i’d imagine that was the americans’ intention, yes.

Oh yeah and one other thing on the Hiroshima/Nagasaki front….

Russia had just declared war on Japan, if they had time to deploy their troops then you would not only have been looking at an Iron Curtain in Europe, but also at one in Asia, with all the resultant loss of life that that caused, (not to mention freedom).

All in all there may well have been an indecent haste to try the new toys out, but the reasoning is nowhere near as cyncial as some people seem to suggest. If there were “benefits” to be gained, it would have been criminal not to take the lessons that were available from the exercise and use them.

Let’s just remember what the Japanese did throughout Asia in the 1930’s before getting all bleeding heart about Hiroshima etc. Read up about Nanking – they made the Germans look like amateurs.

Let’s also consider how many British servicemen remained alive because of the bombing.

They started it, we finished it.

And as a side effect more Japanese people survived the war than otherwise would have, but to me that is of less relevance than the benefits to our men.

before getting all bleeding heart about Hiroshima etc.

I think the original question was, why hasn’t the US used any more nuclear weapons since 1945 ?
Although I can’t be sure.

.

“They started it, we finished it.”

Don’t let a Yank catch you saying that.

I think the original question was, why hasn’t the US used any more nuclear weapons since 1945 ?

It’s not logical to destroy each other.

a) Give up and go home
b) Blockade the country (much easier said than done incidentally, remember a certain A. Hitler tried it on us for quite a while and failed)
c) Invade with resultant massive loss of life on both sides.
d) Deploy new super weapon that is so powerful that it will convince this fanatical enemy to give up without any further bloodshed.

Yes, but perhaps I should have been clearer. The point I was trying to make was of military versus civilian deaths. To me an invasion resulting in military losses, however heavy, is preferable to dropping nuclear bombs on civilians.

…..preferable to dropping nuclear bombs on civilians.

Aye aye ……… the ‘bleeding-hearts’ are back on here.

Although I do agree with the statement that conventional wars are more ‘fun’ than nuclear wars.

Rockplough – Member
…To me an invasion resulting in military losses, however heavy, is preferable to dropping nuclear bombs on civilians.

Almost all the soldiers on the allied side were civilians who had been conscripted into this war.

What ? Including old men women and children ?

……… no wonder the Japs never stood a chance.

“Yes, but perhaps I should have been clearer. The point I was trying to make was of military versus civilian deaths. To me an invasion resulting in military losses, however heavy, is preferable to dropping nuclear bombs on civilians. “

Any invasion would have caused civilian casualties too though. Would it have been possible to conquer and pacify japan without causing more than 100000 civilian casualties? Seems very unlikely.

so, tell me again, who decided nth korea can’t have some big bombs…….. ❓

It is perfectly simple. The broad “we” of civilised people have a preference for the broad “they” including insane dictatorships, places where the priests wear hats, places where soldiers are allowed to have beards and places where the camel is economically important not being allowed to have them, because we do not trust them not to take them out and play with them, either amongst themselves or with us. I am unsure where the Chinese fit into this, but I believe exceptions have been made as they have 1/3 of the world’s people.

Presumably you’re trolling, but if you’re as ignorant as you’re pretending to be then go and actually read something about nuclear proliferation if you’re interested. It is a large subject with quite a lot of learning on it. 🙂

EDIT: there has been a lot of malarkey over whether the US drops on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were right or justifiable. The fact remains that no-one has used nuclear weapons since. The clowns who have come closest (except possibly during the Cuban missile crisis) have been the Indians and Pakistanis, as recently as the 90s. Both countries acquired their weapons illegally, in Pakistan’s case their enrichment technology was stolen and their missile design aided by N. Korea. Pakistan has sold or tried to sell weapons, enriched uranium and enrichment know-how and equipment extensively and this trade is believed to have been a substantial source of foreign exchange.

Aye aye ……… the ‘bleeding-hearts’ are back on here.

If not wanting to drop nukes on non-combatants makes me a ‘bleeding-heart’ then yes.

Almost all the soldiers on the allied side were civilians who had been conscripted into this war.

Yes of course, the same was true on all sides but they were combatants nonetheless.

Would it have been possible to conquer and pacify japan without causing more than 100000 civilian casualties? Seems very unlikely.

I don’t know to be honest, but surely it gives you a chance to at least try to avoid them, unlike a nuclear bomb.

so, tell me again, who decided nth korea can’t have some big bombs

The West.

Time to send in the ‘cheese eating surrender monkeys’?

Time to send in the ‘cheese eating surrender monkeys’?

Who are they?

Say what you like, but this

will lead to this

then the real problems begin

Rudeboy – ask Groundskeeper Willy! 😉

Incidentally, my father in law was a POW in Kobi at the time of the two bombs being dropped on Japan. He had been taken prisoner at the fall of Hong Kong. He was taken with the survivors of the 1000 other members of his battalion. He was used as slave labour to repair the airport, then put on a “hellship”, the Lisbon Maru and sent to Japan.

G: My GFs grandfather’s story is identical. He told me quite a lot about it before he died. It was a hell of a thing.

“the death toll … was amazingly low”

The WWII fission bombs are not in any way comparable to the modern fission/fusion bombs, delivered by ICBM and designed to kill entire modern cities of up to 3 million people.

For easy comparison, the equivalent magnitude of nuclear explosion would now be used against an advancing task formation and delivered with a single artillery shell.

The old superpowers have enough of this kind of weapon to obliterate every city, globally, multiple times over.

http://www.euronews.net/2009/05/27/nkorea-threatens-military-strikes/

Maybe this is why we should be concerned

“The WWII fission bombs are not in any way comparable to the modern fission/fusion bombs, delivered by ICBM and designed to kill entire modern cities of up to 3 million people.”

Of course not. But the point is that north korea doesn’t need a nuclear weapon to kill an entire modern city, they can do that the old fashioned way, and they’ve had the capacity to do so for about 30 years. They don’t suddenly become a threat because they might have nukes.

Who are they?

The Frenchies of course.

The Frenchies of course.

Why would the French want to attack North Korea ?

.

Or had Slapper felt that he had just waited long enough to post his ‘cheese eating surrender monkeys’ comment on the forum ?

buzz-lightyear – Member

G: My GFs grandfather’s story is identical. He told me quite a lot about it before he died. It was a hell of a thing.

Not in the Royal Scots by any chance?

On the nagasaki / Hiroshima thang

I am pretty sure the first bomb dropping was justifiable on grounds that it shortened the war and the resultant loss of life from the bomb was less than the loss of life from a seaborne invasion of mainland Japan.

The second bomb is IMO not so easily justified. smacks more of a live experiment as it was a different type of bomb.

One thing to remember is less people died in the atom bomb attack on Nagasaki than were killed in the preceding conventional bombing raids

I am pretty sure the first bomb dropping was justifiable on grounds that it shortened the war and the resultant loss of life from the bomb was less than the loss of life from a seaborne invasion of mainland Japan.

The second bomb is IMO not so easily justified. smacks more of a live experiment as it was a different type of bomb.

I’m not sure that this is wholly true. The first bomb didn’t shorten the war in itself as Japan refused to surrender after it and a second bomb was required in order to convince them that it might be a good idea.
I’ve no doubt that the second bomb had a wider significance with the USSR suddenly looming large on the Manchurian horizon and declaring war on Japan the day before Nagasaki. However, the first and second bomb combined, saved the lives of millions of people both allied and Japanese that would have resulted from an invasion of Japan or from it’s destruction from above by conventional arms.

That’s not neccesarily quite how it happened. Japan didn’t surrender immediately,but this isn’t the same as refusing to surrender. There’s documentary evidence showing that hirohito was considering surrender before the first bomb was dropped (after the tokyo bombings and the loss of the japanese fleet), and that japan was making peace entreaties via the soviet union (fairly unrealistic peace entreaties, mind, but the attempts were made).

When you look at the timing, you’ll maybe see why peope are cynical about this. The first bomb was dropped on the 6th, and the second on the 9th, as well as the Soviets breaking their neutrality pact on the 9th… but it took 6 days longer to complete the surrender process even after the decision was made that surrender was inevitable. So, it begins to look like even if the japanese had decided to surrender immediately on the 6th, they couldn’t have completed this process before the second bomb was dropped.

But, the trouble with all this is that we can’t really know exactly who knew what and when… Now we know the japanese were passing diplomatic messages through the soviet union, but we also know that the soviets were planning to attack them anyway, so how far did those messages get? We also know that hirohito faced a coup d’etat even after the events of the 6th and the 9th, from forces opposed to the peace process- we can’t know what would have happened with that if he’d attempted to bring peace before the 2nd bomb, or even the first.

At the end of the day hindsight is always 20 20, trying to judge people’s actions today using the information we have today often just doesn’t work.

My understanding of the reason that they didn’t drop a third was a) the Japs made contact and telegraphed their intention to surrender after the 2nd was dropped, b) the Yanks only had two bombs ready to go at the time. If you check the history of the sinking of the USS Indianaoplis, the eye witness reports of the deck cargo tend to support that theory.

Quite simply, the Japanese could have surrendered at any time they chose. They chose not to. It was war, and in war shitty things happen, especially if you overplay your hand. Much of the overplaying was in respect of how the emperor would be treated post war, again their choice.