Hiroshima -- 64th anniversay
tenguzero
08-06-2009, 12:13 PM
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-08-06-voa19.cfm
With Obama poking his nose into basically EVERYTHING nowadays, I figured I'd address one of the (very) few viewpoints he has that I actually agree with - the abolition of nuclear weapons.
In my opinion, nuclear arsenals have been a curse on mankind for over half a century. It's no small matter that many people who were involved in the Manhattan Project (including, I believe, Oppenheimer himself) either dreaded the spectre of nuclear weaponry throughout the project (or came to feel that way afterwards) or at least took a negative stance toward continuation of research, and the inevitable advances that would bring about more powerful weaponry (hydrogen bomb) -- not to mention the potential for future arms races.
So, isn't it time that the world begin phasing out its nuclear arsenals? Honestly, there is no nation on the earth that can't be neutralized any number of ways by more conventional means (should they try to threaten someone with nuclear bombardment.) If this were the case, countries could proceed with pursuits of nuclear power without raising the hackles of other nations cautious of ulterior motives, because at that point NO ONE has nuclear weapons, so a nation seeking to possess them would be made a pariah.
On a side note, I've always found it interesting that a majority of Americans to this day feel that the atomic bombing of Japan was necessary in order to bring an end to the war. I've always scoffed at the idea myself -- the way I see it, the nation of Japan has always been VERY dependent on the import of outside resources for their survival (having a lack domestics like natural resources and a large labor force to draw off of) is this not why China/Manturia, Okinawa, Korea, and other surrounding entities were so important to Japan's survival? So I figure -- why did we have to unleash atomic weapons (and their horrible aftermath) on Japanese soil, when we could have just setup in surrounding areas and choke off Japan's flow of, well, basically everything?
An argument often cited by proponents of the bombings was that "the potential loss of life to both sides in a ground invasion would have been far greater than the toll of the two bombs" doesn't hold water to me when one considers the fact that a ground invasion wouldn't have been needed had we just taken up fortified posts around Japan (by that point we'd already captured or occupied essentially every island, atoll, harbor, and speck of dirt that wasn't mainland Japan) and simply let Japan strangle itself into submission. The cost of life likely would have been far less, and we wouldn't have punished entirely unborn generations of Japanese for the atrocious acts of their forefathers.
With Obama poking his nose into basically EVERYTHING nowadays, I figured I'd address one of the (very) few viewpoints he has that I actually agree with - the abolition of nuclear weapons.
In my opinion, nuclear arsenals have been a curse on mankind for over half a century. It's no small matter that many people who were involved in the Manhattan Project (including, I believe, Oppenheimer himself) either dreaded the spectre of nuclear weaponry throughout the project (or came to feel that way afterwards) or at least took a negative stance toward continuation of research, and the inevitable advances that would bring about more powerful weaponry (hydrogen bomb) -- not to mention the potential for future arms races.
So, isn't it time that the world begin phasing out its nuclear arsenals? Honestly, there is no nation on the earth that can't be neutralized any number of ways by more conventional means (should they try to threaten someone with nuclear bombardment.) If this were the case, countries could proceed with pursuits of nuclear power without raising the hackles of other nations cautious of ulterior motives, because at that point NO ONE has nuclear weapons, so a nation seeking to possess them would be made a pariah.
On a side note, I've always found it interesting that a majority of Americans to this day feel that the atomic bombing of Japan was necessary in order to bring an end to the war. I've always scoffed at the idea myself -- the way I see it, the nation of Japan has always been VERY dependent on the import of outside resources for their survival (having a lack domestics like natural resources and a large labor force to draw off of) is this not why China/Manturia, Okinawa, Korea, and other surrounding entities were so important to Japan's survival? So I figure -- why did we have to unleash atomic weapons (and their horrible aftermath) on Japanese soil, when we could have just setup in surrounding areas and choke off Japan's flow of, well, basically everything?
An argument often cited by proponents of the bombings was that "the potential loss of life to both sides in a ground invasion would have been far greater than the toll of the two bombs" doesn't hold water to me when one considers the fact that a ground invasion wouldn't have been needed had we just taken up fortified posts around Japan (by that point we'd already captured or occupied essentially every island, atoll, harbor, and speck of dirt that wasn't mainland Japan) and simply let Japan strangle itself into submission. The cost of life likely would have been far less, and we wouldn't have punished entirely unborn generations of Japanese for the atrocious acts of their forefathers.
Gohan Ryu
08-06-2009, 04:56 PM
Hiroshima was a mistake. Nagasaki was an atrocity.
2strokebloke
08-07-2009, 05:50 PM
On a side note, I've always found it interesting that a majority of Americans to this day feel that the atomic bombing of Japan was necessary in order to bring an end to the war.
They believe it because that's what Truman's propaganda told the U.S. - in retrospect many historians are now of the thought that the bombings were done to scare the Soviets.
There was no practical need to use them on Japan, and because of that the U.S. opened up a whole can of worms in Japan-World relations and lent significant weight to Japanese who claim that Japan was a victim, not an aggressor of WWII.
They believe it because that's what Truman's propaganda told the U.S. - in retrospect many historians are now of the thought that the bombings were done to scare the Soviets.
There was no practical need to use them on Japan, and because of that the U.S. opened up a whole can of worms in Japan-World relations and lent significant weight to Japanese who claim that Japan was a victim, not an aggressor of WWII.
Muscletang
08-07-2009, 07:09 PM
An argument often cited by proponents of the bombings was that "the potential loss of life to both sides in a ground invasion would have been far greater than the toll of the two bombs" doesn't hold water to me when one considers the fact that a ground invasion wouldn't have been needed had we just taken up fortified posts around Japan (by that point we'd already captured or occupied essentially every island, atoll, harbor, and speck of dirt that wasn't mainland Japan) and simply let Japan strangle itself into submission. The cost of life likely would have been far less, and we wouldn't have punished entirely unborn generations of Japanese for the atrocious acts of their forefathers.
If we would have sat there the Soviets would have invaded mainland Japan (they already invaded Manchuria). Lets not forget that the Japanese would have waited it out. They had food and could have sat there. Also their navy and air force had been destroyed so the island was already "under siege" for a while and they still didn't surrender. They really needed oil and scrape iron, not food. So the human element would have still been in tact. Also, how long would it have taken for them to hold out? Months? Maybe a year or two just sitting there? Maybe throwing surprise gorilla attacks here and there? People tend to forget how hard it was for Japan to surrender even after the atomic bombs. The military had a stance to not surrender under any circumstances and the military was so interwoven with the government. The U.S. wanted the war to be over.
Anyway, count me in as one of the people who has no problems with the dropping of the atomic bombs.
Fact, more people were killed in firebombing raid of Tokyo than one of the nuclear blast.
Fact, more people were killed in the fire bombings of Japan's cities than the atomic blast.
Fact, the Japanese knew we had an atomic bomb when we tested the first one in Arizona and figured we'd use it on them.
Fact, the Japanese were asked to surrender in the Potsdam Declaration and warned that if they didn't there would be consequences of the "prompt and utter destruction" of Japan.
Fact, the Supreme Council for Directing the War was split on whether to surrender. The military was adamantly against it. It only happened because Prime Minister Suzuki had managed to convince the Emperor to take the unprecedented step of speaking out at a council meeting. The Emepror orderd them to surrender. Their was also a group of young officers in the nation who often assassinated those who publicly spoke out for surrender. The group known as the 'young tigers' was a number of younger officers who even after the atomic bombings planned ona coup to kidnap the emperor and prevent him from releasing his statement on radio.
Fact, Japanese Radio officials planned on sending out a message demanding all forces begin a general offensive on the allies, though it was stopped just before broadcast by several ministers. The Kampetei, the Japanese secret police, also was agaisnt the surrender and made it clear they would support a military rebellion.
Fact, on August 18th several officers murdered the commander of the imperial guard and attempted to seize the emperor to prevent him from broadcasting yet again. They also started a series of attempted assassinations which luckily failed, leaving them out to dry.
Fact, even after surrender their were isolated incidents of kamikaze attacks on allied shipping.
Let's look at dates.
6th of August - Hiroshima bomb dropped.
(Why didn't they surrender on the 7th? If they did, the second bomb would not have been dropped)
8th of August - Soviets invade.
(They had time to surrender and knew the Soviets were coming and possibly another bomb or an Ally invasion.)
9th of August - Nagasaki bomb.
(Still took Japan four full days before it surrendered and we know how hard it was even then.)
14th of August - decision to surrender made.
I really don't get it. It's obvious for the reasons, I think. Do I like it? No. Atomic weapons are horrible but then again, so is war. I think the reason the people get in such an uproar is because of what it is, one weapon. We only needed one plane and one bomb to do so much. While when we firebombed Tokyo we needed a whole lot of planes and bombs.
When we look at the casualties, probably around 350,000 Japanese died and later died by radiation sickness, cancers, and other things when you add it all together from both bombings. Yes that's bad when you look at lets say...the battle of Stalingrad's 2,000,000 casualties, it looks rather small.
As for the morality of it, it was World War 2. Morality had been gone a long, long time from both sides. After what was seen and done, people just wanted it to end. Again, the atomic bombs weren't nice but it's nicer than another Normandy.
I know some people are against it and that's your opinion. I have mine and gave you a reason why I believe that. That is all.
If we would have sat there the Soviets would have invaded mainland Japan (they already invaded Manchuria). Lets not forget that the Japanese would have waited it out. They had food and could have sat there. Also their navy and air force had been destroyed so the island was already "under siege" for a while and they still didn't surrender. They really needed oil and scrape iron, not food. So the human element would have still been in tact. Also, how long would it have taken for them to hold out? Months? Maybe a year or two just sitting there? Maybe throwing surprise gorilla attacks here and there? People tend to forget how hard it was for Japan to surrender even after the atomic bombs. The military had a stance to not surrender under any circumstances and the military was so interwoven with the government. The U.S. wanted the war to be over.
Anyway, count me in as one of the people who has no problems with the dropping of the atomic bombs.
Fact, more people were killed in firebombing raid of Tokyo than one of the nuclear blast.
Fact, more people were killed in the fire bombings of Japan's cities than the atomic blast.
Fact, the Japanese knew we had an atomic bomb when we tested the first one in Arizona and figured we'd use it on them.
Fact, the Japanese were asked to surrender in the Potsdam Declaration and warned that if they didn't there would be consequences of the "prompt and utter destruction" of Japan.
Fact, the Supreme Council for Directing the War was split on whether to surrender. The military was adamantly against it. It only happened because Prime Minister Suzuki had managed to convince the Emperor to take the unprecedented step of speaking out at a council meeting. The Emepror orderd them to surrender. Their was also a group of young officers in the nation who often assassinated those who publicly spoke out for surrender. The group known as the 'young tigers' was a number of younger officers who even after the atomic bombings planned ona coup to kidnap the emperor and prevent him from releasing his statement on radio.
Fact, Japanese Radio officials planned on sending out a message demanding all forces begin a general offensive on the allies, though it was stopped just before broadcast by several ministers. The Kampetei, the Japanese secret police, also was agaisnt the surrender and made it clear they would support a military rebellion.
Fact, on August 18th several officers murdered the commander of the imperial guard and attempted to seize the emperor to prevent him from broadcasting yet again. They also started a series of attempted assassinations which luckily failed, leaving them out to dry.
Fact, even after surrender their were isolated incidents of kamikaze attacks on allied shipping.
Let's look at dates.
6th of August - Hiroshima bomb dropped.
(Why didn't they surrender on the 7th? If they did, the second bomb would not have been dropped)
8th of August - Soviets invade.
(They had time to surrender and knew the Soviets were coming and possibly another bomb or an Ally invasion.)
9th of August - Nagasaki bomb.
(Still took Japan four full days before it surrendered and we know how hard it was even then.)
14th of August - decision to surrender made.
I really don't get it. It's obvious for the reasons, I think. Do I like it? No. Atomic weapons are horrible but then again, so is war. I think the reason the people get in such an uproar is because of what it is, one weapon. We only needed one plane and one bomb to do so much. While when we firebombed Tokyo we needed a whole lot of planes and bombs.
When we look at the casualties, probably around 350,000 Japanese died and later died by radiation sickness, cancers, and other things when you add it all together from both bombings. Yes that's bad when you look at lets say...the battle of Stalingrad's 2,000,000 casualties, it looks rather small.
As for the morality of it, it was World War 2. Morality had been gone a long, long time from both sides. After what was seen and done, people just wanted it to end. Again, the atomic bombs weren't nice but it's nicer than another Normandy.
I know some people are against it and that's your opinion. I have mine and gave you a reason why I believe that. That is all.
03cavPA
08-09-2009, 08:40 PM
No sweat, Kyle, I agree with you.
War sucks. Killing people sucks. You do what you have to do in war.
Hindsight is always 20/20.
War sucks. Killing people sucks. You do what you have to do in war.
Hindsight is always 20/20.
2strokebloke
08-11-2009, 07:52 PM
You do what you have to do in war.
In hindsight almost everything is completely unwarranted. Take a look at what started most major wars and you realize most of them could have been avoided.
If anything you do what you shouldn't have to do in war.
In hindsight almost everything is completely unwarranted. Take a look at what started most major wars and you realize most of them could have been avoided.
If anything you do what you shouldn't have to do in war.
03cavPA
08-11-2009, 08:42 PM
Take a look at what started most major wars and you realize most of them could have been avoided.
QFT. People fail for the most part.
QFT. People fail for the most part.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025