I was watching a documentary on BBC i player regarding facility at Los Alamos during WW2 to build the atomic bomb. A number of scientists at the time were very uneasy about the US using the bomb against Japan. One scientist did suggest that the US should have demonstrated the power of the bomb to Japan first.

The reason for my post is that I never hear any mention of the poor innocent civilians who were killed by the 2 bombs the US dropped. With such a destructive power you are not just bomb strategic targets, you are basically saying ‘let’s wipe everything out’.

I never hear any mention of the poor innocent civilians who were killed by the 2 bombs the US dropped.

I don’t think you’ve been listening very well; every documentary or whatever I’ve ever seen about the dropping off the bomb talks about the civilian death toll, indeed there was a whole series of them the other week on the BBC.

One scientist did suggest that the US should have demonstrated the power of the bomb to Japan first.

That is precisely what they did. Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were important strategic targets.

And for decades CND has commemorated Hiroshima Day annually focusing on the deaths of ‘the poor innocent civilians who were killed’.

Yup, you never seen that enduring image of the screaming child with its skin dripping off standing in front of, well, nothing left of the city?
Where have you been all these years?
Or,
You are 7

For example:

WW2: The doctor who treated Hiroshima victims – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33675622

I have seen the awful image of that poor child. What I meant to say is do the US remember the victims or do they choose to ignore the atrocity that was committed?

I think some people might be getting the weapons of mass destruction used by the United States mixed up. The infamous image of ‘a screaming child with its skin dripping off’ is of a chemical weapon attack by the United States in Vietnam.

What I meant to say is do the US remember the victims or do they choose to ignore the atrocity that was committed?

The use of the atomic bombs saved lives.

Japan was never going to surrender even with the massive conventional air raids it was enduring. You do realise that the atomic attacks were not the most destructive Japan suffered? Google Operation Meeting House

An invasion of mainland Japan would of meant massive loss of life for Allied servicemen.

Also,if you want to know about atrocities Google The Nanking Massacre.

It is widely accepted that dropping nuclear bombs on Japan shortened the war by about six months. No one believes that the war would have continued indefinitely had nuclear weapons not been used.

Also,if you want to know about atrocities Google The Nanking Massacre.

Whataboutery – the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn’t commit those atrocities.

The US was definitely demonstrating the power of the bombs – but they weren’t just demonstrating them to the Japanese. They were also a demonstration to the Soviet Union.

Whataboutery – the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn’t commit those atrocities.

The japanese people gave massive support for Military culture that led to those atrocities.

They were also a demonstration to the Soviet Union.

Probably a good thing they did.

shortened the war by about six months

That would of been some 6 months. The US Marines suffered 20,000 casualties on Iwo Jima in about 1 month of fighting. The Japanese defense of the mainland would of been even more determined.

Ah yes indeed, Napalm in Vietnam.

Sorry.

Still a shite awful image that has a link to H-Boms though.

Makes me sick thinking of the bloody awful stuff the US has done. I lived there upto the age of 17 and makes me feel weird.

Poor Kid 😕

Ah yes indeed, Napalm in Vietnam.

And let’s not forget the use of napalm in the firebombing of Tokyo, which probably caused greater loss of life in a single raid than either of the atomic bombs.

War makes monsters of us all.

Ohhh this has made me all angry… Damn those sodding Americans 👿

Thank God we are far removed from the horror of all out war here in Western Europe that we don’t have to make decisions that may save or kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.

(OK, Iraq disproves my point)

Too easy to try and judge decisions made 70 years ago with little real knowledge of the longer term impact by our modern terms and understanding.

Pray we never have to make such decisions again, for right or wrong.

Ohhh this has made me all angry… Damn those sodding Americans

You do know about the minor issue of a preemptive strike in 1941?

We can focus on a single event but simple fact is that carpet bombing and the like was the tool of war at the time, civilians were legitimate targets….So using the bomb wasn’t really that much of a stretch from that.

Ultimately though what baffles me is how Japan, and Germany went about their respect wars. They really must be the 2 most suicidal nations in history. Slower progress would have resulted in much more success for them. (ie taking one war at a time instead of opening up multiple fronts.)

I know a bit about the war yes, clearly. However I grew up I the states in the mid 70’s through 80’s and these acts of barbaric destruction were wiped from my school books back then.

I just don’t get the total disregard for human and animal life…

Thankfully I don’t get it.

It is widely accepted that dropping nuclear bombs on Japan shortened the war by about six months.

Careful, it depends which propaganda you wish believe/have been spoon fed.

VJ Day Celebrations are not about dropping a bomb on 2 cities, but about the men who died and fought in the far east, including my Great Grand Father in Law

*goes off to ride bike

yes, that 6 months number is tosh in my view.

Normal warfare would have lasted forever, the Japanese would not have surrendered unless something of this magnitude was there to show them how pointless carrying on was.

My father used to say how they would capture prisoners, keep them for a couple of days, then let them go – safe in the knowledge that they would be executed by their own side on return due to the shame of being captured.

It is hard enough now fighting a war in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, let alone incredibly dense forests.

OP,

The Fatboy and Little man were meant to be.

The number of people suffered or died were negligible in the grand scheme of this universe especially in Japan.

Remember the slaughter of Nanjing and disruption to lives in other part of Asia just because Japan wanted to create a “paradise” in their own image? I mean they thought they were superior …

Japan must be stopped, at that time, at all cost and they were a taught a very good lesson that Fatboy and Little man would ensure their actions were etched in their minds for many generations to come.

Remember winner dictates the rules.

Sympathy? Nahhh … that is just how nature works.

Look at the modern conflict in middle east I foresee an entire region if not half of the population being wiped out there … Look at the people that dictate the rules there now. They are creating and extending “paradise” in their own images! They are no different to Japan in WWII. You think they will surrender? You think they will show sympathy to other beings?

If there need to be a nuclear war that wipe out 3/4 of the earth population then so be it coz we are parasites …

There are many ways not to start a war but the temptation to dominate over rules all of them.

🙄

Normal warfare would have lasted forever

The Japanese military were losing territory at a growing rate, they could not have continued to lose territory indefinitely. It is very clearly nonsense to claim that we would still be at war with Japan had nuclear weapons not been invented.

ernie_lynch – Member

Normal warfare would have lasted forever

The Japanese military were losing territory at a growing rate, they could not have continued to lose territory indefinitely. It is very clearly nonsense to claim that we would still be at war with Japan had nuclear weapons not been invented. [/quote]

Nahhh … it’s a way to quicken the end of war. After all war in Europe ended before them. Remember we need to coincide victories.

Besides, who want to keep fighting hand to hand combat (no distinction between combatant or civilian – all classified as enemy) when the technology is there to incinerate the lot of them and still come up as victor and morally superior eh?

Also there must be targets to test out Fatboy and Little man … you cannot just drop/test them in the oceans destroying the creatures of the sea.

In 1983, at the annual observance of Hiroshima’s destruction, an aging Japanese professor recalled that at war’s end, due to the extreme food rationing, he had weighed less than 90 pounds and could scarcely climb a flight of stairs. “I couldn’t have survived another month,” he said. “If the military had its way, we would have fought until all 80 million Japanese were dead. Only the atomic bomb saved me. Not me alone, but many Japanese, ironically speaking, were saved by the atomic bomb.”

Eugene Sledge published his combat memoir in 1981. He describes the moment when they first heard about the atom bomb, having just survived the Okinawa campaign:

We received the news with quiet disbelief coupled with an indescribable sense of relief. We thought the Japanese would never surrender. Many refused to believe it. Sitting around in stunned silence, we remembered our dead. So many dead. So many maimed. So many bright futures consigned to the ashes of the past. So many dreams lost in the madness that had engulfed us. Except for a few widely scattered shouts of joy, the survivors sat hollow-eyed and silent, trying to comprehend a world without war.

lots more arguments on this page :

http://www.authentichistory.com/1939-1945/1-war/4-Pacific/4-abombdecision/2-support/

feel free to rubbish them…

That’s it though. The mentality of the Japanese at the time was a strange mix of militaristic and superiority to other eaces but subservient to their superiors in what was effectively the remnants of a feudal system.
Fanatics in all levels of society would have carried on fighting and dieing for the emperor. They may have lost a lot of ground but it was seen as a difficult war if you had to take it to Japan. The atomic bombs were devastating but effectively changed a nation in the space of a week.

Well I’m back from riding and whilst out I dug damn deep on one long section to try and mitigate some of the internal frustration I felt earlier.

My legs hurt.

Nowhere near as much as those that got obliterated though.

Do I feel better? Sure, who doesn’t after a rideout. 😐

feel free to rubbish them…

Well if you want to claim that we would still be at war with Japan had it not been for nuclear weapons then that’s up to you, I’m not going to waste my time arguing against that.

Of course that fact that Japan did indeed surrender totally undermines the claim that they would not surrender.

Never at any time after Pearl Harbor did it look like Japan might win the war, their eventual defeat was a certainty.

The only thing up for discussion is by how much the nuclear attack on Japan shorten the war. And of course whether it was morally justified.

There’s a documentary about Nanking on Netflix, can’t remember what it’s called but it’s worth a watch and the book The Rape of Nanking is worth a read. Or maybe don’t. We all know from films and popular culture how the Japanese treated western POWs. How they treated the Chinese was one of the most brutal atrocities of WWII or any war.

Their attitude towards their enemies was shocking. Had the US not dropped the bomb they could have become bogged down in decades of guerrilla warfare in Japan. Have they ever officially apologized or acknowledged their war crimes? I recall seeing something a few years ago about the Japanese educational system pretty much glosses over their involvement.

Why on earth would dropping nuclear weapons stop “decades of guerrilla warfare in Japan” ? You can use nuclear weapons in conditions of guerrilla warfare ?

And why would it be limited to “decades” ?

Why on earth would dropping nuclear weapons stop “decades of guerrilla warfare in Japan” ? You can use nuclear weapons in conditions of guerrilla warfare ?

And why would it be limited to “decades” ?

because if they hadn’t have been shocked into surrender the war would have carried on with the fighting in jungles and cities and it is very hard to win a guerrilla war.

From that article :

“Field Marshall Hisaichi Terauchi had ordered that all 100,000 Allied prisoners of war be executed if the Americans invaded. ”

so apart from all the war crimes that they were routinely performing by working POWs to death building stuff, they would have cheerfully added to it.

“In his 1944 “emergency declaration,” Prime Minister Hideki Tojo had called for “100 million gyokusai,” and that the entire Japanese population be prepared to die.”

and the nation is probably no less gullible now :

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iruuJj1e3Kk&index=101&list=FLDvuJ8FNiH2DwBxExVatdWA[/video]

And on the moral justification front, from that article:

“The study done for Secretary of War Stimson predicted five to ten million Japanese fatalities.”, which is less than those killed by the bombs.

ernie_lynch – Member

Why on earth would dropping nuclear weapons stop “decades of guerrilla warfare in Japan” ?

Calm down dear, all you or I can do is speculate. The Japanese had clearly shown that they were determined, tenacious and willing to fight to the last man. When you consider that the Japanese people and their military leaders considered their emperor to be a literal god on earth, his voice held an awful lot of sway. Had the emperor stated that he wished for every man woman and child to oppose any invasion of Japan they may well have done so, they were ultra xenophobic, totally racist and many were totally fanatical. But we won’t really know. Also consider the length of time between the nuclear bombings and their actual surrender. The first bombing prompted nothing from them. All they did was send scientists to verify what type of device had been used against them.

You can use nuclear weapons in conditions of guerrilla warfare ?

I guess if you have your own troops on the ground it might limit your nuclear options.

And why would it be limited to “decades” ?

It might have. It might not have. Could have lasted decades is a fairly open statement is it not. Looking at present day Iraq and Afghanistan it’s easy to see what might have happened in Japan. Might.

I heard a R4 interview with Japanese ambassador on the anniversary of Nagasaki. The interviewer briefly mentioned it before progressing to be more aggressive to discuss Japan’s foreign policy and defense. I thought the tone of the interview that day was poor from the BBC.

Those two bombs were dropped for a few reasons, which have been mentioned here. The projected casualty figures for an allied invasion of Japan would have been in the 100,000’s.

I think it was a way to end the war quickly while demonstrating to Russia that the US had these weapons and would use them if necessary. Morality as we see it today, didn’t come into it.

I think the only good to come from this, was the aftermath, radiation. I think it was quickly learned that these weapons would have consequences for not only those who were the intended target, but for everyone else as well.

The Japanese had clearly shown that they were determined, tenacious and willing to fight to the last man.

Well they obviously weren’t. 90,000–146,000 people died in Hiroshima 39,000–80,000 in Nagasaki and Japan unconditionally surrendered, even though there were still another 70 million Japanese people.

If what you say was true Japan would not have surrendered.

The nuclear strike merely shorten the war, Japan would have eventually surrendered anyway – even if they had held on until allied troops entered Tokyo.

The Germany was just as determined to win the war and even when it was absolutely certain that they would lose they refused to surrender. It required Berlin to fall before victory in Europe came. Obviously using nuclear weapons on German cities would have shorten the war in Europe, and had they been used the debate would be by how much and whether it was morally justified.

Well they obviously weren’t. 90,000–146,000 people died in Hiroshima 39,000–80,000 in Nagasaki and Japan unconditionally surrendered, even though there were still another 70 million Japanese people.

If what you say was true Japan would not have surrendered.

when it was shown to them how easily they would be killed and how dis-honorable such a death would be then surrender was ordered.

Who knows what would have happened without the bombs – if they saw the chance of an honorable death – you cannot be sure they would have surrendered, and even if they had eventually the death toll would very likely have been far higher anyway.

And who know how many more war crimes they would have committed in that time?

The nuclear strike merely shorten the war

There were 140,000 prisoners held by the Japanese during WW2. 1/3 died from starvation, torture, over work. A lot of these were civilians, including women and children.

If dropping the bombs allowed the release of these prisoners even 6 months earlier then it gets my full support.

The Japanese would of fought to the death until their Emperor ordered them to surrender. They regarded their honour so highly.

Have you even seen the newsreel footage from the Battle of Saipan where the women are jumping from cliffs with their children to avoid surrender.

The hand wringers should really read up on what the Japanese were really like.

The hand wringers should really read up on what the Japanese were really like.

The Japanese knew full well that they couldn’t win a protracted war with America, There were enough senior figures in the Navy alone who viewed a surprise attack at Pearl Harbour with dismay (The rubbish un-attributed quote to Yamamoto notwithstanding)

The Japanese would’ve surrendered, the debate is whether the US was morally justified in dropping those particular weapons in order to achieve that end.

The Japanese would’ve surrendered, the debate is whether the US was morally justified in dropping those particular weapons in order to achieve that end.

If dropping the bombs allowed the release of these prisoners even 6 months earlier then it gets my full support.

Did anyone see the Nuclear documentary last Monday.. The Storyville one? in the credits one of the last was a statement pointing out that there are 78000 active/live warheads in existence, for no other reason other than waiting to be used, I guess.. 🙄