Hiroshima

Was the bombing of Hiroshima justified

  • No, it was a disgraceful warcrime

    Votes: 39 53.4%
  • Yes, it saved American lives

    Votes: 29 39.7%
  • Yes, it was war against all Japanese

    Votes: 5 6.8%

  • Total voters
    73
MjM said:
Good to know they tested these babies throughout the pacific.

Also i dont know why Dag said the Japanese wouldnt have been tried if they had done the same thing.

They had the Tokyo War crimes tribunal, MAY 3, 1946 to NOVEMBER 12, 1948.

I suppose in those early days they didnt know what variation in fallout occured.
Air bursts are the least dangerous, basically the more material you kick up in the explosion the more dangerous the fallout is.
The testing was pretty safe actually, they were very remote locations, my Grandpa took part in one of these.
 
Meteorological

Meteorological conditions will greatly influence fallout, particularly local fallout. Atmospheric winds are able to distribute fallout over large areas. For example, as a result of a surface burst of a 15 Mt thermonuclear device at Bikini Atoll on March 1, 1954, a roughly cigar-shaped area of the Pacific extending over 500 km downwind and varying in width to a maximum of 100 km was severely contaminated. <- from wiki


One of my history teachers lived nextdoor to vet, he was in the NZ armed forces, and they took them all out to Bakini Atoll for tests, unno to watch from a distance. Yea well he reckon'd when a blast went off and you raised your hands to shield your eyes from the flash, there was like an X-ray effect, where you could make out the bones in your hands, i presume from the intensity of the light. Pretty amazing. For all their destructive power, nukes are strangely one of the most beautiful sights around imo.
 
Long story short, I think the bombs were the right thing to do. Saved many, many lives, and Japan would never be the same as it is today, if all those americans and japanese were slaughtered in the battle of japan.

And that doesn't even discuss all the weapons japan was developing in order to more effectively prolong the war, which thankfully didn't get a chance to get used. This was all in an age where carpet bombs ruled the day, and also killed countless civilians.


And like truman said... he wanted to prevent casualties on the scale of "an Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other."

No doubt the deaths of those people were horrific, and they didn't deserve them. I have always stood by them(see my posts on the WTC memorial 'freedom exhibit' thread. However, the number of lives lost, and the suffering was in my mind, far less than what would have been, considering what great lengths the japanese soldiers were trained to do to stop the americans. We're talking women and children running with weapons at the american troops, only to be mowed down, etc.


EDIT: One more thing, to those who talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki being civilian cities, and military targets to be chosen instead of them. First of all, Japan is a very tiny island, with huge, dense populations even back then. You have civilian nestled in with military, including wartime factories, etc. Just take a look at Wikipedia, and other information regarding Nagasaki and Hiroshima about their military importance to japan. Here's just two things from the wikipedia entry of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Hiroshima during World War II

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable military significance. It contained the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was chosen as a target because it had not suffered damage from previous bombing raids, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. The city was mobilized for "all-out" war, with thousands of conscripted women, children and Koreans working in military offices, military factories and building demolition and with women and children training to resist any invading force.[1] [2][3] [4]

Nagasaki during World War II

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.
 
Also:

We had 2 bombs, we dropped one on Hiroshima and they didn't surrender, we dropped another on Nagasaki and they finally did.

Not entirely true. The two bombs were dropped in short succession to prove (mainly to the Russians) that it wasn't just a one-off, that America had more than one of these weapons and that they could produce plenty more.
 
OK, even if you think Hiroshima was justified, what about Nagasaki?
 
Glirk Dient said:
....and with japan out of the way we could concentrate on germany more.
Tell me, what was your history grade? You may discover that Germany had surrendered three months before the bombings of Hiroshima.
 
Sulkdodds said:
Also:



Not entirely true. The two bombs were dropped in short succession to prove (mainly to the Russians) that it wasn't just a one-off, that America had more than one of these weapons and that they could produce plenty more.
There was 3 days between the two bombs being dropped.

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.
The_Monkey said:
Tell me, what was your history grade? You may discover that Germany had surrendered three months before the bombings of Hiroshima.
He did alright in History, he never said how they were going to focus more on Germany, could be rebuilding, could be anything, he never said how.
 
The Bombs were originally designed to be used on Germany, probably Berlin.
 
kirovman said:
The Bombs were originally designed to be used on Germany, probably Berlin.

And the reason for that was, because hitler himself was already on a fast track to finishing his nuclear bombs as well.
 
Raziaar said:
And the reason for that was, because hitler himself was already on a fast track to finishing his nuclear bombs as well.
But the fool drove off Einstien by persecuting the Jews.
 
ríomhaire said:
But the fool drove off Einstien by persecuting the Jews.

The moral of the story is: don't persecute someone who is eventually going to lead to the whooping of your proverbial ass. That's just stoopid.
 
Foxtrot said:
He did alright in History, he never said how they were going to focus more on Germany, could be rebuilding, could be anything, he never said how.

Well, war is the obvious choise. If he didn't say anything else, you must assume he meant war.
 
ríomhaire said:
But the fool drove off Einstien by persecuting the Jews.

Einstein and the jews weren't the only people he drove off that contributed to the atomic bombs.
 
The_Monkey said:
Well, war is the obvious choise. If he didn't say anything else, you must assume he meant war.
Not when it was already over :p
 
Raziaar said:
EDIT: One more thing, to those who talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki being civilian cities, and military targets to be chosen instead of them. First of all, Japan is a very tiny island, with huge, dense populations even back then. You have civilian nestled in with military, including wartime factories, etc. Just take a look at Wikipedia, and other information regarding Nagasaki and Hiroshima about their military importance to japan.

This man doesn't agree:
Wiki said:
The highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater, General Douglas MacArthur, was not consulted beforehand, but said afterward that there was no military justification for the bombings
 
Not everybody is bound to agree with it. I feel very sorry for all the civilians that lost their lives, or had them forever altered by the bombings, but really... it was far better an outcome for both countries than an invasion of japan would be.
 
Back
Top