it? Maybe, Maybe not. (A long-drawn out invasion is not easy on your people.) Did the US come out better for it? Certainly.

All in all it made things a lot worse for some of the Japanese people. Who's to blame? Well, Truman pulled the trigger, but at the same time the US was desperately trying to stay out of the war until the Japanese dragged them into it. At the end of the day, I'd blame the Japanese leaders more than anything else.

Good analogy

CUDA wrote:Good analogy

I wasn't aware that I was making an analogy.

snoopy wrote:

CUDA wrote:Good analogy

I wasn't aware that I was making an analogy.

Would you prefer summary

Dropping the bombs did do one thing for us that we likely would not have received otherwise: it secured an UNCONDITIONAL surrender from the Japanese. They may have been willing to surrender already which is part of what all the controversy is about, however they were very unlikely to sign an unconditional surrender till after the bombings.

The Japanese were probably ready to surrender before we dropped the bombs, they were probably even licking their chops at the prospect. By dropping the bombs Truman made sure the deal was good for us too. Argue all you like about the morals or ethics of it, doesn't change the fact that it worked and was the shortest path to lasting peace.

woodchip wrote:Of course with a non evil person in charge, America would of done nothing and simply surrendered to Japan after Pearl Harbor.

maybe, maybe not.

you can be a good person, realize that everything you hold dear will be destroyed in front of you, and take up a fight to stop it as best you can.

Sometimes good men do evil things to protect the ones he cares about.

Bet51987 wrote:In school I had a problem understanding how a nation like ours could ever do such a thing so I began digging a little deeper than most kids in my class. I wanted to find some kind of acceptable reason that would allow me to feel differently than the disgust I was feeling for my country but the more I researched, the more disgusted I became until I literally began to loathe Truman.

I can't recall everything I read but at the time leading up to the bombings it was well known by the entire allied command structure that Japan's military and industry was about finished. Their homeland was surrounded, no planes were flying, and no ships were allowed in or out. They were pretty much isolated from the rest of world.

I know what the japanese did to other people but what Truman did was far more heinous. He murdered innocent children on the way to school, teenagers waiting for a bus, moms feeding babies, grandparents, hospitals, schools, and countless thousands who had no interest in war. Worse, was the fact that when the destruction was known, Truman did it again in Nagasaki.


There could have been many ways to show the Japanese the power of the atom and hydrogen bombs and what destruction it could deliver. They just didn't want to use them and although this part can never be admitted, there is no doubt in my mind that the Truman administration realized as the war was dying down that it would be the last chance to test an atom bomb on a real target.

Bee

Japan hadn't surrendered, and the war was by no means completely finished. What Truman did was not heinous, in fact, it was incredibly humane. How many Russians died when Germany tried to invade it? They fought yard by yard, mile by mile, and MILLIONS were left dead. These were just soldiers trying to protect their country. A fight in Japan would have been much the same way. Millions of Americans, Millions of Japanese. Much more then two cities worth of damages caused. Many, many, more casualties.

When Truman used the atom bombs, he killed a lot of people, and it's saddening that that happened. But consider this- the atom bomb was a weapon that Japan did not have, and had no hope of competing against. When we used it, they realized its threat was real, and they realized we wern't afraid to use it. The atom bomb is the reason the war ended-it wasn't pure coincidence they surrendered a week after Hiroshima.

You complain that they dropped two bombs? To me, that's just ridiculous. If they only dropped one, it would have been rather pointless. Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb. If we never bombed again, then they would just figure that was the only one we had, and they'd keep fighting, much as before. Everyone who died in Hiroshima would've been for naught. 3 days later, when they hadn't surrendered, we bombed again. After that, they knew that if we had at least two bombs, we could have any number. THAT is when they surrendered.

You can talk about the 180.000 deaths of civilians that day, and blame it on Truman. And I agree that it is terrible that they died. But that 180,000 is NOTHING compared to the deaths we would have otherwise had. And if you think there wouldn't have been civilian deaths there too, you are very, very wrong.

Those bombings had an impact beyond just that war as well. Firstly, it let a lot of countries know that America was not the country to mess around with - a lesson, unfortunantly, not so true today. Secondly, the world could not ignore the dangers of this weapon. During the inevitable clash between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., each side had nukes. Thousands of them. In 1951, the U.S. released a hyrdrogen bomb 1,000 times the power of the Hiroshima\\Nagasaki bombs. These things were dangerous. But these bombs are a significant reason that the Cold War stayed cold. No one wanted to see these bombs used again. Neither side wanted to attack the other when these bombs were there.

Which would you perfer? Two bombs falling on Japan, showing the world their destructive power? Or thousands launched back and forth between the Soviet Union and America, in an Arm's race to annihilate the other, instead of an arm's race to simply own more weapons?

Thanks a lot, for letting Bee answer the question.

CUDA wrote:no the Hydrogen bomb was first detonated in Nov 1952

WORLDBOOK wrote: First Hydrogen bomb was was detonated 1949, first Soviet 1951. .

Did a paper on thermonuclear beginnings about a year ago. If you want info on it, I can probably post some sources

Well I didn't look it up. I went from memory

Hrm WiKi says first H bomb 11-1-52

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:Of course with a non evil person in charge, America would of done nothing and simply surrendered to Japan after Pearl Harbor.

maybe, maybe not.

you can be a good person, realize that everything you hold dear will be destroyed in front of you, and take up a fight to stop it as best you can.

Sometimes good men do evil things to protect the ones he cares about.

That was my point. Once the Japanese dragged us into war, most Americans were fighting to protect what was theirs. A greater evil would have been for us to do nothing and let the Japanese run amok.

CUDA wrote:Well I didn't look it up. I went from memory

And your memory is pretty good, because you were correct.

ya looked at a few other sites just to confirm all said 11-1-52

Since when did killing murderers become evil and not justice?
Japan attacked US first did they not? If that is the truth then there should be no argument as to what measure we fought back with in my opinion.
BEE what you have to understand is that life isn't always black or white, Truman may have had some political motivation to backup his reasoning for wanting to end the war quickly while showing the world the power of such a deadly weapon, but i believe you just can't paint someone like that as an evil person until you've been in their shoes.... which is obviously not the case in point.

What you seem to be arguing against from my perspective is the nature of self defense, would you call a random stranger an evil man if he saw some guy trying to sexually assault a child/young teenage girl and killed the attacker? i bet you wouldn't.
But you'll call an executive chief of the military mind you (not a group of punks, but a bunch of men trained for one reason: war, or military actions against any state that would otherwise bring harm to the united states) an evil murderer, heh.

For first H-Bomb? hmm...I must be thinking of something different...

Ah ha! Remember now! I think Soviet's got nukes 1949 (atomic), then we made our thermonuclear/fusion/hyrdrogen bomb then. The next year, in either March or April, Soviets used there's...anyways, I can't find the paper, I'll look for it later.

I think that's probably what you were thinking. that was late in 49

Wow, like 10 posts on one thread in a span of about 12 minutes. That's got to be a record for us (for this year anyways).

Stroodles wrote:...I agree that it is terrible that they died. But that 180,000 is NOTHING compared to the deaths we would have otherwise had.

Stroodles, as I said above, there's no way anyone could know that with any real certainty. I'm sorry, but predictions about how the Pacific war 'would have progressed' simply cannot be as reliable as you're implying.

Numerous attempts have been made to estimate military and civilian losses, but every one of them is highly speculative, and based on too many assumptions about political and military moves. There's simply too much involved to make a legitimate argument comparing death tolls.

People on both ends of the debate love to quote military leaders and cite examples which seem to support their side. But this only serves to reinforce the fact that there are far too many varied possibilities to have an accurate model.

Perhaps the bombs caused less death than otherwise; perhaps not. We just don't know. For anyone here claiming certainty about whether the war would have ended sooner or later or with X casualties or Y casualties: it's just not that definitive.


... So, rather than making unverifiable arguments comparing death tolls, how about making an argument about one of the larger questions ('necessary evils', or targeting of civilians, etc.)?

Behemoth wrote:Since when did killing murderers become evil and not justice?
Japan attacked US first did they not? If that is the truth then there should be no argument as to what measure we fought back with in my opinion.
BEE what you have to understand is that life isn't always black or white, Truman may have had some political motivation to backup his reasoning for wanting to end the war quickly while showing the world the power of such a deadly weapon, but i believe you just can't paint someone like that as an evil person until you've been in their shoes.... which is obviously not the case in point.

Exactly.

I almost view the bombs dropped on Japan as karma for Pearl Harbor.

Regardless of any information we have from both sides in retrospect, at the time Truman was faced with the dilemma of a for sure invasion that likely cost millions of lives, or dropping bombs on two cities.

Those were his options. In retrospect you can maybe go yeah maybe he could have done this or this, after 70 years of thinking about it.

Those two options were solid, it was what he had.

If you honestly say you'd choose the first option, I'd say that's far more heartless than what you're complaining about.

Spaceboy wrote:... a for sure invasion...

As I just said above, there's nothing "for sure" about it.

Bet says she's certain the war 'would have ended soon', and cites reasons for it.

Others like you and Stroodles say they're certain it 'would have become a protracted invasion', and cite reasons for it.

... but again, it's simply not that definitive. We just don't know, with any level of accuracy.