Support NeoGAF

[whipihguh]

A truly horrific event, to be sure. Like I said in the earlier thread, the atomic bombings will forever be a stain on humanity and it's history, whether or not their use was considered necessary.

 

[KHarvey16]

It's turning into the same content minus the ratings.

But do what you want

Well the rating was specifically what that thread was about and why it was closed. This here is a thread about the atomic bombing in which we're discussing...the atomic bombing.

 

[antonz]

I think it's safe to say, every major nation had a desire for the bomb in the war. I think it's even safer to say none even came close to possessing the resources needed to develop it other than the United States, whilst still engaging in a massive conventional war at the same time.

Very true through scientists involved in the Japanese program have stated they were far enough along but 2 critical issues plagued the program. Lack of Uranium and US Bombing had gotten lucky and knocked out key facilities.

 

[Bluth54]

No justification. It was an atrocity, a war crime if you will. Those who gave the order should have been arrested and imprisoned. Japan was surrendering, it wasn't if, they were but, we wanted to impress the Soviets. Horrific.

Absolutely not true, the Japanese were training their women and children to fight a US invasion (often with primitive weapons like spears and bows because they were running low on guns). As awful as the atomic bombs were if we had to invade Japan we probably would of seen huge numbers of American and Japanese casualties before the Japanese government finally surrendered.

 

[Jarrod38]

On the Smithsonian channel the other night they had a special on some survivors and the stories were so sad.

 

[JesseZao]

This represents the typically ignorant view of history so many have. The Japanese were not about to surrender, and we know this for a fact given the communications we intercepted from them at the time. Their plan was to prolong the war as long as possible and force an allied invasion. Until that happened, they were not going to give in. The emperor himself had to step in to end it, and when he did there was a coup attempt to kill him for it.

This is utterly disconnected from reality. Allied intelligence indicated that the Japanese were training their civilians for low-tech kamikaze-like combat, anticipating a landfall of American troops. They had attempted to court the Soviet Union to convince America to negotiate a peace that was favorable to the Japanese and would allow the militaristic and Imperial infrastructure to stay in power, but America balked at this because their very war aims lay in utterly dismantling the militarism that had made Japan such a threat to global security in the first place. The Japanese had no path to victory, but they had demonstrated, on island after island, a willingness to let FAR more of their people die prior to surrendering than any other nation in the war, and the high end of estimates for the cost of the invasion of Japan, which was GOING to happen with or without the bomb as far as allied commanders were concerned, was upwards of a million military and civilian deaths. The bombs were an attempt to avoid that.

There was actually a post by a Gaffer in the thread about Nanking in which he shared a short blog post by a noted historian who utterly dismantles the claim that Japan was on the path to an acceptable surrender prior to the atomic bombings. There simply is no evidence in the record left by the men at the pinnacle of Imperial Japan's regime that they were even considering a surrender prior to the one-two punch of the atomic bombings and the declaration of war by the Soviets.

Don't mind him. His agenda got in the way.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Many revisionist historians, maybe. The U.S. was absolutely preparing for an invasion of mainland Japan when the bombs when the top officials were made aware of the bombs being finished, and the more complexly designed one having been proven to work. Japan's ability to win the war was long past, but the Japanese had demonstrated that infamous "to the last man" fanaticism again and again throughout the Pacific campaign and were actually training women and children in the area where the invasion was expected to come to engage in what were effectively low-tech kamikaze attacks. Shit was fucked up.

This. There was even an attempted coup by top generals to continue fighting when the Emperor was calling for surrender with his famous national address.

The bombs and the process to create and use them were a technical marvel. An entire nations top minds being put forth in once concerted effort is still astonishing to think of even in this terrible context. The bombing is an atrocity that should never be repeated and at the same time shows how destructive we have become..

 

[water_wendi]

Many revisionist historians, maybe. The U.S. was absolutely preparing for an invasion of mainland Japan when the bombs when the top officials were made aware of the bombs being finished, and the more complexly designed one having been proven to work. Japan's ability to win the war was long past, but the Japanese had demonstrated that infamous "to the last man" fanaticism again and again throughout the Pacific campaign and were actually training women and children in the area where the invasion was expected to come to engage in what were effectively low-tech kamikaze attacks. Shit was fucked up.

Yea thats a bet that Chiang Kai-Shek lost.

 

[pa22word]

Absolutely not true, the Japanese were training their women and children to fight a US invasion (often with primitive weapons like spears and bows because they were running low on guns). As awful as the atomic bombs were if we had to invade Japan we probably would of seen huge numbers of American and Japanese casualties before the Japanese government finally surrendered.

Yep.

In the months preceding the bombings, US casualties had reached a peak 88,000 a month in the pacific theater alone. Waging an invasion on the Japanese homeland would have seen those numbers skyrocket, along with the millions of Japanese casualties it would have taken to subdue the country and end the war. 120-250k in two attacks may seem extraordinary, but it's a pittance compared to what it would have taken in a traditional invasion.

 

[sneakydomo]

The bombing was no more or less a crime than the strategic bombing of German and Japanese cities with conventional weapons that produced far greater casualties. No one really cares about that anymore, not as spectacular. I think what goes unsaid is that the two bombing reduced the chance of the weapons being used in the Cold War since we actually had seen their effects in the real world. The bombings may have actually ended up saving lives in the long term.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Well the rating was specifically what that thread was about and why it was closed. This here is a thread about the atomic bombing in which we're discussing...the atomic bombing.

Well, it started on a more thoughtful, interesting note and turned into a copy paste of the other thread, which I thought was regrettable. Oh well

 

[tearsintherain]

Scary thing to me is the Tsar bomb developed by the Soviet Union
http://gizmodo.com/5977824/the-biggest-bomb-in-the-history-of-the-world

1400 times the power of the bombs dropped in Japan. As much firepower as dropped in ALL OF WORLD WAR 2. And the Tsar was developed 50 years ago!!!

Imagine what nukes we may currently have in secret and what weapons we will have in the future. Something like a micro singularity, zero point energy, or anti-matter bomb could theoretically wipe out our entire planet or even the solar system.

 

[Skyzard]

They wanted to cause a fair bit of destruction. They could have shown the potential for it as a threat by not attacking cities.

The firebombing of Tokyo showed that wasn't a big ethical problem at the time. Countries were doing it to each other on a smaller scale when they could.

I see the need to morally justify it retrospectively for some though.

 

[brochiller]

This is utterly disconnected from reality. Allied intelligence indicated that the Japanese were training their civilians for low-tech kamikaze-like combat, anticipating a landfall of American troops. They had attempted to court the Soviet Union to convince America to negotiate a peace that was favorable to the Japanese and would allow the militaristic and Imperial infrastructure to stay in power, but America balked at this because their very war aims lay in utterly dismantling the militarism that had made Japan such a threat to global security in the first place. The Japanese had no path to victory, but they had demonstrated, on island after island, a willingness to let FAR more of their people die prior to surrendering than any other nation in the war, and the high end of estimates for the cost of the invasion of Japan, which was GOING to happen with or without the bomb as far as allied commanders were concerned, was upwards of a million military and civilian deaths. The bombs were an attempt to avoid that.

There was actually a post by a Gaffer in the thread about Nanking in which he shared a short blog post by a noted historian who utterly dismantles the claim that Japan was on the path to an acceptable surrender prior to the atomic bombings. There simply is no evidence in the record left by the men at the pinnacle of Imperial Japan's regime that they were even considering a surrender prior to the one-two punch of the atomic bombings and the declaration of war by the Soviets.

Yeah I mean, if they were already close to surrendering then why did it even take a second bomb? They would have surely surrendered after the first had they already been thinking about it.

 

[Jarrod38]

Scary thing to me is the Tsar bomb developed by the Soviet Union
http://gizmodo.com/5977824/the-biggest-bomb-in-the-history-of-the-world

1400 times the power of the bombs dropped in Japan. As much firepower as dropped in ALL OF WORLD WAR 2. And the Tsar was developed 50 years ago!!!

Imagine what nukes we may currently have in secret and what weapons we will have in the future. Something like a micro singularity, zero point energy, or anti-matter bomb could theoretically wipe out our entire planet or even the solar system.

We have one one that could level an entire city like NYC.
Ok I made that up.

 

[KHarvey16]

They wanted to cause a fair bit of destruction. They could have shown the potential for it as a threat by not attacking cities.

No, they couldn't have. Actually bombing two cities wasn't enough to convince the leadership council of the need to surrender.

 

[S-Wind]

Many historians these days would argue that the war was already basically over and the only reason the nukes were used was because the US had them, they were expensive, and they wanted to test them. And impress the Soviets.

What I would like to say would most likely get me banned...

 

[MRORANGE]

If anyone hasn't I recommend people watching the BBC documentary:

Hiroshima: Dropping the Bomb

also by the BBC is

Threads 1984

 

[Bodacious]

On the Smithsonian channel the other night they had a special on some survivors and the stories were so sad.

I expect they probably did something in the show about the Hiroshima Maidens? I was very fortunate to meet Helen Yokoyama a few years before she died. She was the maidens' chaperone/nurse/interpreter when they came to the USA. Helen was also friends with Pearl Buck. I was just in my early 20's then but she rarely got a chance to speak English anymore at that time so the mayor of the town I was living in asked me if I would visit with her. She had some amazing stories of the people she'd met, but from disuse she could barely speak English even though she had lived in California until she was a teenager.

 

[Skyzard]

No, they couldn't have. Actually bombing two cities wasn't enough to convince the leadership council of the need to surrender.

You mean it was having to deal with the Russians that pushed them?

... as well the risk of further attacks by the bombs...which could have been demonstrated on something that wasn't a city, explicitly warning of proper attacks.

 

[Suikoguy]

How large scale was the civilian training for expected US Invasion?

I did not know about that, and it changes my opinion a bit about US action.

 

[hunnies28]

That's a lot of destruction for an immature species such as us.

 

[DarkFlow]

Why do people think Japan was about to surrender? They were already in the mindset they were going to lose, but they wanted to take as many Americans as they could with them. All you have to look at is Iwo Jima and Okinawa. They inflicted heavy casualties on US forces with a relatively small force. The prospect of than invading mainland Japan was daunting and was no doubt going to be bloody. Much more bloody than what we did when we dropped the bombs.

How large scale was the civilian training for expected US Invasion?

I did not know about that, and it changes my opinion a bit about US action.

That might not even have been a problem, it was civilians committing suicide like they had on Okinawa because they were told Americans would butcher them.

 

[Wereroku]

They wanted to cause a fair bit of destruction. They could have shown the potential for it as a threat by not attacking cities.

The firebombing of Tokyo showed that wasn't a big ethical problem at the time. Countries were doing it to each other on a smaller scale when they could.

I see the need to morally justify it retrospectively for some though.

Your statement doesn't make any sense. The firebombing killed just as many people as the nukes. Also the potential of the Nukes had nothing to do with their surrender. I mean hell they didn't surrender after we used the first one and we gave them time to.

That's a lot of destruction for an immature species such as us.

The firebombing of tokyo and regular bombing of many german cities caused more death so there really wasn't much of a change except for the ecological effects. Modern atomic weapons are a much different discussion.

 

[Jarrod38]

I expect they probably did something in the show about the Hiroshima Maidens? I was very fortunate to meet Helen Yokoyama a few years before she died. She was the maidens' chaperone/nurse/interpreter when they came to the USA. Helen was also friends with Pearl Buck. I was just in my early 20's then but she rarely got a chance to speak English anymore at that time so the mayor of the town I was living in asked me if I would visit with her. She had some amazing stories of the people she'd met, but from disuse she could barely speak English even though she had lived in California until she was a teenager.

Nope it to be fair it was a average special. Felt like it could have been long to give the survivors a more time to share their stories.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

I learned some US history in this thread. Cool. Didn't know why the US decided to do it but I guess they were thinking many moves ahead. Must have been a crazy hard choice to make.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Scary thing to me is the Tsar bomb developed by the Soviet Union
http://gizmodo.com/5977824/the-biggest-bomb-in-the-history-of-the-world

1400 times the power of the bombs dropped in Japan. As much firepower as dropped in ALL OF WORLD WAR 2. And the Tsar was developed 50 years ago!!!

Imagine what nukes we may currently have in secret and what weapons we will have in the future. Something like a micro singularity, zero point energy, or anti-matter bomb could theoretically wipe out our entire planet or even the solar system.

Tsar bomba wasn't deliverable by ICBM like the US' biggest warhead at 35 MT. We had a warhead atop a missile with a 35 MT yield. Horrific.

 

[midramble]

Now they have delicious oysters, a killer baseball team, the best pool cue tips on the planet, and my in-laws.

Truly though, the peace plaza is one of the most surreal and solemn places I've ever been. Realizing you stand at the place of possibly the most notorious single event in world history.

Cheers to the fight for peace.

 

[KHarvey16]

You mean it was having to deal with the Russians that pushed them?

... as well the risk of further attacks by the bombs...which could have been demonstrated on something that wasn't a city, explicitly warning of proper attacks.

The Japanese planned to force an allied invasion. This is a fact and we know it is because we have their secret communications from the time. Again, they almost didn't surrender as it was and the emperor stepping in was the only reason they did. They tried to kill him for it. Just think about that.

 

[Oersted]

Yep.

In the months preceding the bombings, US casualties had reached a peak 88,000 a month in the pacific theater alone. Waging an invasion on the Japanese homeland would have seen those numbers skyrocket, along with the millions of Japanese casualties it would have taken to subdue the country and end the war. 120-250k in two attacks may seem extraordinary, but it's a pittance compared to what it would have taken in a traditional invasion.

Where does the consensus (?) come from that the only use of the atom bombs was to kill thousands of civilians and make the survivors suffer for generations to come?

 

[Baki]

It's sickening to imagine that something like this saved lives in the long run, above all else it's a stern reminder of what the Cold War could have looked like.

According the allies (read US) narrative, sure.

What the US did was unacceptable - and they should offer an official apology. As symbolic as it may be.

 

[Rafterman]

You mean it was having to deal with the Russians that pushed them?

... as well the risk of further attacks by the bombs...which could have been demonstrated on something that wasn't a city, explicitly warning of proper attacks.

Bombing a non populated area would have just strengthened their resolve. They were already assuming we only had a couple of bombs, what makes you think wasting one to show strength would have scared them when even the first bomb drop didn't?

 

[Skyzard]

^ If US used one as a deterrent out of good conscious it would make them think they had none left?

Your statement doesn't make any sense. The firebombing killed just as many people as the nukes. Also the potential of the Nukes had nothing to do with their surrender. I mean hell they didn't surrender after we used the first one and we gave them time to.

That's the point really...? I guess I see how some people don't take as much issue with the firebombing as they do the nukes, which is a bit odd. But I was talking about the ethics of major civilian kill counts with attacks at the time. They just did it, didn't they.

I replied to someone else making a similar point as the second part of what you said, just a few posts up.

 

[whipihguh]

Scary thing to me is the Tsar bomb developed by the Soviet Union
http://gizmodo.com/5977824/the-biggest-bomb-in-the-history-of-the-world

1400 times the power of the bombs dropped in Japan. As much firepower as dropped in ALL OF WORLD WAR 2. And the Tsar was developed 50 years ago!!!

Imagine what nukes we may currently have in secret and what weapons we will have in the future. Something like a micro singularity, zero point energy, or anti-matter bomb could theoretically wipe out our entire planet or even the solar system.

I have my doubts that there are secret giant nukes at our disposal these days. Tsar Bomba was the last "bigger and better" atomic bomb, because while they were psychologically impressive, it wasn't very practical compared to a tactical bombing using multiple nukes. I think it's sheer size and power threatened the crew deploying the thing in the first place. On top of that, it was made especially redundant with the creation of continental ICBMs.

 

[Wereroku]

Where does the consensus (?) come from that the only use of the atom bombs was to kill thousands of civilians and make the survivors suffer for generations to come?

The president and generals at the time. They were used as a show of overwhelming force to force a surrender.

^ If we had one to waste as a deterrent out of good conscious would make them think US had none left?

That's the point really.

I replied to someone else making a similar point as the second part of what you said, just a few posts up.

Yes but they had endured multiple firebombing and showed no sign of surrendering. They weren't scared of us. The atomic bombs were used to create fear and force a surrender. Everything else was having little effect.

According the allies (read US) narrative, sure.

What the US did was unacceptable - and they should offer an official apology. As symbolic as it may be.

Why should the US apologize to the aggressor in the war? Has the Allied powers apologized for leveling many german cities?

 

[Bodacious]

Nope it to be fair it was a average special. Felt like it could have been long to give the survivors a more time to share their stories.

They sure didn't do much of a job of it if the Hiroshima Maidens weren't covered. I actually met a number of bomb survivors when I lived there, and of course heard plenty of stories from people who lost someone. I met a woman who was 96 years old (this was in 1992) who lost one of her sons at Hiroshima ... he had ridden into the city by train the night before and was staying in a hotel. Then her grandson who was telling me this told me she had another son who was a fighter pilot who died in a kamikaze attack on an American carrier. Didn't really know what to say at that point.

My wife's great uncle also died in a kamikaze flight, 24 years before she was born.

The Japanese planned to force an allied invasion. This is a fact and we know it is because we have their secret communications from the time. Again, they almost didn't surrender as it was and the emperor stepping in was the only reason they did. They tried to kill him for it. Just think about that.

I've seen actual 'ruins' of trenches/landworks that civilians were digging in preparation for the land war. They weren't about to quit.

 

[Darksol]

Justified or not, necessary or not, I hope it never happens again (although it most certainly will)

 

[pa22word]

I learned some US history in this thread. Cool. Didn't know why the US decided to do it but I guess they were thinking many moves ahead. Must have been a crazy hard choice to make.

If you want to trace US thinking on dropping the bombs, my best bet would be to take a look into William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea campaign during the US civil war. Sherman's type of "total warfare" involved breaking the will and fighting spirit of the people of the south as fast and as brutally as possible in order to bring about the end of the war sooner, because prolonging the war would have meant more overall destruction in the long run.

 

[KHarvey16]

^ If US used one as a deterrent out of good conscious it would make them think they had none left?

So destroying two cities barely caused surrender, and you want to use one in an unpopulated area to do what, exactly? Why would they have been more afraid of a bomb that damaged nothing?

 

[Davey Cakes]

Going by the context of the time, it sounds like the bombs were necessary evils. The Japanese were willing to drag everyone else down with them.

Hopefully that will never be the case again, with such radical behavior only being limited to terrorist groups rather than entire nations.

 

[Wereroku]

Justified or not, necessary or not, I hope it never happens again (although it most certainly will)

War is probably always going to happen. Unfortunately the creation of Nuclear weapons has lead to a much more potent threat due to the amount of damage even a small weapon can cause. However the sad part is a large enough supply of conventional munitions will cause just as much damage and death so even if we never use another nuke we can still destroy the world.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

I still don't believe that it took the wiping of 200k ppl in order to get them to surrender and force the crazy loyal to not back down.

Because the precedent is kind of crazy - with that reasoning, why don't we do the same for ISIS or North Korea?

I think many, many people - if they could go back in time again - would not have dropped the bomb. Power was not an issue - the US also had the ability to firebomb as well which could have crippled the cities easily as well

 

[Oersted]

The president and generals at the time. They were used as a show of overwhelming force to force a surrender.

Makes you wonder how many more civilians they would have been willing to erase.

I still don't believe that it took the wiping of 200k ppl in order to get them to surrender and force the crazy loyal to not back down.

Because the precedent is kind of crazy - with that reasoning, why don't we do the same for ISIS or North Korea?

I think many, many people - if they could go back in time again - would not have dropped the bomb. Power was not an issue - the US also had the ability to firebomb as well which could have crippled the cities easily as well

They tried it with napalm in Korea.

 

[Alucrid]

I still don't believe that it took the wiping of 200k ppl in order to get them to surrender and force the crazy loyal to not back down.

Because the precedent is kind of crazy - with that reasoning, why don't we do the same for ISIS or North Korea?

I think many, many people - if they could go back in time again - would not have dropped the bomb. Power was not an issue - the US also had the ability to firebomb as well which could have crippled the cities easily as well

ISIS isn't a country. North Korea can attack our allies in the south quite easily.

 

[reckless]

I still don't believe that it took the wiping of 200k ppl in order to get them to surrender and force the crazy loyal to not back down.

Because the precedent is kind of crazy - with that reasoning, why don't we do the same for ISIS or North Korea?

I think many, many people - if they could go back in time again - would not have dropped the bomb. Power was not an issue - the US also had the ability to firebomb as well which could have crippled the cities easily as well

Considering Japan barely surrendered after both bombs,and there was an attempted coup to stop the surrender... They seemed pretty necessary.

More people would have died if we decided to drag the war out conventionally.

 

[KHarvey16]

I still don't believe that it took the wiping of 200k ppl in order to get them to surrender and force the crazy loyal to not back down.

Because the precedent is kind of crazy - with that reasoning, why don't we do the same for ISIS or North Korea?

I think many, many people - if they could go back in time again - would not have dropped the bomb. Power was not an issue - the US also had the ability to firebomb as well which could have crippled the cities easily as well

Continuing to firebomb would have killed far more people, not to mention the countless numbers that would starve if the war were allowed to continue.

We don't do the same for every situation because, obviously, every situation is different.

 

[Skyzard]

So destroying two cities barely caused surrender, and you want to use one in an unpopulated area to do what, exactly? Why would they have been more afraid of a bomb that damaged nothing?

I'm sure they had some smart guys that would relay the extent of the situation to the people in charge, explicitly if they were told it was a warning.

So it would have the same threat...just less devastation and shock on the people...which didn't phase the higher ups that wanted to carry on until the Russians.


We still use sanctions to cause really poor living conditions including starvation for the people in countries in hopes that it gets them to revolt against enemies.

It's still worth it, apparently.

 

[Wereroku]

Makes you wonder how many more civilians they would have been willing to erase.

Well you don't have to wonder. They estimated anywhere from 100k to 250k. But they had estimates showing a full scale invasion of Japan causing millions in civilian and military casualties. It was really a rock and a hard place. They had decided less death would come from this route.

I'm sure they had some smart guys that would relay the extent of the situation to the people in charge, explicitly if they were told it was a warning.

So it would have the same threat...just less devastation and shock on the people...which didn't phase the higher ups that wanted to carry on until the Russians.

It would have been relied to the generals who had no intention of surrendering. This was to send a message to the people of Japan. You can't hide 2 cities completely disappearing within a matter of days.

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm sure they had some smart guys that would have been able to relay the extent of the situation of a bombing like that, explicitly if told it was a warning.

So it would have the same threat...just less of an extreme shock...which didn't phase the people that wanted to carry on until the Russians.

They dropped leaflets before the bombing, telling civilians what we had and what it was capable of. They were told to evacuate.

It STILL TOOK doing it twice to force the emperor to step in and take over to declare the surrender. They still tried to kill him for it. You so badly want to believe this was unnecessary that you're ignoring the realities of the situation.

 

[antonz]

When you look at the last Major ground battles between the United States and Japan and the casualties it becomes a lot easier to see the argument for the usage of the bombs at that time.

Okinawa's own records indicate 240,734 people died Soldier and Civilian total.