Hiroshima.

[Bugman]

On the day in 1945 a B-29 Superfortress bomber named the Enola Gay after his mother by pilot Paul Tibbets, drops the first atomic bomb used in warfare on the city of Hiroshima Japan. Three day later a second bomb fall on Nagasaki, bringing the Pacific War to an end. Terrible, tragic events but the bombings saved many lives on both sides in the end. Let us all hope such terrible weapons are never used again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/06/hiroshima-nuclear-bombing-anniversary_n_920098.html


<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0n1rqHo4XyM?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0n1rqHo4XyM?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

[Jagermeistered]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the (one of...)original terrorist attacks(on humanity, against humanity!!) IT did not save lives! These attacks did not save SHIT!

 

[Bothersome]

I remember the week after Japan got pummeled by the tsunami... people were giggling about how they deserved this as 'pay-back' for Pear Harbor. That was by far the most cynical moment I had ever experienced in my entire life.

Pearl Harbor was nothing compared to these bombings.

 

[Jagermeistered]

I remember the week after Japan got pummeled by the tsunami... people were giggling about how they deserved this as 'pay-back' for Pear Harbor. That was by far the most cynical moment I had ever experienced in my entire life.

Pearl Harbor was nothing compared to these bombings.

Wow! Really?

So, if illegal Pakistanis with guns raiding a U.S. building, and killing them and everybody else. Because the U.S. military sent drones to kill terrorists with bombs, and unintentionally killing their children(of the illegal Pakistani gunners). The Japanese Tsunami apologists(who thought the natural disaster was a gift from god); would they think their death was justified?

 

[Bothersome]

Wow! Really?

So, if illegal Pakistanis with guns raiding a U.S. building, and killing them and everybody else. Because the U.S. military sent drones to kill terrorists with bombs, and unintentionally killing their children(of the illegal Pakistani gunners). The Japanese Tsunami apologists(who thought the natural disaster was a gift from god); would they think their death was justified?

Well of course not.
Logic doesn't apply to a double-standard.

However, I don't really want to boil up an argument in a thread that's meant to respect the men, women and children who lost their lives, or spent the rest of their lives miserably because of these bombings.

 

[Jagermeistered]

Of course not, it wouldn't be proper.

 

[milagros317]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the (one of...)original terrorist attacks(on humanity, against humanity!!) IT did not save lives! These attacks did not save SHIT!

My father was one of many soldiers in the Philippines in the summer of 1945 who were training to invade the four main islands of Japan. Those men believed that the invasion would go on for years, with perhaps victory coming by 1947. Being trained to be in that invasion from the beginning, they believed that very few of them would ever go home again. They were overjoyed, to say the least, when the atomic bombs ended the war in August 1945.

I am inclined to give some credit to the first hand testimony of the soldiers who were there. I guess you are not so inclined.

Absent the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is quite possible that the staff sergeant who was married to my mother then would have died in the invasion of Japan. Certainly my brother would not have been born in 1946.

 

[BigNorm]

I study military history and have read up on this argument.

Yes, the atomic bombings did save lives, both American and Japanese, and here's why. Not many people realize that Japanese civilians were going to fight to the last man, woman, and child. I can't remember if it was because they were commanded by Emperor Hirohito, or if it was their sense of loyalty they had, but i assure you, many, many more American and Japanese lives would have been lost if the bombs weren't dropped. So ya, i'm glad they were dropped. While it was horrible, it was necessary.

 

[Bothersome]

I suppose I should clarify my position, because I don't think I presented myself clearly enough.

I think that lethal force was absolutely necessary during the period where we made Japan surrender. They were at the point (If American propaganda is to be believed, of course) where they were strapping bombs to kids, very much like modern day Jihadists. They were terrorists, and they wouldn't stop until they were brutally traumatized, or all dead.

Now, I don't know if there was a better way to handle that situation... but as many lives as the atomic bombs took, I'm sure they saved many, many more.

 

[Jagermeistered]

I wont be able to contribute this thread. My grandmother is half Japanese and half Korean(long story). Luckily she didn't come to the United States until after the War. My grandfather was in the U.S. Army, and was able to marry my grandmother; they spent most of their time in Europe.

 

[Jagermeistered]

But, that has nothing to deal with my anti-war tendencies.

Mils, just like Rand changed your way of thinking. Her (somewhat) nemesis, Rothbard, changed mine.

 

[milagros317]

Considering Japan was willing to discuss surrender back in July, it is quite likely that the bombs changed nothing. The only difference was that we got to try out new toys before the war ended.

It is quite curious, then, that they did not surrender immediately after the first bomb was dropped. There is quite a huge gap between being willing to discuss surrender and the actuality of surrender. A gap so big that one atomic bomb destroying one city didn't close it, in fact.

I wont be able to contribute this thread. My grandmother is half Japanese and half Korean(long story).

You did contribute to it by making an extreme statement with which I disagree. We are going to have to agree that we have utterly different perspectives on the atomic bombing of Japan in August 1945. There is no point in discussing it further.

 

[Jagermeistered]

We have to move on from that mess, Mils! You are correct, let's leave it in the past, and not do it again! Tomorrow matters more then - yesterday!

 

[Bugman]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the (one of...)original terrorist attacks(on humanity, against humanity!!) IT did not save lives! These attacks did not save SHIT!

My father's unit was in the Philippines during that time training for the invasion. Most of them expected to die. My father was not a man of violence, he abhored it in fact, having seen far too much of it with the butt of an M-1 Carbine against his shoulder in over two years of combat. But honestly, if someone had said that to his face they likely would have been picking some teeth up off the floor.

My father was one of many soldiers in the Philippines in the summer of 1945 who were training to invade the four main islands of Japan. Those men believed that the invasion would go on for years, with perhaps victory coming by 1947. Being trained to be in that invasion from the beginning, they believed that very few of them would ever go home again. They were overjoyed, to say the least, when the atomic bombs ended the war in August 1945.

I am inclined to give some credit to the first hand testimony of the soldiers who were there. I guess you are not so inclined.

Absent the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is quite possible that the staff sergeant who was married to my mother then would have died in the invasion of Japan. Certainly my brother would not have been born in 1946.

General MacArtuhur's staff projected between 500,000 and 1 million Allied causalties alone had an invasion been necessary, with up to four more years of fighting. The toll among the Japanese would surely have been much higher. The men on his staff were not stupid, they had been fighting the Japanese for years and I suspect they had a pretty good idea of what they were up against.

This thread should not be seen by anyone as an endorsement of war. I hate war. Over the course of human history too many men women and children have lost their lives due to the foolishness and arrogence of those in power as I said in another thread. But, sometimes war is a necessary evil and innocent people die. I would like to see all people and nations live in peace and harmony, and settle disputes in ohter ways. But, my reading of history suggests to me this is unlikey anytime soon, if ever. An intresting aside here, after Korea MacArthur himself became anti-war, urging that it be outlawed as a means of setteling disputes betweem nations. No one listened of course.

 

[GQguy]

To surrender requires that the other side accept it, or at least acknowledge that you are willing to. Its hard to surrender to an enemy that is ignoring you until after they have accomplished what they set out to do.

We sought an unconditional surrender. The Japanese wanted to keep the emperor in power. It was only after the second bombing that the emperor unconditionally surrendered giving up all of his power and a democracy backed by a constitution was instituted. The conflict would have gone on much longer in the defense of their emperor.

GQ

Sent from my iPhone

 

[kopfhorer]

One school of history asserts that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to end the second world war as quickly and decisively as possible. Another asserts that their primary purpose was to warn the Soviets to stay out of Japan.

Only one thing is beyond dispute here. The bomb ended the era of great wars; the last weapon to be used in the last war will be the first to be used in the next. That's why every American war since WWII has been a medium-scale brushfire war like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.

It is also why a great war is no longer an option for rejuvenating the stagnant world economy. FDR's economic programs arguably made things better in the late 1930s but it was World War II (which employed lots of people and took many more out of the job market) and the subsequent spending spree of the late 40s and 1950s (because consumer goods were rationed during the war and everyone saved their money then because there wasn't much to spend it on) that washed away the Great Depression for good.

 

[Kunzite]

As one of my heroes, Bruce Dickinson, said (in concert), "War is bullshit, man." I don't think much else can be said with certainty on the subject except for that.

 

[usgrant]

60 million dead, well over 400,000 American Military... The two atom bombs pretty much ended it! From an American standpoint, a necessary evil.

 

[paracarl44]

TODAY IS NAGASAKI DAY.

Had it not been the dropping of the atomic bombs, the war would have dragged on with the US and the Allies having to invade Japan. Think of all of the millions of lives that were spared to avoid an invasion.

 

[Ishaanshah]

Got nothing to say!!

 

[BritTickler]

To me it always seems difficult to evaluate whether or not these terrible bombings truly saved lives - can any of us really judge the mindset of a foreign people enmeshed in the trials of war some sixty years ago, to divine exactly how committed the Japanese were to continuing the war at any cost? - but I've always felt that, even if we are of the strong opinion that the use of these first deadly weapons were unnecessary and only increased the death toll whilst setting the stage for a grim nuclear future, we are still really in no position to judge our leaders of yesteryear. Maybe Truman, Churchill and co did make a mistake - but this makes them messups, not monsters. Unless we can conclusively prove their actions were driven by a kind of inexplicable bloodlust or uncaring desire for temporary political gain, we should at least give them the benefit of the doubt and count them among good men who did the wrong thing. Otherwise we might as well claim, for example, that Neville Chamberlain's failed policy of appeasement was somehow expressly designed to consolidate Hitler's power and cause mayhem in Europe.

We should then judge men by the why, not the what, of their accomplishments. As Churchill himself said of Chamberlain, 'The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions.'

 

[SamuelKhan]

It stopped what Japan started in 1931 in Manchuria. Only the United States could stop them. The two atomic weapons that Truman had to use did work in bring them to the peace table in on the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay. MacCarthur showed goodwill and compassion during the ceremony. He knew the ultimate cost of peace. But one big party did break out.

They had to be used....then the Soviets hatched one in 1949...hence the Cold War.

I abhor nuclear weapons even as a last resort. But I'm glad that my country was the first before the Nazis. History would have been different.

 

[Cosmo_ac]

IMO, there are two trains of thought on this subject, the first being that The atomic bombs needed to be dropped to end the war, and the other being that they didn't need to be dropped. As more documents from the time from various countries become open for scrutiny, we'll be able to have a better view of events.

We'll never know for sure what would have happened had the bombs not been dropped. We can speculate, but we'll never be sure. We can however learn from the event and try and make sure the same thing never happens again.

 

[MrMacphisto]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the (one of...)original terrorist attacks(on humanity, against humanity!!) IT did not save lives! These attacks did not save SHIT!

For the record, Fat Boy and Little Man killed far fewer people than our firebombings did.

The destruction in Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been vastly overstated, but that was kind of the point.

We bombed them for 2 reasons:

1) They didn't accept unconditional surrender.

2) We had to scare the Soviets some.

The second point became clear as they were doing things in Europe that could have led to a third world war. Japan basically became our sacrificial lamb to prove to the Soviets that we had a weapon that would annihilate them if they tried more "land acquisition" as the dust settled in Europe.

It was a pretty ballsy bluff, considering we didn't have any more nukes after these two bombings.

While it seems rather callous to nuke people to prove a point, it's worth considering some alternative actions.

1) If we really were interested in annihilating the Japanese, firebombs would have accomplished this fairly quickly. Their building materials were extremely flammable, and their air defense was pathetic by the end of the war.

2) We could have engaged in a land invasion of Japan, but that would have killed a lot more American soldiers, and the Japanese would have lost a lot more people than the nukes removed.

So, I don't think it's accurate at all to call the nukings "terror attacks." We were at war still, so really, the Japanese were at our mercy.

If the tables had been turned, there's no doubt that the Japanese would have nuked a West Coast city or two. The only reasons they didn't are because they didn't have the power to reach us at that point, and they didn't have nukes.

 

[BellybTickler]

I love the smell of Hiroshima in the morning. From China to Pearl to Bataan ... may they all burn in a fiery, radioactive hell.