Should we have dropped Atomic bombs on Japan

[austenbosten]

I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove here. There were military outposts and bases all over Eastern Asia, and I wouldn’t list them all if I could. I don’t see what the point about not being targetable by conventional weaponry, either. The question isn’t whether or not an atom bomb can be used, but rather how its targets are selected.

No, when you have a specific weapon. You use it for a specific purpose. Otherwise you are wasting resources. You only have 2 nukes and to drop them on say a barracks is utterly foolish as the bomb can easily miss its target (Once again bombs were not “guided” back then, they were still free-fall bombs subject to missing their targets.)

But like I said, if you know of a military outpost that could cause the same effect as Hiroshima, please list them. Otherwise you’re giving out red-herrings.

I’ll say it again: you can’t target non-combatants. They may be unintended collateral damage, but they can’t be the direct target nor intended collateral damage, the latter being the case in this instance.

Truman and Sec of War Stimson clearly stated they did not seek to target civilians for collateral damage.

None were selected “purely” for their psychological impact. All of them, except the Emperor’s Palace, had strategic military value as well. My point is that the psychological impact of widespread, instantaneous destruction of whole cities was an important factor in the targeting decisions.

Yes, except Kyoto had no military targets. Yes instantaneous destruction was an important factor…taking out a city that normally took 5 days…and making it 5 minutes.

Hiroshima was also considered because it was an urban center. The focusing effect comment merely highlights that maximizing devastation was indeed a “positive” factor in their target selection, not an unintended side-effect.

Well you read my previous comment wrong. I said that the terrain was a positive factor, but not the overwhelming deciding factor. The fact that it was untouched, with strategic military and industrial value was the reasoning. It’s terrain was only an added bonus.

Saying that an urban center is full of civilians does not rule out rural areas having civilians, that’s just absurd. There were non-city targets available, but they were set aside in favor of urban ones, and that means that urban settings were targeted precisely because they were dense population centers where the power of the bomb could be immediately realized, and the Japanese government would not be able to ignore the power and will of the U.S. military.

Then don’t say urban=civilian.

Once again you claim there were non-city targets available but you never mention any of them. By the way, the US had already been bombing cities to the ground for 3 years how is this any different.

I have never said that the U.S. was bloodlusting, nor have I even said that they were purely targeting civilians. I said that civilian population density was a positive factor in determining placement of the bombs because of the psychological impact and the show of destructive power only such a target could provide.

No it’s military and industrial values were the factors. However that also means there is a high-population. You’re pulling a strawman.

Just because the military targets areas with a lot of military and industrial targets; does not mean they are doing it because there are a lot of people present.

I never have. I’ve simply pointed out that they weren’t chosen solely for their military value, and that’s the problem. Had they been chosen solely for their military value, even if the exact same targets were selected, it wouldn’t be a moral problem (or at least not the same problem, as proportionality would be a factor). The problem is that they were selected because they were high-density urban centers, rather than in spite of them being such.

Then you need to read more up on it, because that is clearly not the case. Once again re-read Truman and Sec of War Stimson. Regardless I’m finding this completely redundant because I am getting hit with circular arguments.

Pax Vobiscum

 

[PeterGStanley]

I think what should be recognized is at the time a race was on by the Soviets , Nazis and the Japanese along with the Americans to develop the A-bomb - the Americans just got there first and I wonder what would of happened if one of the other powers at the time had developed it first - we would be living in a different world - I think the bomb would of been used no matter what and who used it first is really the question and the answer - the least dangerous of them all developed it first thankfully and has used it responsibly I hope.I am not discounting the deaths of all those people - if only there had been another way.Nor do I agree with the use of such weapons. Its history now and we should never forget the devastation of using such a weapon or the long term effects because it doesn’t just effect the bomb area the radiation will affect all nations of the world and all people .

 

[austenbosten]

No one is claiming that nuking other targets would have had the same effect. We’re saying that no matter how good the effect, you can’t intentionally target civilians or indiscriminately cause their destruction.

Murdering a massive amount of civilians and military personel all at once, while also wiping out civilian and military property on a grand scale, is a highly effective means of psychological terrorism. It can make even evil Empires submit and end senseless wars. It is also absolutely morally wrong, and has been unequivocally condemned, and had been prior to WWII.

Peace and God bless!

Sorry but many have not condemned the dropping of the bombs, as tragic as it was. You do not have the authority to speak on behalf of all.

*“But [Japan] also showed a meanness and viciousness towards their enemies equal to the Huns’. Genghis Khan and his hordes could not have been more merciless. I have no doubts about whether the two atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary. Without them, hundreds of thousands of civilians in Malaya and Singapore, and millions in Japan itself, would have perished.” *

• Lee Kuan Yew, Former Prime Minister of Singapore

“If a means is justified by an end, the use of the atomic bomb was justified for it brought Japan to her knees and ended the horrible war. If the war had gone longer, without the use of the atomic bomb, how many thousands and thousands of helpless men, women and children would have needlessly died and suffer.”

• Philippine justice Delfin Jaranilla, of the Tokyo tribunal

*“I now have come to accept in my mind that in order to end the war, it could not be helped (Shikata ga nai) that an atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki and that countless numbers of people suffered great tragedy.” *

• Fumio Kyuma Japanese Defence Minister (2007)

“It’s very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima but it couldn’t be helped (Shikata ga nai) because that happened in wartime.*”

• Emperor Hirohito (1975)

So no, not everyone shares in your zealous condemnation of the tragic events that happened.

 

[austenbosten]

I think what should be recognized is at the time a race was on by the Soviets , Nazis and the Japanese along with the Americans to develop the A-bomb - the Americans just got there first and I wonder what would of happened if one of the other powers at the time had developed it first - we would be living in a different world - I think the bomb would of been used no matter what and who used it first is really the question and the answer - the least dangerous of them all developed it first thankfully and has used it responsibly I hope.I am not discounting the deaths of all those people - if only there had been another way.Nor do I agree with the use of such weapons. Its history now and we should never forget the devastation of using such a weapon or the long term effects because it doesn’t just effect the bomb area the radiation will affect all nations of the world and all people .

Well to be honest, Japan abandoned it’s A-bomb because of Emperor Hirohito’s command (remember he was god in Japan) and Germany never could get the heavy water needed to get the project up and running. That and most of their best scientests were gone because they were Jewish. Not to mention Werner Heisenberg simply did not want to be a part of the Nazi development of Shiva…so he had a part in mucking up their plans by not working entirely on the project. And the Soviets didn’t have any project at all, as far as I’m concern.

So really it was the US that developed it first, and sadly it would have only been a matter of time it would have been developed. I’m just glad it’s a de-facto banned weapon like poison gas. It truly is a terrible instrument of death.

 

[PeterGStanley]

Well to be honest, Japan abandoned it’s A-bomb because of Emperor Hirohito’s command (remember he was god in Japan) and Germany never could get the heavy water needed to get the project up and running. That and most of their best scientests were gone because they were Jewish. Not to mention Werner Heisenberg simply did not want to be a part of the Nazi development of Shiva…so he had a part in mucking up their plans by not working entirely on the project. And the Soviets didn’t have any project at all, as far as I’m concern.

So really it was the US that developed it first, and sadly it would have only been a matter of time it would have been developed. I’m just glad it’s a de-facto banned weapon like poison gas. It truly is a terrible instrument of death.

Agreed - it would of been developed even if the American had not done it first or had decided not to develop it and it would of been used.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Well to be honest, Japan abandoned it’s A-bomb because of Emperor Hirohito’s command (remember he was god in Japan) and Germany never could get the heavy water needed to get the project up and running. That and most of their best scientests were gone because they were Jewish. Not to mention Werner Heisenberg simply did not want to be a part of the Nazi development of Shiva…so he had a part in mucking up their plans by not working entirely on the project. And the Soviets didn’t have any project at all, as far as I’m concern.

So really it was the US that developed it first, and sadly it would have only been a matter of time it would have been developed. I’m just glad it’s a de-facto banned weapon like poison gas. It truly is a terrible instrument of death.

Nukes are not “a de-facto banned weapon like poison gas.”

 

[JimG]

Nukes are not “a de-facto banned weapon like poison gas.”

That’s true. In fact, during the Cold War, the U.S. Bishops, acting as the NCCB at that time, explicitly recognized the permissibility of a nuclear deterrent, which is itself nuclear, of course. That deterrent worked. Without it, and with the USSR’s nukes, the U.S. would have been subject to nuclear blackmail all over the world.

A nuclear bomb can be either large or small in yield. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki weapons were in the area of 14 to 20 kilotons. The earliest U.S. Minuteman I warhead had a yield of 1.2 megatons, compared to the current generation (Minuteman III) having a yield of 170 kilotons.

The USSR had weapons with yields as high as 20 megatons. I hope Russia no longer has weapons that powerful, as that would threaten the stability of the deterrent and make nuclear war more likely.

 

[GKC]

Well to be honest, Japan abandoned it’s A-bomb because of Emperor Hirohito’s command (remember he was god in Japan) and Germany never could get the heavy water needed to get the project up and running. That and most of their best scientests were gone because they were Jewish. Not to mention Werner Heisenberg simply did not want to be a part of the Nazi development of Shiva…so he had a part in mucking up their plans by not working entirely on the project. And the Soviets didn’t have any project at all, as far as I’m concern.

So really it was the US that developed it first, and sadly it would have only been a matter of time it would have been developed. I’m just glad it’s a de-facto banned weapon like poison gas. It truly is a terrible instrument of death.

Tell me about the Emperor and abandoning the two Japanese A bomb programs (Ni-Go and F-Go, the Army and the Navy programs). I’ve been through Wilcox’s JAPAN’S SECRET WAR:JAPAN’S RACE AGAINST TIME TO BUILD ITS OWN ATOMIC BOMB, and this doesn’t ring a bell. F-Go was still in operation at the end of the war.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Nukes are not “a de-facto banned weapon like poison gas.”

As a retired Air Force officer, I would agree. And if they were, I’m certain it would astonish my currently sreving Air Force officer daughter to learn of it.

Highly unlikely to be used, but in no sense banned.

GKC

 

[GKC]

No, when you have a specific weapon. You use it for a specific purpose. Otherwise you are wasting resources. You only have 2 nukes and to drop them on say a barracks is utterly foolish as the bomb can easily miss its target (Once again bombs were not “guided” back then, they were still free-fall bombs subject to missing their targets.)

But like I said, if you know of a military outpost that could cause the same effect as Hiroshima, please list them. Otherwise you’re giving out red-herrings.

Truman and Sec of War Stimson clearly stated they did not seek to target civilians for collateral damage.

Yes, except Kyoto had no military targets. Yes instantaneous destruction was an important factor…taking out a city that normally took 5 days…and making it 5 minutes.

Well you read my previous comment wrong. I said that the terrain was a positive factor, but not the overwhelming deciding factor. The fact that it was untouched, with strategic military and industrial value was the reasoning. It’s terrain was only an added bonus.

Then don’t say urban=civilian.

Once again you claim there were non-city targets available but you never mention any of them. By the way, the US had already been bombing cities to the ground for 3 years how is this any different.

No it’s military and industrial values were the factors. However that also means there is a high-population. You’re pulling a strawman.

Just because the military targets areas with a lot of military and industrial targets; does not mean they are doing it because there are a lot of people present.

Then you need to read more up on it, because that is clearly not the case. Once again re-read Truman and Sec of War Stimson. Regardless I’m finding this completely redundant because I am getting hit with circular arguments.

Pax Vobiscum

A point. We had 3 bombs at the time. The 3rd would have been available for use between roughly the 3rd week in August and the end of the month. The casings were already on Tinian, the plutonium core was in San Francisco, awaiting orders to ship. Groves informed Marshall’s office that the production schedule would make 5-6 more plutonium bomb available by the start date for OLYMPIC. Marshall had a sudden and unusual plan for them, which he directed all such bombs to be reserved. 15 August came first.

GKC

 

[austenbosten]

Nukes are not “a de-facto banned weapon like poison gas.”

Considering all the wars and conflicts since WWII with the avoidance of the use of nuclear weapons like the avoidance (doesn’t mean poison gas was never used – Abyssinia-Italian War) of poison gas. I would say by fact nuclear weapons are banned. Any nation using nuclear weapons in a conventional war would be severely persecuted by the world if it did not have just cause (and the justification for the use of nuclear weapons is minute).

The world is working on reducing the prevalence of nuclear weapons instead of increasing.

 

[GKC]

Considering all the wars and conflicts since WWII with the avoidance of the use of nuclear weapons like the avoidance (doesn’t mean poison gas was never used – Abyssinia-Italian War) of poison gas. I would say by fact nuclear weapons are banned. Any nation using nuclear weapons in a conventional war would be severely persecuted by the world if it did not have just cause (and the justification for the use of nuclear weapons is minute).

The world is working on reducing the prevalence of nuclear weapons instead of increasing.

I assure you, they are not banned.

GKC, USAF, ret.

 

[austenbosten]

Tell me about the Emperor and abandoning the two Japanese A bomb programs (Ni-Go and F-Go, the Army and the Navy programs). I’ve been through Wilcox’s JAPAN’S SECRET WAR:JAPAN’S RACE AGAINST TIME TO BUILD ITS OWN ATOMIC BOMB, and this doesn’t ring a bell. F-Go was still in operation at the end of the war.

GKC

I can’t remember the source, I could be wrong however, because you are right about F-Go

A point. We had 3 bombs at the time. The 3rd would have been available for use between roughly the 3rd week in August and the end of the month. The casings were already on Tinian, the plutonium core was in San Francisco, awaiting orders to ship. Groves informed Marshall’s office that the production schedule would make 5-6 more plutonium bomb available by the start date for OLYMPIC. Marshall had a sudden and unusual plan for them, which he directed all such bombs to be reserved. 15 August came first.

GKC

Well I guess I really should have said we had 2 assembled bombs with a 3rd ready to go.

 

[GKC]

I can’t remember the source, I could be wrong however, because you are right about F-Go

Well I guess I really should have said we had 2 assembled bombs with a 3rd ready to go.

Yep. And the delivery of the next 5-6 was scheduled for Sept-Oct.

GKC

 

[austenbosten]

I assure you, they are not banned.

GKC, USAF, ret.

Okay using the word banned was laziness on my part. They are not banned de jure, but de facto they are. They are highly discouraged in war. Nations still have them, nations still develop them, but to use in conventional battle is discouraged.

 

[GKC]

Okay using the word banned was laziness on my part. They are not banned de jure, but de facto they are. They are highly discouraged in war. Nations still have them, nations still develop them, but to use in conventional battle is discouraged.

Discouraged is certainly one way to look at it; they are not a weapon of first resort, under most circumstances. Moreover, they are illogical in such a context. But they are still quite readily available, for those nations that possess them, and in such circumstances as would warrant their use, in the eyes of the possessors.

You may trust me on this.

GKC

 

[Mar044]

Discouraged is certainly one way to look at it; they are not a weapon of first resort, under most circumstances. Moreover, they are illogical in such a context. But they are still quite readily available, for those nations that possess them, and in such circumstances as would warrant their use, in the eyes of the possessors.

You may trust me on this.

GKC

then again as canada and many nations including Japan signed a treaty banning landmines, america didn’t sign it, why would they, they chose the easy way to kill people.

shakes head, no matter the facts, i hear the same stories on this forum, japanese are sub human monsters like 9/11 they hurt us so they are forever monsters to us, and should be killed down to the last man, woman and child, forever and ever, as long as its not us, we dont care what happens, this is the attitude of MOST not all people.

look at japan of today, near 0 major crime rate, no wars, since ww2, how many wars as america been in, lecture a nation on being monsters because thats all you have! how many years the war has been over…

this is why I dont want to live in the west anymore, its we give a reason for everything and then try to make people forget when things are evil. how long did it take for americans to forget the stuff that happened in Guantanamo bay, you guys see the pictures of that sick stuff, tell me your not evil like the rest…oh wait, you will say its a small few…yet tons of examples of it.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

then again as canada and many nations including Japan signed a treaty banning landmines, america didn’t sign it, why would they, they chose the easy way to kill people.

shakes head, no matter the facts, i hear the same stories on this forum, japanese are sub human monsters like 9/11 they hurt us so they are forever monsters to us, and should be killed down to the last man, woman and child, forever and ever, as long as its not us, we dont care what happens, this is the attitude of MOST not all people.

look at japan of today, near 0 major crime rate, no wars, since ww2, how many wars as america been in, lecture a nation on being monsters because thats all you have! how many years the war has been over…

this is why I dont want to live in the west anymore, its we give a reason for everything and then try to make people forget when things are evil. how long did it take for americans to forget the stuff that happened in Guantanamo bay, you guys see the pictures of that sick stuff, tell me your not evil like the rest…oh wait, you will say its a small few…yet tons of examples of it.

Thank you for your efforts in dispelling the all too common belief that everyone on the internet who posts random rants that use very little logic or facts, but loads of self serving “I’m from country X, so I’m better than you” opinions and baseless assumptions is American. Please keep up your good work. Eh.

 

[Mar044]

Thank you for your efforts in dispelling the all too common belief that everyone on the internet who posts random rants that use very little logic or facts, but loads of self serving “I’m from country X, so I’m better than you” opinions and baseless assumptions is American. Please keep up your good work. Eh.

your right, because Canada actually does the actions it stands for, and backs up what it says,

America number1, bomb them all, who cares about afgan kids, or japs, or koreans, or chinese, or anyone else you can think of. be in denial that the world doesn’t hate you, oh man they hate our freedom oh oh…please…remember what goes around comes around, may be two 400 years later but you tought the world its ok to use the nuke if it solves a issue fast.

 

[austenbosten]

then again as canada and many nations including Japan signed a treaty banning landmines, america didn’t sign it, why would they, they chose the easy way to kill people.

shakes head, no matter the facts, i hear the same stories on this forum, japanese are sub human monsters like 9/11 they hurt us so they are forever monsters to us, and should be killed down to the last man, woman and child, forever and ever, as long as its not us, we dont care what happens, this is the attitude of MOST not all people.

look at japan of today, near 0 major crime rate, no wars, since ww2, how many wars as america been in, lecture a nation on being monsters because thats all you have! how many years the war has been over…

this is why I dont want to live in the west anymore, its we give a reason for everything and then try to make people forget when things are evil. how long did it take for americans to forget the stuff that happened in Guantanamo bay, you guys see the pictures of that sick stuff, tell me your not evil like the rest…oh wait, you will say its a small few…yet tons of examples of it.

your right, because Canada actually does the actions it stands for, and backs up what it says,

America number1, bomb them all, who cares about afgan kids, or japs, or koreans, or chinese, or anyone else you can think of. be in denial that the world doesn’t hate you, oh man they hate our freedom oh oh…please…remember what goes around comes around, may be two 400 years later but you tought the world its ok to use the nuke if it solves a issue fast.

Who here is calling the Japanese people monsters?

As far as I can see everyone on here (even those I disagree with) has been civil and rational. This post is anything but.