Hiroshima marks 70 years since atomic bomb (1 Viewer)

[TheDemSocialist]

Residents in the Japanese city of Hiroshima are commemorating the 70th anniversary of the first atomic bomb being dropped by a US aircraft.A ceremony, attended by PM Shinzo Abe, was held at Hiroshima's memorial park before thousands of lanterns are released on the city's Motoyasu river.
The bombing - and a second one on Nagasaki three days later - is credited with bringing to an end World War Two.
But it claimed the lives of at least 140,000 people in the city.
A US B-29 bomber called the Enola Gay dropped the uranium bomb, exploding some 600m (1,800ft) above the city, at around 08:10 on 6 August 1945.

People offered prayers for victims of the atomic bombing in front of a cenotaph in Hiroshima Peace Memorial ParkOn that day alone, at least 70,000 people are believed to have been killed. Many more died of horrific injuries caused by radiation poisoning in the days, weeks and months that followed.

Read more @: Hiroshima marks 70 years since atomic bomb

People are still suffering from the first a-bomb. Humanity can not and must not forget to what happened. I will always hold that the US dropping the A-bomb(s) was never justifiable.

 

[Montecresto]

Read more @: Hiroshima marks 70 years since atomic bomb

People are still suffering from the first a-bomb. Humanity can not and must not forget to what happened. I will always hold that the US dropping the A-bomb(s) was never justifiable.

Well, if we can ever justify the indiscriminate killing of children and women, the elderly, disabled, deaf, mute, dogs, cats, birds etc. then so can anybody else. perhaps if a positive came out of it, it's that humanity has done a good job at seeing to it such a horror has never been visited upon such an unsuspecting and undeserving group of innocents since. Most countries are party to NPT, we need to get the stragglers on board with that, and engage global nuclear eradication as a guarantee of it.

 

[Crovax]

How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives

depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties and tens of millions for Japanese casualties

 

[joG]

Read more @: Hiroshima marks 70 years since atomic bomb

People are still suffering from the first a-bomb. Humanity can not and must not forget to what happened. I will always hold that the US dropping the A-bomb(s) was never justifiable.

Is that so. I think it was not only justified as a legitimate act of war, but is probably why MAD worked so well.

 

[LowDown]

Read more @: Hiroshima marks 70 years since atomic bomb

People are still suffering from the first a-bomb. Humanity can not and must not forget to what happened. I will always hold that the US dropping the A-bomb(s) was never justifiable.

How ignorant.

Educate yourself:

Instapundit » Blog Archive » ROGER KIMBALL: ?The idea that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima ? and, since the Japanese failed to?

 

[wist43]

It was outright murder by the U.S.

The Japanese were offering to surrender under the terms that they ultimately did surrender. Just as the Japanese did not want to go to war with the U.S. in the first place, but were manipulated by our communist dominated State Dept., and communist dominated administration, into "firing the first shot" - so too were the Japanese forced to continue fighting, when they had already offered terms for surrender before the bombs were dropped.

The were two overriding reasons that the U.S. wanted to keep the war going in the Pacific longer,

1) To buy time for Stalin and the communists to organize on Mainland China, with the eventual goal of overthrowing Chang Kai-Shek, and turning the world's most populated nation into a national prison.

and,

2) To drop the bomb, and thus enter into the "nuclear age" with a bang; and use that as a means of beginning a push toward global hegemony; use it as a scare tactic to manipulate the masses - using fear of nuclear war to promote the Cold War, and provide their street level troops with the motivation and cover to agitate for change - always, of course, moving the United States ever further leftward.

Like most things the Establishment does - the truth never makes it into the Establishment approved history books. The victors always write the history.

 

[chromium]

Rather than debate the necessity of the bomb - the estimate of casualties from a land invasion and also the soviet attack on manchuria as a clear sign to the japanese they could not hold out - i find it more helpful to look at the extreme levels of hate that americans had towards their enemy. Reading truman's comments about "thank providence for the bomb and to use it for his purpose," he sounds like a lunatic no different from ISIS. A magazine poll at the time found that 15% of americans wanted to kill every japanes man, woman and child. Arguing military necessity is to ignore all that

 

[OrphanSlug]

People are still suffering from the first a-bomb. Humanity can not and must not forget to what happened. I will always hold that the US dropping the A-bomb(s) was never justifiable.

The problem is without using atomic bombs the alternative would have been Operation Downfall, and unlike the massive troop movements of the European Theater the geography of Japan would have required more troops and probably higher degrees of casualties for everyone involved. Basically everything we did against the Germans would have taken even more (perhaps as much as 3 or 4 times more) against the Japanese including ground forces, Naval warfare, a huge bombing runs campaign, and all sorts of complex logistical support. We also cannot discount the casualties in the Pacific Theater that we had already sustained jumping from island to island pushing the conflict back to Japan's mainland to that point. That decision.

Before the Japanese saw the first bomb hit Hiroshima, they had already started to protect the more obvious targets the allied forces would have had to take to make Operation Downfall even remotely plausible. I think the decision, while seemingly immoral as can be, probably in the end saved lives. The human costs for Japan and the allied forces to engage in a land fight for Japan would have been record breaking. The estimates for the beginning of Operation Downfall were depressing given what it took to handle all in the theater to date. Forcing Japan to surrender from the basic fear of "what city will no longer be there tomorrow" perhaps saved years of additional conflict with uncertain outcome. Nothing in all of recorded history of warfare amounted to that moment, that raw expenditure of power. That shook Japan's leadership to its core, the allies counted on that outcome.

Something else to consider. Without the historical lessons of the use of atomic warfare, we might have seen a very different series of events once the arms race (aka Cold War) escalated to more advanced nuclear warfare capability. Would we have done something more drastic in Korea if we had not learned the lessons of Japan? How much closer would we have got to war with Russia without those same lessons?

Just something to think about before we make the mistake... again... of taking something from history and moving it to today to rejudge the event in today's contexts. That is inherently problematic even though warfare in general changed greatly with Japan and WWII.

 

[justabubba]

Read more @: Hiroshima marks 70 years since atomic bombPeople are still suffering from the first a-bomb. Humanity can not and must not forget to what happened. I will always hold that the US dropping the A-bomb(s) was never justifiable.

my good friend's cousin authored this recent article:The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It | The Nation there is one huge reason why i do not agree with their - or your - conclusion: because it required a second atomic bomb to accomplish the japanese surrender. had the emperor surrendered after a single bomb, i might be inclined to believe that we engaged in overkill. but as that was obviously not the circumstance, that we had to obliterate the japanese not once but twice to obtain their agreement to end the warfare, it is equally obvious the second bomb was both necessary and effective. i have never been more moved than at the hiroshima museum 'peace park'. this was a true tragedy. but an essential one to achieve war's end without wholesale slaughter of our own troops as well as the japanese people, numbering in the millions

 

[Crovax]

It was outright murder by the U.S.

The Japanese were offering to surrender under the terms that they ultimately did surrender. Just as the Japanese did not want to go to war with the U.S. in the first place, but were manipulated by our communist dominated State Dept., and communist dominated administration, into "firing the first shot" - so too were the Japanese forced to continue fighting, when they had already offered terms for surrender before the bombs were dropped.

The were two overriding reasons that the U.S. wanted to keep the war going in the Pacific longer,

1) To buy time for Stalin and the communists to organize on Mainland China, with the eventual goal of overthrowing Chang Kai-Shek, and turning the world's most populated nation into a national prison.

and,

2) To drop the bomb, and thus enter into the "nuclear age" with a bang; and use that as a means of beginning a push toward global hegemony; use it as a scare tactic to manipulate the masses - using fear of nuclear war to promote the Cold War, and provide their street level troops with the motivation and cover to agitate for change - always, of course, moving the United States ever further leftward.

Like most things the Establishment does - the truth never makes it into the Establishment approved history books. The victors always write the history.

Is there any element of this post rooted in reality, or have you mistaken DP for some sort of alternate history fan fiction forum?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Is that so. I think it was not only justified as a legitimate act of war, but is probably why MAD worked so well.

It didn't, the Soviets did not follow MAD. The leadership issued orders allowing for the the use of nukes during the Cuban crisis. The fundamental point of MAD is never issuing orders allowing the use of nukes, supposedly the fear of causing Armageddon would not allow rational leaders to ever authorize such orders...but they did.

 

[joG]

It didn't, the Soviets did not follow MAD. The leadership issued orders allowing for the the use of nukes during the Cuban crisis. The fundamental point of MAD is never issuing orders allowing the use of nukes, supposedly the fear of causing Armageddon would not allow rational leaders to ever authorize such orders...but they did.

That is not quite how MAD worked. It was important that such orders were issued, because it was critical that mutual destruction be believable.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

That is not quite how MAD worked. It was important that such orders were issued, because it was critical that mutual destruction be believable.

NO, the main point of MAD is that rational actors would not issue orders for use. Issuing orders for use is the irrational act of knowingly moving to self destruction.

 

[joG]

NO, the main point of MAD is that rational actors would not issue orders for use. Issuing orders for use is the irrational act of knowingly moving to self destruction.

That is not true. Rational players would not order a first strike.

 

[Van Basten]

Japan learned it's lesson.

Hopefully, another war like WWII never happens and let us pray nuclear weapons never need to be used again.

 

[wist43]

Is there any element of this post rooted in reality, or have you mistaken DP for some sort of alternate history fan fiction forum?

To be sure, Establishment history doesn't recount any of those truths - but then again, Establishment history dismisses the role they played/play in promoting communism, war, terrorism, anti-American/anti-Freedom ideals, etc.

There is no doubt that FDR's administration was teeming with communists; and there is no doubt that the U.S. aided and assisted "Uncle Joe", and communist cause in every way they could - that is the U.S. lead by the Establishment; which of course has dominated the State Department since FDR's administration.

The true history is out there, all you have to do is look for it. Which, I know you can't be bothered - it's much easier to just remember it how the Establishment indoctrinated you to remember it.

A good place to start would be Dr. Carroll Quigley's, Tragedy and Hope. Most of the background is in there, at least in terms of how the Establishment actually operates behind the scenes. Once you understand those basics, you can move on to making sense of things like WW I, WW II, the Stock Market Crash, The New Deal, Korea, Viet Nam, etc...

But without a basic understanding of how the Establishment operates, you'll look right thru the truth, and never see it.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

That is not true. Rational players would not order a first strike.

But that is my point....the Soviets DID, they issued orders in the Cuban crisis that if attacked, even by conventional weapons, Officers were authorized to launch nukes. A Soviet sub captain ordered the launch of nuke torpedoes, nuke missiles on Cuba were ready to launch if any attack was made on the sites.

 

[leoborn]

Japan learned it's lesson.

Hopefully, another war like WWII never happens and let us pray nuclear weapons never need to be used again.

Terrible way to teach a lesson, but maybe it was worth it in the long run if it works. So why does everyone now want nuclear weapons if no one is going to use them?

 

[GunFora]

Read more @: Hiroshima marks 70 years since atomic bomb

People are still suffering from the first a-bomb. Humanity can not and must not forget to what happened. I will always hold that the US dropping the A-bomb(s) was never justifiable.

Sadly, so many Japanese civilians died....but it did end the war which likely saved many more lives than the bomb took. It's safe to say that Japan screwed with the wrong bull. We taught the world a lesson that day.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Sadly, so many Japanese civilians died....but it did end the war .

wrong.

The argument presented by Asada and Frank that the atomic bombs rather than Soviet entry into the war had a more decisive effect on Japan’s decision to surrender cannot be supported. The Hiroshima bomb, although it heightened the sense of urgency to seek the termination of the war, did not prompt the Japanese government to take any immediate action that repudiated the previous policy of seeking Moscow’s mediation. Contrary to the contention advanced by Asada and Frank, there is no evidence to show that the Hiroshima bomb led either Togo or the emperor to accept the Potsdam terms. On the contrary, Togo’s urgent telegram to Sato on August 7 indicates that, despite the Hiroshima bomb, they continued to stay the previous course. The effect of the Nagasaki bomb was negligible. It did not change the political alignment one way or the other. Even Anami’s fantastic suggestion that the United States had more than 100 atomic bombs and planned to bomb Tokyo next did not change the opinions of either the peace party or the war party at all.

Rather, what decisively changed the views of the Japanese ruling elite was the Soviet entry into the war. It catapulted the Japanese government into taking immediate action. For the first time, it forced the government squarely to confront the issue of whether it should accept the Potsdam terms. In the tortuous discussions from August 9 through August 14, the peace party, motivated by a profound sense of betrayal, fear of Soviet influence on occupation policy, and above all by a desperate desire to preserve the imperial house, finally staged a conspiracy to impose the “emperor’s sacred decision” and accept the Potsdam terms, believing that under the circumstances surrendering to the United States would best assure the preservation of the imperial house and save the emperor.

The Atomic Bombs and the Soviet Invasion: What Drove Japan's Decision to Surrender? | The Asia-Pacific Journal

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It was outright murder by the U.S.

The Japanese were offering to surrender under the terms that they ultimately did surrender. Just as the Japanese did not want to go to war with the U.S. in the first place, but were manipulated by our communist dominated State Dept., and communist dominated administration, into "firing the first shot" - so too were the Japanese forced to continue fighting, when they had already offered terms for surrender before the bombs were dropped.

The were two overriding reasons that the U.S. wanted to keep the war going in the Pacific longer,

1) To buy time for Stalin and the communists to organize on Mainland China, with the eventual goal of overthrowing Chang Kai-Shek, and turning the world's most populated nation into a national prison.

and,

2) To drop the bomb, and thus enter into the "nuclear age" with a bang; and use that as a means of beginning a push toward global hegemony; use it as a scare tactic to manipulate the masses - using fear of nuclear war to promote the Cold War, and provide their street level troops with the motivation and cover to agitate for change - always, of course, moving the United States ever further leftward.

Like most things the Establishment does - the truth never makes it into the Establishment approved history books. The victors always write the history.

I'm sorry, that is a complete lie, we offered them a chance to surrender twice, they rejected, they then contacted the soviets and tried to make peace with them asking if they could ally with the US. After the first bomb was dropped and Hirohito was considering surrender a sect within the Army attempted to assinate him.

 

[joG]

But that is my point....the Soviets DID, they issued orders in the Cuban crisis that if attacked, even by conventional weapons, Officers were authorized to launch nukes. A Soviet sub captain ordered the launch of nuke torpedoes, nuke missiles on Cuba were ready to launch if any attack was made on the sites.

Ready if attacked. That is the catch.
That it might escalate, if there were a direct confrontation was one of the main dangers within MAD along with technical glitches or human error.
But that is all part of MAD. But that is how games are. Players can make mistakes. We know that. But that does not change the stable optimum.

 

[GunFora]

wrong.

It didn't end the war immediately if that's what you're saying, but there's no denying it was a key component in their surrender. The USSR declaring war on them was seemingly the last straw.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Ready if attacked. That is the catch.
That it might escalate, if there were a direct confrontation was one of the main dangers within MAD along with technical glitches or human error.
But that is all part of MAD. But that is how games are. Players can make mistakes. We know that. But that does not change the stable optimum.

You have now fully abandoned the basic ideas of MAD and are ignoring that the LEADERSHIP issued orders for the use, the decision to launch was pushed down to lower levels of command, in the field where rational, global decision making was violated.....because the Soviet leadership itself violated the rules of MAD, they issued irrational orders. They issued orders allowing for first strike.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Dropping the bomb was most certainly justified. It was an all-out war, in Europe and in the Pacific. The Japanese proved that in Nanking. They were not following any of the 'rules' of warfare. The fact is at the time, the Japanese leadership only understood brute force. Because of the Japanese hard-liners it would have took either an all-out invasion or the abomb to end the war. The abomb costs many less lives.