At Hiroshima’s 70th Anniversary, Japan Again Mourns Dawn of Atomic Age

[AFTiger 282]

Well since the Japanese were trying to develop a nuke of their own, they knew the destructive power of the weapon. We only had two bombs so dropping a demonstration bomb would have halved our capacity to one.

Think of the Hiroshima bomb as the demonstration bomb. It didn't stop the Japanese. The second bomb convinced the emperor and still the military did not want surrender. Had not the emperor not prevailed, we would have been required to invade with substantially greater losses to both the allies and the Japanese people.

Dropping the bomb was the right decision.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

Well since the Japanese were trying to develop a nuke of their own, they knew the destructive power of the weapon. We only had two bombs so dropping a demonstration bomb would have halved our capacity to one.

Eh. They had theory of the destructive power. They hadn't been able to test one, and they discounted the feasibility of the US being able to develop one in time to use on them:

The Japanese program to develop nuclear weapons was conducted during World War II. Like the German nuclear weapons program, it suffered from an array of problems, and was ultimately unable to progress beyond the laboratory stage before the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Japanese surrender in August 1945....

This resulted in the formation of the Committee on Research in the Application of Nuclear Physics, chaired by Nishina, that met ten times between July 1942 and March 1943. It concluded in a report that while an atomic bomb was, in principle, feasible, "it would probably be difficult even for the United States to realize the application of atomic power during the war". This caused the Navy to lose interest and to concentrate instead on research into radar.^[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program

Think of the Hiroshima bomb as the demonstration bomb. It didn't stop the Japanese. The second bomb convinced the emperor and still the military did not want surrender. Had not the emperor not prevailed, we would have been required to invade with substantially greater losses to both the allies and the Japanese people.

We didn't know that at the time. And we only gave them 3 days before dropping the next one on another city. After Hiroshima, the Japanese government had four conditions for surrender, so it's not like the first bomb didn't have them moving that direction:

Emperor Hirohito, the government, and the war council considered four conditions for surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation of the Japanese Home Islands, Korea, or Formosa, and delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.[161]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Events_of_August_7.E2.80.939

Dropping the bomb was the right decision.

Still in question.

[AUloggerhead 2,238]

They don't really say why dropping it over a remote and sparsely populated region (without warning) wouldn't bring an end to the war. You drop it, it makes a huge demonstration on their island and you threaten that various cities are on the target list next.

Did you read this part?

... Others emphasize the opportunity of saving American lives by immediate military use, and believe that such use will improve the international prospects, in that they are more concerned with the prevention of war than with the elimination of this specific weapon. We find ourselves closer to these latter views; we can propose no technical demonstration likely to bring an end to the war; we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use. ...

It's crystal clear that they perceived this weapon to be a game changer -- that it would "induce surrender" if used.

[japantiger 4,051]

Uuhhmmm, let's see. They had lost every battle since mid 1942...in every battle, their forces were completely wiped out...that is, killed to the last man. Only those too wounded to fight or kill themselves survived. Even the civilians killed themselves rather than face the humiliation of submission. We had killed hundreds of thousands in firebomb attacks in single B29 raids. They sent thousands of young people to die in Kamikaze attacks....they even sent warships to die in Kamikaze attacks. So what exactly about dropping a bomb on an empty target would alter their calculations? You seem to think they 1) valued life the way a Judeo-Christian society valued life 2) were logical. There is nothing in their history, traditions or wartime actions that would lead a reasonable person to such a conclusion. This is 100% revisionist, hand-wringing, BS. Wars have lead to some of the most amazing advances in human history (medical, engineering, communications, travel, nutrition, etc.); the level of ingenuity and innovation unleashed during war time is remarkable. Sherman had it right..."war is hell". Don't want hell unleashed on you; don't start a war; because the other guys generally don't fight by your rules.

[aujeff11 6,243]

You're on your own Titan because I'm bowing out.. Because you are willing to repeat yourself to further your argument is either admirable or futile and I'm leaning toward the later.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

You're on your own Titan because I'm bowing out.. Because you are willing to repeat yourself to further your argument is either admirable or futile and I'm leaning toward the later.

I'm nearing my end as well. I understand the other side of this (I once was in that camp myself). But I think alternatives are being too easily dismissed. I can't help but wonder how much of that is truly based on fact and how much is based in the belief that we (the US) have to be the good guys here in every conceivable way and the thought that we might have unleashed something so deadly and destructive without having to is just too much to bear psychologically.

I also wonder how far this rationalization for killing so many non-combatants to save American lives goes. Following such methods of justification to their logical ends produce some possibly troubling conclusions.

[AUloggerhead 2,238]

You're on your own Titan because I'm bowing out.. Because you are willing to repeat yourself to further your argument is either admirable or futile and I'm leaning toward the later.

I'm nearing my end as well. I understand the other side of this (I once was in that camp myself). But I think alternatives are being too easily dismissed. I can't help but wonder how much of that is truly based on fact and how much is based in the belief that we (the US) have to be the good guys here in every conceivable way and the thought that we might have unleashed something so deadly and destructive without having to is just too much to bear psychologically.

I also wonder how far this rationalization for killing so many non-combatants to save American lives goes. Following such methods of justification to their logical ends produce some possibly troubling conclusions.

I wonder too. I wonder why it's so hard for people today to believe that "alternatives" weren't discussed/debated at the time. They WERE.

[japantiger 4,051]

Yep,1) if you believe alternatives weren't discussed and 2) the Japanese didn't behave like the Japanese, then not dropping the bomb makes perfect sense.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

You're on your own Titan because I'm bowing out.. Because you are willing to repeat yourself to further your argument is either admirable or futile and I'm leaning toward the later.

I'm nearing my end as well. I understand the other side of this (I once was in that camp myself). But I think alternatives are being too easily dismissed. I can't help but wonder how much of that is truly based on fact and how much is based in the belief that we (the US) have to be the good guys here in every conceivable way and the thought that we might have unleashed something so deadly and destructive without having to is just too much to bear psychologically.

I also wonder how far this rationalization for killing so many non-combatants to save American lives goes. Following such methods of justification to their logical ends produce some possibly troubling conclusions.

I wonder too. I wonder why it's so hard for people today to believe that "alternatives" weren't discussed/debated at the time. They WERE.

Did someone claim alternatives weren't discussed? Because I know I didn't. What I said was that alternatives were too easily dismissed. There's a large qualitative difference in those two terms. And that's not just my opinion or the opinion of Monday morning QBs years later.

[AFTiger 282]

How many more American lives would the leadership be willing to give while all of the alternatives were being explored. Bombing of population centers was an accepted form of warfare by all sides during WWII, especially since so much of the industry was embedded in the population centers. Thousands had already died in the bombing of Japanese cities so the only difference was whether it could be done with one bomb or loads of bombs delivered by hundreds of B-29s. The accuracy of bombing back then was measured in miles not feet.

1. The suicides of civilians in Okinawa convinced the leaders that it would be a door to door fight during the invasion.

2. The United States was running low on available able-bodied men to throw into this meat grinder.

3. The atomic bomb was simply a very large bomb to be used in war.

4. It served to bring the war to an end.

5. Applying modern sensitivities to a world war fought 75 years ago is wrong.

We have not won a war since WWII. Maybe it is time to stop feeling guilty about wars we fight and start winning them. Soldiers win wars and politicians lose them. And now lawyers interfere with bizarre nonsensical rules of engagement.

[AUloggerhead 2,238]

Today (August 14) is the 70th anniversary of Japan's acceptance of the Allies' terms in the Potsdam Declaration. The Current PM, Abe, expresses the "utmost grief" over Japan's WWII involvement.

http://news.yahoo.com/japans-abe-set-issue-ww2-anniversary-remarks-amid-011433136.html

[TitanTiger 20,498]

How many more American lives would the leadership be willing to give while all of the alternatives were being explored. Bombing of population centers was an accepted form of warfare by all sides during WWII, especially since so much of the industry was embedded in the population centers. Thousands had already died in the bombing of Japanese cities so the only difference was whether it could be done with one bomb or loads of bombs delivered by hundreds of B-29s. The accuracy of bombing back then was measured in miles not feet.

1. The suicides of civilians in Okinawa convinced the leaders that it would be a door to door fight during the invasion.

2. The United States was running low on available able-bodied men to throw into this meat grinder.

3. The atomic bomb was simply a very large bomb to be used in war.

4. It served to bring the war to an end.

5. Applying modern sensitivities to a world war fought 75 years ago is wrong.

We have not won a war since WWII. Maybe it is time to stop feeling guilty about wars we fight and start winning them. Soldiers win wars and politicians lose them. And now lawyers interfere with bizarre nonsensical rules of engagement.

We waited 3 days between the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was originally 5 but weather conditions forced it to be moved up.

Could we not have made the first bomb a demonstration in a remote area of Japan, then given it those same 3-5 days before escalating it to instant slaughter of 100,000?

[alexava 6,973]

How many more American lives would the leadership be willing to give while all of the alternatives were being explored. Bombing of population centers was an accepted form of warfare by all sides during WWII, especially since so much of the industry was embedded in the population centers. Thousands had already died in the bombing of Japanese cities so the only difference was whether it could be done with one bomb or loads of bombs delivered by hundreds of B-29s. The accuracy of bombing back then was measured in miles not feet.

1. The suicides of civilians in Okinawa convinced the leaders that it would be a door to door fight during the invasion.

2. The United States was running low on available able-bodied men to throw into this meat grinder.

3. The atomic bomb was simply a very large bomb to be used in war.

4. It served to bring the war to an end.

5. Applying modern sensitivities to a world war fought 75 years ago is wrong.

We have not won a war since WWII. Maybe it is time to stop feeling guilty about wars we fight and start winning them. Soldiers win wars and politicians lose them. And now lawyers interfere with bizarre nonsensical rules of engagement.

We waited 3 days between the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was originally 5 but weather conditions forced it to be moved up.

Could we not have made the first bomb a demonstration in a remote area of Japan, then given it those same 3-5 days before escalating it to instant slaughter of 100,000?

i don't know about then but now there are no remote areas in Japan.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

How many more American lives would the leadership be willing to give while all of the alternatives were being explored. Bombing of population centers was an accepted form of warfare by all sides during WWII, especially since so much of the industry was embedded in the population centers. Thousands had already died in the bombing of Japanese cities so the only difference was whether it could be done with one bomb or loads of bombs delivered by hundreds of B-29s. The accuracy of bombing back then was measured in miles not feet.

1. The suicides of civilians in Okinawa convinced the leaders that it would be a door to door fight during the invasion.

2. The United States was running low on available able-bodied men to throw into this meat grinder.

3. The atomic bomb was simply a very large bomb to be used in war.

4. It served to bring the war to an end.

5. Applying modern sensitivities to a world war fought 75 years ago is wrong.

We have not won a war since WWII. Maybe it is time to stop feeling guilty about wars we fight and start winning them. Soldiers win wars and politicians lose them. And now lawyers interfere with bizarre nonsensical rules of engagement.

We waited 3 days between the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was originally 5 but weather conditions forced it to be moved up.

Could we not have made the first bomb a demonstration in a remote area of Japan, then given it those same 3-5 days before escalating it to instant slaughter of 100,000?

i don't know about then but now there are no remote areas in Japan.

It wasn't as densely populated then. There are about 127 million in Japan now. There were only about 73 million back then. And there were rural communities. There was some place we could have dropped it as a demonstration with much less loss of life.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Today (August 14) is the 70th anniversary of Japan's acceptance of the Allies' terms in the Potsdam Declaration. The Current PM, Abe, expresses the "utmost grief" over Japan's WWII involvement.

http://news.yahoo.co...-011433136.html

Washington has welcomed the changes, which Abe says are needed to meet new challenges, including a more assertive China. (Reporting by Linda Sieg; Editing by Nick Macfie)

Which is odd, because THIS President is all about offering up apologies for this country.

[Mikey 16,614]

Quoting japantiger, from above: "You seem to think they 1) valued life the way a Judeo-Christian society valued life 2) were logical. There is nothing in their history, traditions or wartime actions that would lead a reasonable person to such a conclusion."

Had we dropped a relatively harmless demonstration bomb, their only thought would have been "Ha ha, you missed". This enemy was nothing like the others we fought, they thought and hated on a different plane. Apparently, even after the first bomb was dropped they were still insisting on conditions of surrender that included no occupation of their homeland.

Nothing short of dropping two bombs and spreading disinformation that we had upward of a hundred more would have brought the nearly instant peace that happened after six days.

[cooltigger21 0]

I'm just amazed and saddened by all this handwringing 70 years later. The decision was unquestionably the correct one. Warning shots are useless in ordinary weapons and would have been here as well. The idea of dropping a demonstration bomb in a deserted area is absurd. It would have accomplished nothing except using up one of our two available bombs. It's likely the emporer would not have even known about it. It took dropping both on cities to spur him into action. It seems they likely believed the Hiroshima bomb was a fluke or something. Three days is plenty of time to surrender. I can't fathom why anyone thinks they were going to do anything other than continue to fight to the last man woman and child without the use of these weapons. Nothing over the previous 4 years had shown anything other than complete fanaticism. That was the last time the United States fought a war to win. All others since have had negotiated ends and in the end accomplished very little.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

I'm just amazed and saddened by all this handwringing 70 years later.

This was something that was questioned at the time, not just 70 years later. And something that caused so much loss of life, particularly that of civilians - women, children, infants included - by rights ought to be questioned and pondered. It's called being human.

The decision was unquestionably the correct on. Warning shots are useless in ordinary weapons and would have been here as well.

Not analogous.

The idea of dropping a demonstration bomb in a deserted area is absurd. It would have accomplished nothing except using up one of our two available bombs. It's likely the emporer would not have even known about it.

We had the ability to produce another one by August 17. And if we incinerated and flattened an area of mainland Japan outside of the major cities in one fell swoop, you can bet your ass the emperor would have known about it.

It took dropping both on cities to spur him into action.

Their PTB started convening right after Hiroshima.

It seems they likely believed the Hiroshima bomb was a fluke or something. Three days is plenty of time to surrender. I can't fathom why anyone thinks they were going to do anything other than continue to fight to the last man woman and child without the use of these weapons. Nothing over the previous 4 years had shown anything other than complete fanaticism. That was the last time the United States fought a war to win. All others since have had negotiated ends and in the end accomplished very little.

You just don't know this and we didn't bother to try. But it's hardly unreasonable for a moral people to ask themselves if they conducted even a war in a manner consistent with what they claim to believe and claim to be.

[cooltigger21 0]

I'm sorry Titian but perspective is something you have lost here. Your moral sensitivity has clouded your judgement of history. None of what you say means anything. The PTB gathered OK what did the gather for? Did they gather to discuss possible surrender or how to combat or survive this new weapon? You're a good man but it takes hard ass men making hard ass decisions to fight a war and people with your sensitivity just can't be in that position. You're judging 1945 actions by 2015 standards. It doesn't work.

[AFTiger 282]

I suppose we could have let the Unicorns (a super secret unit of the OSS) convince the Japanese to surrender. Those who live in the world of coulda/shoulda/woulda will never see reality.

[aujeff11 6,243]

I'm sorry Titian but perspective is something you have lost here. Your moral sensitivity has clouded your judgement of hisrory. None of what you say means anything. The PTB gathered OK what did the gather for? Did they gather to discuss possible surrender or how to combat or survive this new weapon? You're a good man but it takes hard ass men making hard ass decisions to fight a war and people with your sensitivity just can't be in that position. You're judging 1945 actions by 2015 standards. It doesn't work.

Yea Titan. You're too nice. It takes a real hard ass to incinerate over hundred thousand men and ya just ain't got it. Weegle has an article about a manly man that killed his first ten thousand before his 16th birthday. Step up your game bro.

[quietfan 233]

How many more American lives would the leadership be willing to give while all of the alternatives were being explored. Bombing of population centers was an accepted form of warfare by all sides during WWII, especially since so much of the industry was embedded in the population centers. Thousands had already died in the bombing of Japanese cities so the only difference was whether it could be done with one bomb or loads of bombs delivered by hundreds of B-29s. The accuracy of bombing back then was measured in miles not feet.

1. The suicides of civilians in Okinawa convinced the leaders that it would be a door to door fight during the invasion.

2. The United States was running low on available able-bodied men to throw into this meat grinder.

3. The atomic bomb was simply a very large bomb to be used in war.

4. It served to bring the war to an end.

5. Applying modern sensitivities to a world war fought 75 years ago is wrong.

We have not won a war since WWII. Maybe it is time to stop feeling guilty about wars we fight and start winning them. Soldiers win wars and politicians lose them. And now lawyers interfere with bizarre nonsensical rules of engagement.

We waited 3 days between the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was originally 5 but weather conditions forced it to be moved up.

Could we not have made the first bomb a demonstration in a remote area of Japan, then given it those same 3-5 days before escalating it to instant slaughter of 100,000?

i don't know about then but now there are no remote areas in Japan.

http://www.quora.com...-parks-in-Japan

But as to AFTiger's original points:

#2 "The United States was running low on available able-bodied men to throw into this meat grinder." What about the 3,000,000+ servicemen that were sitting in Europe after VE Day?

#3 "The atomic bomb was simply a very large bomb to be used in war." True. If we had possessed a conventional bomb that could produce similar damage, shock, and awe, it could/would have been used with similar diplomatic results.

#4 "It served to bring the war to an end." I don’t think anyone is denying that. The question is: Were there other, possibly more humane, ways of ending the war?

#5 "Applying modern sensitivities to a world war fought 75 years ago is wrong." It is true that, whether 75 years ago, 200 years ago, or 2000 years ago, events of the past can only be fully understand within the context of the mindset and sensibilities of that time. But there is nothing wrong with examining those events and their zeitgeist in comparison to the mindset and sensibilities of our time. In fact, I would argue that no understanding of past events is really complete without understanding how they compare/contrast to modern thinking and attitudes.

[quietfan 233]

I'm just amazed and saddened by all this handwringing 70 years later. The decision was unquestionably the correct one. Warning shots are useless in ordinary weapons and would have been here as well. The idea of dropping a demonstration bomb in a deserted area is absurd. It would have accomplished nothing except using up one of our two available bombs.

...

That was the last time the United States fought a war to win. All others since have had negotiated ends and in the end accomplished very little.

While we didn't have a stockpile of 100's or 1000's like we do now, plans for a third or fourth shot were already underway, as was a presumption that still more bombs were in the pipeline and could be produced at a steady rate there after. http://blog.nuclears...nd-beyond-1945/

Desert Storm accomplished exactly what it set out to do: Remove Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait. G.H.W. Bush himself said that.

[AFTiger 282]

How many more American lives would the leadership be willing to give while all of the alternatives were being explored. Bombing of population centers was an accepted form of warfare by all sides during WWII, especially since so much of the industry was embedded in the population centers. Thousands had already died in the bombing of Japanese cities so the only difference was whether it could be done with one bomb or loads of bombs delivered by hundreds of B-29s. The accuracy of bombing back then was measured in miles not feet.

1. The suicides of civilians in Okinawa convinced the leaders that it would be a door to door fight during the invasion.

2. The United States was running low on available able-bodied men to throw into this meat grinder.

3. The atomic bomb was simply a very large bomb to be used in war.

4. It served to bring the war to an end.

5. Applying modern sensitivities to a world war fought 75 years ago is wrong.

We have not won a war since WWII. Maybe it is time to stop feeling guilty about wars we fight and start winning them. Soldiers win wars and politicians lose them. And now lawyers interfere with bizarre nonsensical rules of engagement.

We waited 3 days between the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was originally 5 but weather conditions forced it to be moved up.

Could we not have made the first bomb a demonstration in a remote area of Japan, then given it those same 3-5 days before escalating it to instant slaughter of 100,000?

i don't know about then but now there are no remote areas in Japan.

http://www.quora.com...-parks-in-Japan

But as to AFTiger's original points:

#2 "The United States was running low on available able-bodied men to throw into this meat grinder." What about the 3,000,000+ servicemen that were sitting in Europe after VE Day?

In Europe occupying Germany and Italy or on their way to the Pacific theater.

#3 "The atomic bomb was simply a very large bomb to be used in war." True. If we had possessed a conventional bomb that could produce similar damage, shock, and awe, it could/would have been used with similar diplomatic results.

I suppose we could continued with the massive B-29 raids and killed the same number with lesser impact on our current sensitivities. Of course, thousands of more Americans would die in the interval.

#4 "It served to bring the war to an end." I don’t think anyone is denying that. The question is: Were there other, possibly more humane, ways of ending the war?

Who knows or cares?

#5 "Applying modern sensitivities to a world war fought 75 years ago is wrong." It is true that, whether 75 years ago, 200 years ago, or 2000 years ago, events of the past can only be fully understand within the context of the mindset and sensibilities of that time. But there is nothing wrong with examining those events and their zeitgeist in comparison to the mindset and sensibilities of our time. In fact, I would argue that no understanding of past events is really complete without understanding how they compare/contrast to modern thinking and attitudes.

The attitudes then were to win the war with total victory. Today's attitudes depend on magic bullets that can tell enemy combatants from "innocent civilians." That way, we can get more of our own killed before the politicians surrender.

[cooltigger21 0]

Maybe all of this is just guilt over the fact we won the war. We should have negotiated like we did in Korea and Vietnam and every other war since. That worked out really well.. Some here would place the United States and Japan on the same moral ground? Had we fought itthe way they think we should have we likely never would have won. You can be humane and merciful after you have been victorious. While the fighting is going on you have to be hard and ruthless. We followed that formula for that war and it worked out quite well.