The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[PolarGuy]

Interesting that Latias has fled, supposedly because she’s now satisfied that my statements about the German army were wrong.

Huh?

How about “I’m leaving because you had a documented answer to everything I said and no one wants to talk about the Russians.”

Ryan, your argument breaks down for many reasons. First, it wrongly assumes that the civilians were just that. These folks were armed as combatants and were just as great a threat to, say, downed airmen, as were uniformed soldiers. Second, if your reasons is accepted, any target becomes illegitimate if civilians happen to be around. The areas targeted were major industrial centers; civilians were factory workers in the war effort; a major army headquarters was present as well. At some point, these become legitimate war target, particularly in a war japan started.

 

[Tomdstone]

The civilians killed by the atomic bomb are not guilty of the crimes you list.

Of course not. Especially the children who had their bodies burned and disfigured, running around like zombies, crying out for mercy, pleading for water.

 

[GKC]

Is it justifiable? What are the arguments adduced to support the decision by Truman.

Was it necessary to avert Operation Downfall? Or the Japanese population would have surrendered because their logistics had been destroyed by a naval blockade and B-29 raids. Furthermore, the Soviets invaded Manchuria.

This seems fun.. This too.

I’m leaving town tomorrow, for a trip of several days. But this subject has been a hobby of mine for around 20 years. I’ve posted something over 500 times on it, limiting myself to the historical, not the moral issues, for reasons I explain. I’m not going to try to reply in detail, here, now, but you can find my posts, under my name and the likely key words, over the past few years.

In brief, the bombs achieved the earliest end to the hostilities, with the least casualties/deaths, of all participants in the PTO, of any conceivable alternative. The best single book on the subject is Frank’s DOWNFALL. I can offer at least a dozen more of similar quality, from my collection of over 100 titles related to it.

I hate this time of the year. But it adds greatly to my post total, if I chose to participate.

 

[GKC]

This has been argued to death previously. Scientists at the time urged the President that high Japanese officials should view a demonstration of one of the bombs in a relatively barren area before dropping it on a populated one. That idea was rejected. I have read about the detailed plans to invade, but it was clear that military commanders in the field did not understand atomic bombs fully. To them, they were just very powerful bombs. One scenario involved dropping more than one bomb in the enemy’s rear area, destroying reinforcements and equipment and making it less likely the invasion beaches could be resupplied or reinforced. However, every member of the population that could carry even pointed sticks would attempt to repel the invaders, including women and children. Pamphlets were issued showing which parts of the body would be most vulnerable.

The Emperor was regarded as a god. In the meantime, two meetings took place involving the major Allied leaders, including one in Cairo with Chiang Kai-shek and his wife, who were also, according to recent scholarship, at the meeting in Tehran. The Russians were highly suspect since mid-1944 among the other Allies. Their taking of Japan would have been unacceptable.

Ed

Hi, Ed.

It’s certainly been thoroughly thrashed here.

 

[GKC]

I tried to find the earlier threads on this subject, but have never been able to use the search function effectively. In any case, the matter was covered quite exhaustively in those earlier threads. Based on those, I believe that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings saved thousands of Allied and Japanese lives by shortening the war. I make no judgment on the morality of the bombings, just that they saved lives by shortening the war. At that point in the war, if I recall correctly, casualties were about 100,000 per month in the Pacific theater.

As for the morality of the bombings, is there any difference between the atomic bombings of those two cities, and the fire-bombing of Tokyo which cost more lives? Or the fire bombing of Dresden? If anyone thinks an invasion would have been quick and easy, review the battle statistics for Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and other Pacific battles.

It is noteworthy that it took two atomic bombs to end the war. Not one. If the first one did not do it, neither would a demonstration bomb.

Try a search, my board name as author, the two cities, atomic bomb,ketsu-go, Anami, Supreme Committee on the Conduct of the War, Saiko Senso Shido Kaigi, gozen kaigan**kokutai, stuff like that, as key words. At least 5-6 threads, over something like 7-8 years

You may remember a few of them.

Theater casualties, all sources, varied from 100,000+ to over 200,000, monthly, last year of the war.

A quick look over the historical (not the moral ) comments shows that nothing much changes.