Dropping The Bomb

Wasn't part of the reason we used the bombs to demonstrate to the USSR (1) the power of the bomb, and (2) that we would use them?

 

Definately planning on watching this. Ive heard so many conflicting things about whether or not it was justified, and its always fascinated me. The consensus SEEMS to be that it was, but it was a near thing. I read recently the Japanese fanatical defense of Iwo Jima and Okinawa was a signifigant deciding factor.

My personal opinion was that considering the things that were going on at the time, and how the wars started being conducted (fire bombings of dresden/tokyo etc) it was justifiable. Especially considering we didnt know the full extent of the harm the radiation would cause.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict the Oliver Stone's film will conclude that dropping the bomb was a racist act by the bad, bad, Americans.

I'm sure he'll invite Chavez to the premiere to offer expert commentary.

 

I am a day late on this and a dollar short. My personal opinion was that the bomb needed to be dropped, but the way we went about it was a war crime.

It was obvious from the resistance at Okinawa that the Japanese were not planning to surrender otherwise. And it's arguable that many more people would have died in an invasion of the mainland than ultimately died from the bombs. My question is, why was it necessary to drop both bombs on large cities? We could have dropped the first bomb in Tokyo Harbor or somewhere where the Japanese military leadership would have been able to witness and gauge its effect, and then said "The next one will be dropped on one of your cities." My (possibly cursory) understanding of the situation was that a) we didn't know whether the bombs would work or not, so we didn't want to announce what we were going to do and then have it fizzle out, and b) it was two different kinds of bombs, and we wanted to gauge the effectiveness of each.

A lot of terrible things were done in WWII, and the Allies were responsible for some of them. I put this in that category.

Edit: I presume the points I have made have been addressed already in the thread. My apologies for that. But I didn't have the patience to read all nine pages first. I shall now do so!

 

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say whatever conclusions are reached in the film, it will be a bloated, melodramatic piece of crap.

 

The following podcast I found an interesting look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A look at the history of war from the air, strategic bombing and its inherent inaccuracy, laws of war, civilian casualties, firebombing of cities, protecting the lives of own soldiers, etc., along with the events leading up to the decision to drop the atomic bomb. The title of the podcast, "Logical Insanity" is apt, I believe.

http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/h.../Second World War-World War Two-World War One

 

Why would it have to be announced? Just drop the thing close enough that everyone who matters can see it and say "What the hell was that?"

 

The military wanted to keep fighting after the two bombs, it was the emperor that called it quits (at least that is the "story" I have read).

Plus I hear at the time we only had 2 bombs so dropping a 3rd one would have taken many months.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Forces_in_the_home_islands_August_18_1945.jpg
Could it be argued that the bomb saved the lives of millions of Japanese soldiers, as well as millions of civilians? BTW, more Japanese civilians died in the firebombings.

 

I remember going round the atom bomb museum in Hiroshima, and it was almost surprising how balanced they museum was on the issue, spelling out the reasons why it was felt such a bomb was necessary.

Their take on it was that it was a war crime, but not because of being a large bomb, but because of the radioactive legacy. Far more died in the firebombing of Tokyo, but that was from conventional bombs, so that's all fine and dandy.

The worst part really was about what just how wrong talk of 50,000 people dying in an instant was, when the overwhelming majority died very slowly because of burns and then radiation sickness.

 

Reminder:

Finally, in the months prior to Hiroshima, some factions within Japan were seeking peace on the terms that were eventually allowed (in particular, allowing the Emperor to continue as a figurehead), while other factions were adamant in seeking better terms. Intercepts and crypt-analysis of classified, coded Japanese messages, known under the code name MAGIC, told this to the American hierarchy almost in real time.

See here a now declassified page of MAGIC intercepts dated July 12, 1945.

Japanese Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo quoted as cabling his Ambassador to Moscow Naotake Sato on 11 JULY, and saying: “We are now secretly giving consideration to the termination of the war because of the pressing situation which confronts Japan both at home and abroad.”

Many other MAGIC intercepts and primary source material dealing with this question are summarized on George Washington University’s National Security Archives web site. That page has links to the original sources.

The July 13 MAGIC intercept quotes another cable from Togo to Sato as saying: We should therefore like you to present this matter to [Soviet Foreign Minister] Molotov in the following terms:

‘His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist on unconditional surrender the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland.’ … It is the Emperor’s private intention to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a Special Envoy with a letter from him containing the statements given above. Please inform Molotov of this.​

Bottom lines:

The role of the A-bomb in ending the war is exaggerated in the general societal belief. While the bomb played a role in ending the war, it was not the sole cause. I would not go as far as Ward Wilson’s statement that the bomb “played virtually no role” in ending the war, but the evidence he and Alperovitz present discredits the generally accepted societal view that the bomb was solely, or even primarily responsible. As is often the case, the truth is more nuanced.

Ultimately, factions , key factions, in the USA wanted to use the bomb on a Japanese city in order to impress the Soviet Union that it should accept American hegemony in the post-war world. In a 2003 interview Manhattan Project scientist Joseph Rotblat was asked, “In addition to World War II concerns, was America's fear of the post war Soviet Union a significant factor in the development of the bomb?” He answers:

Officially not, because Russia was our ally at the time. However, many people involved always felt that the main enemy was Russia. I personally knew about this as a result of an informal meeting with General Leslie Groves [director of the Manhattan Project]. He said to me, “You realize, of course, that the whole purpose of this is to subdue the Russians.”​

All my posts here are in tribute to those lost in nuclear fire and its aftermath. Our current moments indicate nothing to conclude that we learn from our history, but we pray we might. We pray we might.

 

I continue to share Alperovitz' view: that a full and unqualified answer as to why the atomic bomb was used is neither essential nor possible. What is important - what I tried to establish here - is whether, when the bomb was used, the president and his top advisers understood that it was not required to avoid a long and costly invasion, as they later claimed and as most Americans still believe.

Those lives lost? They keep that question important. And I believe the president and his top advisers understood far more than we typically assign to them. What that means for their very souls exceeds my grasp, reach and intents, but I know what it would mean for mine.

 

in their effect, the atomic bombs were not a big step from the firebombing of Japanese and German cities

the allies had already demonstrated that the lives of civilians of enemy nations counted for little

 

So had the Axis powers.

 

Trouble

 

I read as much as I could get my hands on when I was in my early teens. I remember the bombing of Liverpool of seeing my grandmother. A non combatant whose home that was bombed was nowhere near anything military or strategic. Just before she died in hospital.

I remember the block parties we had, to celebrate the home coming of POWs from Japanese prison camps. Then the flood of books and tales of torture and beheadings, beheadings because of some samurai idea that it proved their manhood and POWs were the lowest of the low, because the surrendered. “Bamboo and Bushido” 1955, was one of those books. The Samurai creed.

The book Hiroshima came out when I was about 15. It was horrific to me but still in my mind was Pearl Harbour. I don’t recall a warning that they were going to bomb and sink ships. Bataan, Singapore, the Death March, the Burma railway and Bridges.

There was a real, real hatred for the whole “Jap people”. Yeah we hated the Germans but nothing like the way we thought of those Japanese. The US marines fighting through the islands got an idea of how hard it would be landing on their homeland. On the 4th day at Iwo Jima the marines had taken so many casualties the admirals discussed calling it off. Then after the battle for Okinawa some estimated that the allies would suffer as many as 2 million casualties landing in japan.

In today’s mindset, we’re by far over that. I actually like the Japanese, a lot more than I like Trump and his cabal. I had an exchange student who was a super soccer player and a great personality. They’ve accomplished a lot in the world since the war. I doubt any sane person would even suggest dropping bombs like that on anybody today. But in 1945 they weren’t anybody. They were seriously the hated enemy. Who would fight to the last person alive rather than surrender.

The Japanese Military planned a coupe to take over the government even after the first bomb.

Sorry for rambling on but now after life experiences and reading as it happened not 65 years later. I still reluctantly say we should have used the bombs.

For those people who say the opposite, well, I respect your feelings but just think of how many family members may not have had a life to live if we had attacked instead.

There was nothing I saw in those years any talk of surrender.

 

This is one weird ass thread.
Debating whether we should have done something that happened 75 years ago. And, then, redebating it again 16 years after the first debate.

The answer is "No, we should not have dropped two atomic bombs on Japan." However, we did and will forever go done in the history books as the first, and to date, only nation to do so. It should forever be a source of national shame.

 

I’m debating going back and reading this thread from the beginning. I’m sure I posted some dumb shit. It’ll be like looking at myself through a time machine.

edit: searched it. I’m good

 

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/8/6/greg_mitchell_atomic_bomb_hollywood

 

haha...was going to post this link and you beat me to it...the author of the book lives next town over from me.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/07/how-the-president-rewrote-hollywoods-first-nuke-epic/

 

or super, SUPER realists. I often think the realists were never real enough, just "real" enough to further immediate agendas...not unlike Hofstadter's differentiation between intelligence and intellect.