Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Was it right?

[mimartin]

I expect those that died in the firebombing of Tokyo or to those that died in the London Blitz did not find it pleasant either. I see no real difference for the dead between a nuclear bomb and a conventional bomb. After all dead is dead.

 

For the living it is another story, again both still have their own horrors for the living.

[Marius Fett]

I expect those that died in the firebombing of Tokyo or to those that died in the London Blitz did not find it pleasant either. I see no real difference for the dead between a nuclear bomb and a conventional bomb. After all dead is dead.

 

For the living it is another story, again both still have their own horrors for the living.

 

Aside from the fact that atom bombs if they don't kill you outright, maim your body, THEN kill you, you mean?

[mimartin]

Aside from the fact that atom bombs if they don't kill you outright, maim your body, THEN kill you, you mean?

That is not possible with any other weapon? Other than deaths from radiation poisoning, are you saying people are not maimed or die after the fact with any other type of bomb? Have you seen many Vietnam veterans with Napalm burns or WWII, Korean veterans Vietnam veteran or Iraqi Veterans with White Phosphorus burns.

[Marius Fett]

Do regular bombs also cause hair loss, anemia and cancer etc...?

 

So if say, a nuke was dropped on the city where you live, you wouldn't be more pissed off than if a regular device was used?

[mimartin]

So if say, a nuke was dropped on the city where you live, you wouldn't be more pissed off than if a regular device was used?

If I'm dead either way, how would I get mad?

 

Now if you are talking about a 500-pound bomb hitting a mile away or a nuke hitting 15 miles away, then yes I would be upset with both, but more about the nuke since I would have time to get mad about my own death.

 

However if we are talking about something like the London Blitz where they are going to bomb my city for 57 straight days, then I might be just as scared and upset as with the nuke since I may die tomorrow too.

 

Do regular bombs also cause hair loss, anemia and cancer etc...?

Again I don't see the point. If the bomb does what it was design to do and kills, does it really matter to how it kills you. Isn't it just as wrong no matter how you die?

[Marius Fett]

The Blitz was terrible, yeah, but did it obliterate a whole city and level thousands of buildings like Little Boy and Fat Man did?

 

Did it vapourise women and children, and leave babies being born with deformities for years later?

 

No.

 

Your arguement is well put together, but I believe you are wrong.

[mimartin]

The Blitz was terrible, yeah, but did it obliterate a whole city and level thousands of buildings like Little Boy and Fat Man did?[/Quote] No, in the London Blitz more than a million homes were destroyed or damaged.

London Blitz

London Blitz 2

 

Did it vaporized women and children, and leave babies being born with deformities for years later?[/Quote] I'm sure some were vaporized, after all it does not take a nuclear blast to vaporize a human body. Again, what does it matter if the body was vaporized, you are dead either way.

 

I do not know about deformities as I do not know what was released into the air when more than a million buildings were destroyed. However, I would venture a guess that it was not significant or there would be evidence of studies.

 

Your arguement is well put together, but I believe you are wrong.

Please don’t get my remarks wrong, I do not believe you are wrong. I have written more than once the bombings was immoral. However, I don’t believe the fact that they were nuclear weapons make it immoral. The fact that they targeted civilians is what makes it immoral to me. Even so, given the same information and the same set of circumstances as Truman was presented with I would have used the bombs too. However, with today’s information and knowing the complete ramifications of bombs I would hope Truman would either not choice to use the bombs or chosen different targets. With today’s information I would not use the bombs.

[Arcesious]

If we have no other choice, and we have to bomb a city filled with civilians for some reason, it would be best if the weapon killed the people in a split second. A quick and painless death is better than a slow and agonizing death, even if it the same result- death in the end. Slow deaths to innocent civilians is inhumane... I have no intention of killing innocent civilians any time soon though...

[Q]

DDD, those who were vaporized were the lucky ones, believe me.

[Totenkopf]

...However, I don’t believe the fact that they were nuclear weapons make it immoral. The fact that they targeted civilians is what makes it immoral to me. Even so, given the same information and the same set of circumstances as Truman was presented with I would have used the bombs too. However, with today’s information and knowing the complete ramifications of bombs I would hope Truman would either not choice to use the bombs or chosen different targets. With today’s information I would not use the bombs.

 

While I agree with your first statement, I think you'd have to agree that it'd have been virtually impossible (if at all) to target any military base or infrastructure in Japan that wouldn't have resulted in the deaths of tens or more of thousands using that type of weapon, given the population density of Japan .

 

 

@DI-

In his declaration, Hirohito referred to the atomic bombings :

 

“ Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers."

 

Technically, it was the the decision of the Emperor to end the war that ended the war, capped by the signing on the Big Mo in Tokyo Harbor.

 

@Inyri- the best I'll grant you is hysterical (in both senses actually) sarcasm.

 

@Ray--you're entitled to your opinions.

[Astor]

With today’s information I would not use the bombs.

 

While I may not know the specifics of the whole debate, and while I haven't researched this as others have - I've found this to be perhaps the central point - Now, i'm not sure if the US forces had adequate time to test the devices, but it still seems that, at the time, nobody knew quite what the bomb would do - until it had been used.

 

It's always been said 'Hindsight is a wonderful thing', so, with hindsight, and knowing what we know would happen, it would be wrong to drop the bomb, and perhaps find a better route of ending the war. But, such is the way of 'Total War' - no-one is safe. London learned that from the Luftwaffe.

 

But as to whether I think it was right or not - i'm not sure.

[Ray Jones]

The dangers of radioactive materials were known long before any bombs were constructed. And the US did test the a-bomb before Hiroshima. They knew what was going to happen.

 

It shows children being ripped apart where they stand, their eyes melting and bodies breaking apart.

Well, technically, human or living tissue doesn't melt away. Given a minimum temperature it simply burns to ashes.

 

I expect those that died in the firebombing of Tokyo or to those that died in the London Blitz did not find it pleasant either. I see no real difference for the dead between a nuclear bomb and a conventional bomb. After all dead is dead.

The worst result of a fireboming is the firestorm which might occur when the fire grows big enough, causing houses, streets, general everything around you to burn at like 1000°, up to 2000°C in the centre. You can't go anywhere because it appears to be very hard to walk through 1000°C hot air over melted, burning asphalt against hurricane like winds. A cruel death indeed.

 

Wood fires, "normal" fires and also atom bombs are known to produce firestorms as well. (a firestorm also occurred in Hiroshima btw)

 

However.

 

At detonation time the temperature within an a-bomb is 60 to 100 million °C.

 

0.025 seconds later it looks like this

Note that this thing is already 300 metres in diameter and still about 10000°C hot on the surface. The surface of the sphere is not fire, it's air heated and ionised so rapidly you can't see through it to look at the actual explosion (bright as the sun) behind it.

 

(the picture shows the test of the bomb before Hiroshima, the first test ever, so this is really rather tiny and cute)

 

1 second later and over 500 metres away the air burned at about 4000°C. That means you are vaporised and your "remains" are gone before you even recognise something happened. Within 2 km range there was no chance to survive at all. And this is only for the ancient bombs. Etcetera etcetera blah blah.

 

In fact, that cartoon doesn't even come near to what really happened.

 

 

If I'm dead either way, how would I get mad?

 

Now if you are talking about a 500-pound bomb hitting a mile away or a nuke hitting 15 miles away, then yes I would be upset with both, but more about the nuke since I would have time to get mad about my own death.

 

However if we are talking about something like the London Blitz where they are going to bomb my city for 57 straight days, then I might be just as scared and upset as with the nuke since I may die tomorrow too.

 

Again I don't see the point. If the bomb does what it was design to do and kills, does it really matter to how it kills you. Isn't it just as wrong no matter how you die?

 

Hamburg after WWII and 40000 tons of bombs (=160000 500 pound bombs) and a firestorm

 

 

Hiroshima after WWII and 1 bomb and a firestorm

 

Given that Hamburg was one of the cities receiving the heaviest bombings over 6 years, how many 500 pound bombs do you want to drop to do *this* in but 1 day?

[mimartin]

The dangers of radioactive materials were known long before any bombs were constructed. And the US did test the a-bomb before Hiroshima. They knew what was going to happen.

 

They did not even know for sure it would work. They had no clue to the extent of the damage. Yes, they knew about radiation poisoning, but again they had no clue about the long-term affects. Hiroshima and Nagasaki was their lab, we can call that immoral to experiment on human subjects.

 

Nice research on the difference by firebombing and nuclear weapons, I already knew there was a difference, but do not see the point. It is like comparing the difference between being shot to death and being stabbed to death, you still end up dead. My statement did make it clear I was talking about the dead didn’t it?

I expect those that died in the firebombing of Tokyo or to those that died in the London Blitz did not find it pleasant either. I see no real difference for the dead between a nuclear bomb and a conventional bomb. After all dead is dead.[/Quote]

Given that Hamburg was one of the cities receiving the heaviest bombings over 6 years, how many 500 pound bombs do you want to drop to do *this* in but 1 day?

While any sane person will agree with the horrors of the nuclear blast and agree that the survivability is explanatorily better with convictional weapons, I find the mental cruelty of bombing over a period of time just as barbaric. So you survived the last attack, but the next one may have your name on it or your friend’s or a member of your family. You go some place else after your home is destroyed and the next raid destroys it too.

 

While I agree with your first statement, I think you'd have to agree that it'd have been virtually impossible (if at all) to target any military base or infrastructure in Japan that wouldn't have resulted in the deaths of tens or more of thousands using that type of weapon, given the population density of Japan .

Agreed, after all someone has to work at these plants and military bases, so homes and cities have to be near by. How do you separate the military assets (plant workers) from the other citizens?

[Astor]

Now im not sure how much truth there is in this, or if it's a reputable source, but I found this on wikipedia:

 

The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10–11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized. The committee felt Kyoto, as an intellectual center of Japan, had a population "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon." Hiroshima was chosen because of its large size, its being "an important army depot" and the potential that the bomb would cause greater destruction because the city was surrounded by hills which would have a "focusing effect".

 

So, it seems from that paragraph, that there was a conscious effort to include civilians as targets. But we probably all knew that anyway.

 

In many ways, the surrender of Japan after the second bomb was fortunate - the US planned to drop another the week after, and six more during September and October.

 

"We have discussed among ourselves the ethics of the use of the bomb. Some consider it in the same category as poison gas and were against its use on a civil population. Others were of the view that in total war, as carried on in Japan, there was no difference between civilians and soldiers, and that the bomb itself was an effective force tending to end the bloodshed, warning Japan to surrender and thus to avoid total destruction. It seems logical to me that he who supports total war in principle cannot complain of war against civilians."

 

I don't know how relevant that really is to the discussion, but I thought it was a pretty good statement regarding it.

[Ray Jones]

Oh yeah, 6 more a-bombs. That would've surely kept the death toll below that of conventional methods.

 

They did not even know for sure it would work. They had no clue to the extent of the damage. Yes, they knew about radiation poisoning, but again they had no clue about the long-term affects. Hiroshima and Nagasaki was their lab, we can call that immoral to experiment on human subjects.

They knew what would happen if the bombs work. After all they tested it beforehand in New Mexico on July 16th, 1945. (Trinity test) The first picture in my previous post is from that test.

 

picture of the crater of the Trinity test, the small black spot in the lower right corner is the crater of a 100 ton TNT reference explosion (=400 500 pound bombs at once) about one month earlier

 

They definitely knew what it would do. And it was also no secret that radioactivity has long term effects.

 

And at least after Hiroshima, they knew what was going to happen to Nagasaki.

 

 

Nice research on the difference by firebombing and nuclear weapons, I already knew there was a difference, but do not see the point. It is like comparing the difference between being shot to death and being stabbed to death, you still end up dead. My statement did make it clear I was talking about the dead didn’t it?

Of course it did.

 

But like you've said, which attack do you think has better chances to be dodged, knife or bullet?

 

 

I find the mental cruelty of bombing over a period of time just as barbaric.

Which leads to the point of the mental cruelty to know that the city next door received an a-bomb per airmail the other day and is now *absent*.

 

 

So you survived the last attack, but the next one may have your name on it or your friend’s or a member of your family. You go some place else after your home is destroyed and the next raid destroys it too.

But where do you want to go when you know a whole city just got levelled, half of the population got killed, not in one night, no within 1 minute, and the other half is now still about to die, even one week later?

 

Note that there're not even any trees any more on the Hiroshima picture, while Hamburg's trees are still "green".

[Astor]

Oh yeah, 6 more a-bombs. That would've surely kept the death toll below that of conventional methods.

 

I didn't say it would have kept the death toll down - I merely said that the US were planning more raids.

 

Aside from the moral aspect, there were no agreements preventing the targeting of civilians or their property - so in a sense, everything was 'fair game'.

 

Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the use of nuclear weapons, and think it was wrong to use them - i'm just pointing a few things.

[Ray Jones]

I didn't say it would have kept the death toll down - I merely said that the US were planning more raids.

I know. I just commented on that info and a general consent that dropping the bombs was right because lives on all sides were saved, and that this was also the intention of the a-bombs to the begin with.

[Inyri]

IIRC no one gave a hoot about Japanese lives, just American lives. Nationalism sucks, don't you think?

 

I like to see myself as human first, American second, but... it was another time back then. Of course most people don't see it my way which is probably why there's still so much conflict among nations.

[Astor]

IIRC no one gave a hoot about Japanese lives, just American lives. Nationalism sucks, don't you think?

 

While I think that having a national identity is important, it shouldn't get in the way of other considerations - such as preservation of human life - and as you said, it still goes on today.

 

I may be wrong in saying in this, but it seems to me that many Americans simply wanted to get revenge on the 'Nips' (ugh) for Pearl Harbor. But they wanted to hit the Japanese harder than they themselves had been hit, with the end result being what we are now currently discussing.

[Inyri]

I wouldn't be surprised if that was a motivation. I'm certain it wasn't the only one, but... historically we do not take kindly to being attacked on our own home turf.

[Bee Hoon]

IIRC no one gave a hoot about Japanese lives, just American lives. Nationalism sucks, don't you think?

It seems to be a pretty popular sentiment in this thread :/

[mimartin]

But like you've said, which attack do you think has better chances to be dodged, knife or bullet?[/Quote] The key word being dead. Can't dodge either if you are dead.

 

Which leads to the point of the mental cruelty to know that the city next door received an a-bomb per airmail the other day and is now *absent*.[/Quote] After the surrender there was no need to worry about when the next a-bomb would fall.

 

Comparing peoples suffering is futile. You are not going to get me to say one had it worst than the other. I apologize to all members for bringing the subject up. Personally I feel equally sorry for all that perished and to those that were left behind. Funny, mankind had the war to end all wars produce the horrors of gas weapons, then we turned around and had another world war where we invented new weapons of horrors to kill and destroy each other. Yet what have we learned nothing, we still wage war and we are still looking for the new horrific weapon to afflict damage onto our enemy.

[Inyri]

It seems to be a pretty popular sentiment in this thread :/

I know. It makes me sad to see people saying stuff like that.

 

I wub our Asian brethren! *gives Bee a big hug*

[Astor]

historically we do not take kindly to being attacked on our own home turf.

 

I don't think any population would, in fact, that's probably why Japan has been calling for global nuclear disarmament for such a long time - they don't want it to happen to other nations.

[Gargoyle King]

IIRC no one gave a hoot about Japanese lives, just American lives. Nationalism sucks, don't you think?

 

I like to see myself as human first, American second, but... it was another time back then. Of course most people don't see it my way which is probably why there's still so much conflict among nations.

Yeah, the society was different back then, it's hard to imagine how to make a decision like this without actually being there in that era. I tend to not dwell in the past, but i have always felt strongly about the bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki; IMO nothing can justify them, it was tactical genocide to end the Pacific Theatre of WWII. However i'm not going to be an "Anti-American" as i tend to believe that people of a nation should not be judged based on past deeds of a former generation. Of course, this is just my opinion, of which i'm sure people will disagree on, but to anyone thinking that Japan got "what they deserved" just think about how America would react if the same thing happened to them? It doesn't matter how you dress it up, it's genocide, period. The way i see it is that humanity needs to learn from this to make sure horrific events such as this never happen again.