ExiledInIllinois Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 There really should be no discussion. What's done is done. You can't unring a bell. Would I be for dropping the bomb again given the same exact situation. Hell yes. Sorry if that offends some people. There was a terrible war being fought. Nothing is off limits given that situation. We should NEVER give an apology for being in that position and being victorious. One of the few times (if the only time) in all humanity that we reached a breaking point... Something had to give. I am glad the US was not on the receiving end. There is nothing to be ashamed of. End of story.
truth on hold Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) Soviets, Stalin knew of its existence well in advance thanks to Fuchs! In lieu of being utterly defeated they refused surrender unconditionally. Ultimately the only condition 'on the quiet' was the Emperor. An Allied landing like Normandy, Operation Downfall , had so few beaches suitable in Japan that everyone, including the Japanese knew precisely where it would be, Allied losses were predicted to b extremely high. The Japanese command was insane, just insane.Knowing of the program is a lot different than seeing it successfully deployed and on civilians. People forget the soviets actually entered the Japanese war at the tail end trying to get in on the spoils. It was already clear that the US and Soviets would be in for a showdown after the great war ended, and the exercise during the last phases was converting the soon to be defeated nations to be on your side in what would come to be known as the cold war. From Germany, for example, the US raided the scientists and engineers from the nazi missile program. Edited August 9, 2015 by JTSP
Deranged Rhino Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 Knowing of the program is a lot different than seeing it successfully deployed and on civilians. People forget the soviets actually entered the Japanese war at the tail end trying to get in on the spoils. It was already clear that the US and Soviets would be in for a showdown after the great war ended, and the exercise during the last phases was converting the soon to be defeated nations to be on your side in what would come to be known as the cold war. From Germany, for example, the US raided the scientists and engineers from the nazi missile program. So did the soviets. But it's cool to leave it out. Putin would approve.
/dev/null Posted August 9, 2015 Author Posted August 9, 2015 There really should be no discussion. What's done is done. You can't unring a bell. Would I be for dropping the bomb again given the same exact situation. Hell yes. Sorry if that offends some people. There was a terrible war being fought. Nothing is off limits given that situation. We should NEVER give an apology for being in that position and being victorious. One of the few times (if the only time) in all humanity that we reached a breaking point... Something had to give. I am glad the US was not on the receiving end. There is nothing to be ashamed of. End of story. And it's not like the Japanese wouldn't had dropped the atomic bomb on us if they had the opportunity. Little known fact, the Japanese had began work on their own nuclear program. Near the end of the war, Germany attempted to ship some radioactive material to Japan via U-Boat. Germany surrendered while they were en-route so the sub changed course and surrendered to the Americans. The cargo is rumored (not confirmed) to have been used in of one the bombs dropped on Japan. Google U234
DC Tom Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 And it's not like the Japanese wouldn't had dropped the atomic bomb on us if they had the opportunity. Little known fact, the Japanese had began work on their own nuclear program. Near the end of the war, Germany attempted to ship some radioactive material to Japan via U-Boat. Germany surrendered while they were en-route so the sub changed course and surrendered to the Americans. The cargo is rumored (not confirmed) to have been used in of one the bombs dropped on Japan. Google U234 But probably not. From a UBoat in Halifax, to Oak Ridge to be purified, to Los Alamos to be machined, to be flown out to Tinian by July 30? Not likely.
BarleyNY Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 The reason Japan was bombed twice was because Germany had surrendered. One bomb was destined for Berlin, one for Japan. Dont forget, Aug.6,1945 would not be possible without Dec. 7, 1941 The two bombs were developed in parallel, but used different technologies. One was a uranium bomb and the other plutonium and the detonation methods were different. The reason there were two was because scientists had two different theories of how to create a nuclear bomb, but no one knew if either would actually work. The U.S. took the approach of developing both in the hopes that one would.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) I think it is the Washington Post, there was a good article from around the world what people in countries were taught as children about this subject. I will see if I can find it. Check out what they teach the children in Hiroshima & Nagasaki about it... Kinda right on! Then check out Iran... OMG! Then the wacky Euro countries... Italy, totally the worse. We should have let Benito run all over it! WTF. Sweden shocked me too. Okay, maybe not shocked me. That one was for you 4mer! Here it is: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/08/06/how-the-hiroshima-bombing-is-taught-around-the-world/ Edited August 9, 2015 by ExiledInIllinois
truth on hold Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) I think it is the Washington Post, there was a good article from around the world what people in countries were taught as children about this subject. I will see if I can find it. Check out what they teach the children in Hiroshima & Nagasaki about it... Kinda right on! Then check out Iran... OMG! Then the wacky Euro countries... Italy, totally the worse. We should have let Benito run all over it! WTF. Sweden shocked me too. Okay, maybe not shocked me. That one was for you 4mer! Here it is: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/08/06/how-the-hiroshima-bombing-is-taught-around-the-world/ Asians I know from countries japan occupied seem to be of the "good, f%#@ them, they brought it on themselves". Europeans I know tend to blame America for everything no matter, while looking completely past their imperial histories. For that reason I tend not to bother with their views Edited August 9, 2015 by JTSP
DC Tom Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 The two bombs were developed in parallel, but used different technologies. One was a uranium bomb and the other plutonium and the detonation methods were different. The reason there were two was because scientists had two different theories of how to create a nuclear bomb, but no one knew if either would actually work. The U.S. took the approach of developing both in the hopes that one would. Actually, Little Boy used uranium because they couldn't get the "gun" style core to work with plutonium. Hanford produced plutonium with too many impurities that created too high a neutron flux; a gun-type detonator would go critical too early and blow the core apart before it completely detonated (i.e. it would "fizzle".) Uranium didn't have that problem. And they knew either device would work. The implosion device was just more efficient...but harder to build. A gun-type device is simpler and can be built to looser tolerances - so much simpler that they were so sure it would work, that the first test of the device was dropping it on Hiroshima. They literally had more confidence in that bomb than they did in the plane carrying it.
tennesseeboy Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 You figure woerld war II had one of the highest, if not the highest Civilian to military kill ratios in history with 70 million dead and a ratio of around 67%. More disturbing is it validates (as the war progressed) the bombing of purely or primarily civilian targets such as Dresden and for that matter Tokyo as well as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm not sure what we (or the Chinese or the Russians) are targeting but I'm assuming that a great number of the targets are heavilty populated cities. Given that we did chose the first targets for nuclear attack as primarily civilian targets we pretty much set the stage for WW III. I just got back from six months in the Baltics and after a previous stint in Ukraine, I'm not convinced the Russians are all that opposed to pushing the envelope even when it comes to possible use of nuclear weapons.
DC Tom Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 You figure woerld war II had one of the highest, if not the highest Civilian to military kill ratios in history with 70 million dead and a ratio of around 67%. More disturbing is it validates (as the war progressed) the bombing of purely or primarily civilian targets such as Dresden and for that matter Tokyo as well as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm not sure what we (or the Chinese or the Russians) are targeting but I'm assuming that a great number of the targets are heavilty populated cities. Given that we did chose the first targets for nuclear attack as primarily civilian targets we pretty much set the stage for WW III. I just got back from six months in the Baltics and after a previous stint in Ukraine, I'm not convinced the Russians are all that opposed to pushing the envelope even when it comes to possible use of nuclear weapons. Cities were where the industry was at. Cities were also the smallest practical thing that could be reliably aimed at. What's scary is the Allies' slow, inexorable evolution of doctrine from "pinpoint, precision" attacks at the start of the war to area bombing by the end of the war, that nobody seems to notice because "Hey, we're trying. But bombing is hard." And at least in Europe the 8th Air Force never gives up on the idea of targeting specific industrial targets (though by 1945, bombardiers are looking at their radar screens and saying "Eh, close enough.") But by the time LeMay starts bombing Japan, he's abandoned all pretense of precision bombing. Largely because LeMay was an !@#$. And there's plenty of worse civilian-to-military ratios, I'm sure. But you probably have to go back before the mass armies of Napoleonic days, when armies were smaller, made of professional mercenaries, and required a larger but less efficient population base to support. Off the top of my head...the Mongol invasion of Khwarezm and the Hundred Years' War were almost certainly worse. Probably the Chinese civil war after World War II, and at least one other Chinese war from antiquity that I can't recall the details of.
Saxum Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 There were plenty; many workers imported from Japanese colonies who had no choice of being there; have relatives taken from Hong Kong to Japan. My aunt was also born in Japan during the war and you are saying as a child she is not a civilian? There were plenty who did not agree on the war but had no choice in Imperial Japan.
Recommended Posts