August 6, 1945

EvilToasterElfEvilToasterElf Posts: 1,119
edited August 2006 in A Moving Train
This Sunday commemorates the day the first atomic bomb was dropped 2 hours north of my present habitation.

But, the real reasons for dropping the bomb are still under debate. Whether it was truly to bring about the capitulation of Japan, half-motivated by revenge over Pearl Harbor, tortured POW's, and heavy marine losses at Iwa Jima and Okinowa

or...

That it was the first shot in the Cold War, aimed specifically at curtailling Stalin's lust for more territory in Western Europe, and the desire to keep communism from "threatening" capitalism across the planet.

There is plenty of evidence on both sides, but the evidence we don't hear is that Japan was already in the process of capitulation, that terms of surrender were already offered by Hirohito, but the Japanese terms included keeping the Emperor, and was not part of the terms of our "unconditional surrender."

However, even after the two atomic bombs, even after the unconditional surrender, Hirohito was allowed to retain his position until 1989.

It's a topic worthy of discussion, considering that these bombs have led to the policy of going to pre-emptive war to prevent others from acquiring the same bomb.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    There is also another point of view that it was an experiment by the US to test the A-Bomb in a real life scenario. Either way it was a bad idea. I've brought Hiroshima and Nagasaki up several times on this board.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • dkst0426dkst0426 Posts: 523
    Ahnimus wrote:
    There is also another point of view that it was an experiment by the US to test the A-Bomb in a real life scenario. Either way it was a bad idea. I've brought Hiroshima and Nagasaki up several times on this board.
    Sending in American troops for a ground invasion that would've taken years and killed literally millions more would've been far better, right?
  • my little sister's 7th birthday is on sunday. the party is on saturday.
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • PickrPickr Posts: 161
    It's truly sad, all the people that had nothing to do with that war who did not even have a chance, just vaporized...disgusting.
    Stix and Stones may break my bones, but More than Words will never hurt me.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    dkst0426 wrote:
    Sending in American troops for a ground invasion that would've taken years and killed literally millions more would've been far better, right?
    Years?

    Millions?

    Literally?
  • truroutetruroute Posts: 251
    *sigh*
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    dkst0426 wrote:
    Sending in American troops for a ground invasion that would've taken years and killed literally millions more would've been far better, right?

    Why would that have been necessary? Do you know anything about this topic? The Japanese army had been largely destroyed, to the point that Japan no longer had a functioning army to speak of. The dropping of the A-bombs was simply a way of the U.S shouting to the world that it was now a major superpower, stepping in on the coat-tails of the Russians who had been responsible for defeating the German army and who had made the greatest sacrifice.
    The strategical gains the U.S had made during the years 1939 - 1941 when bribing Britain into giving up large chunks of it's terrirtory all over the world in return for supplying Britain with food also helped.
    The day that America dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan was the day America made it's Faustian pact with the Devil.
  • chopitdownchopitdown Posts: 2,222
    This Sunday commemorates the day the first atomic bomb was dropped 2 hours north of my present habitation.

    But, the real reasons for dropping the bomb are still under debate. Whether it was truly to bring about the capitulation of Japan, half-motivated by revenge over Pearl Harbor, tortured POW's, and heavy marine losses at Iwa Jima and Okinowa

    or...

    That it was the first shot in the Cold War, aimed specifically at curtailling Stalin's lust for more territory in Western Europe, and the desire to keep communism from "threatening" capitalism across the planet.

    There is plenty of evidence on both sides, but the evidence we don't hear is that Japan was already in the process of capitulation, that terms of surrender were already offered by Hirohito, but the Japanese terms included keeping the Emperor, and was not part of the terms of our "unconditional surrender."

    However, even after the two atomic bombs, even after the unconditional surrender, Hirohito was allowed to retain his position until 1989.

    It's a topic worthy of discussion, considering that these bombs have led to the policy of going to pre-emptive war to prevent others from acquiring the same bomb.

    I'd say it makes for interesting discussion. The bomb was used to help end the war and it did. Are there secondary effects from the bomb dropping...there probably are.

    also, if there is evidence we don't hear about..how did you learn of it? not trying to be an ass with that question.

    Other countries are nuclear. Every country with a nuke should be monitored but there are certain countries that I don't want to have a nuke. The reason the nuke worked so well is b/c no one else had it. Now a lot of people have them and I don't think that the countries that have them currently would use them
    make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
  • robbierobbie Posts: 883
    dkst0426 wrote:
    Sending in American troops for a ground invasion that would've taken years and killed literally millions more would've been far better, right?


    your right!!!!! and anyone at war with the united states should drop nukes if they got'em in new york, l.a. and d.c. to avoid a long drawn out ground war as well. right????????
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    chopitdown wrote:
    I'd say it makes for interesting discussion. The bomb was used to help end the war and it did. Are there secondary effects from the bomb dropping...there probably are.

    also, if there is evidence we don't hear about..how did you learn of it? not trying to be an ass with that question.

    Other countries are nuclear. Every country with a nuke should be monitored but there are certain countries that I don't want to have a nuke. The reason the nuke worked so well is b/c no one else had it. Now a lot of people have them and I don't think that the countries that have them currently would use them

    I don't think it worked very well. But I've visited a lot of Japanese websites dedicated to it. I've also seen a dozen documentaries on it. Pretty disgusting stuff.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • The reasons why the bombs were dropped are surely important, but I think it's more important to look at it in an honest way. When you do that, it's clear that this was an extremely brutal terrorist attack...an attack on civilians to scare and influence their government. That's terrorism.

    This brings up the more interesting question of "is terrorism justifiable in any way?" I personally don't think so, but obviously many people do...interestingly enough, many of those same people condemn things like the 9/11 attacks as not justifiable in any way.
  • PickrPickr Posts: 161
    Saturnal wrote:
    The reasons why the bombs were dropped are surely important, but I think it's more important to look at it in an honest way. When you do that, it's clear that this was an extremely brutal terrorist attack...an attack on civilians to scare and influence their government. That's terrorism.

    This brings up the more interesting question of "is terrorism justifiable in any way?" I personally don't think so, but obviously many people do...interestingly enough, many of those same people condemn things like the 9/11 attacks as not justifiable in any way.

    I think you have to delve more deeply into the first part of your post and define what "terrorism" is...Personally I feel it is a tactic to instill fear in people that can be done by threat of violence alone. To me that is a terrorist act...ie..threatening to blow up abortion clinics.
    Stix and Stones may break my bones, but More than Words will never hurt me.
  • I hate the fact the "bomb" was ever made......I hate the whole concept even more because two got used....
  • chopitdownchopitdown Posts: 2,222
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I don't think it worked very well. But I've visited a lot of Japanese websites dedicated to it. I've also seen a dozen documentaries on it. Pretty disgusting stuff.

    it was disgusting stuff, no arguments. But it did help end the war / cement the japanese defeat depending on your opinion of necessity and possibly with fewer casualties...we'll NEVER know the answer to that one, so let's not even go down that road.
    make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
  • Pickr wrote:
    I think you have to delve more deeply into the first part of your post and define what "terrorism" is...Personally I feel it is a tactic to instill fear in people that can be done by threat of violence alone. To me that is a terrorist act...ie..threatening to blow up abortion clinics.

    Dropping a A-Bomb does not create fear?
  • PickrPickr Posts: 161
    Dropping a A-Bomb does not create fear?

    I think it created worldwide fear...I am just pointing out that terrorism is very subjective, many see it in different ways..
    Stix and Stones may break my bones, but More than Words will never hurt me.
  • Pickr wrote:
    I think it created worldwide fear...I am just pointing out that terrorism is very subjective, many see it in different ways..

    I think there is no bigger threat and no bigger fear than an A-bomb and regardless of it's inital use any country that would currently use it should be deemed criminals.....all these weapons should be abolished.....
  • Pickr wrote:
    I think you have to delve more deeply into the first part of your post and define what "terrorism" is...Personally I feel it is a tactic to instill fear in people that can be done by threat of violence alone. To me that is a terrorist act...ie..threatening to blow up abortion clinics.

    I think the same fear can be instilled from both threats and terrorist acts, but they're still very different things. It's pretty much accepted that terrorism involves violent action against civilians to scare them and influence their government. The threat of violence and actually carrying it out are very different. It's like when you get really mad at someone and say "oh I could kill him!", even though you'd never actually do it.
  • thats a great anniversary. we ended wwII on that day. i'll be sure to drink a cold one in celebration and rememberance.
  • dkst0426dkst0426 Posts: 523
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Why would that have been necessary? Do you know anything about this topic? The Japanese army had been largely destroyed, to the point that Japan no longer had a functioning army to speak of.
    Do YOU fucking know anything about this topic? Japanese pride dictated that they needed to be brought to their knees. Hirohito WANTED an empire stretching from Japan to the southern tip of the Indonesian islands, damn whomever got in their way, and they were ruthless on their march south. Both my grandfathers and most of my father's side of the family who still lived in southern China at the time were wiped out when the Japanese began massacring Chinese.

    So while you talk about weeping for Japanese and their families, I, and millions and billions of other Chinese around the world today, THANK the US for doing what it took to bring those atrocities to an end.
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Saturnal wrote:
    It's like when you get really mad at someone and say "oh I could kill him!", even though you'd never actually do it.

    I've been convicted of uttering death threats for that. I said it to my sister when I was a teenager. I also gave a guy that worked for my dad a friendly push and was charged and convicted for assault.

    I don't do that shit anymore but I see it happening all the time. What kind of standard do we have? Is it right or wrong?
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • zircona1zircona1 Posts: 293
    I'd just like to chime in here and recommend John Hersey's "Hiroshima" for anyone who hasn't read it, it's the story of the Hiroshima bombing told from the survivors' perspectives.
    "As long as the music's loud enough, we won't hear the world falling apart."—Jubilee

    "I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions." - George Carlin
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    zircona1 wrote:
    I'd just like to chime in here and recommend John Hersey's "Hiroshima" for anyone who hasn't read it, it's the story of the Hiroshima bombing told from the survivors' perspectives.

    I've read survivor testimony. Also there is a video on google that provides some. Here it is Google Video: Hiroshima (BBC)
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • PickrPickr Posts: 161
    zircona1 wrote:
    I'd just like to chime in here and recommend John Hersey's "Hiroshima" for anyone who hasn't read it, it's the story of the Hiroshima bombing told from the survivors' perspectives.

    Has there ever been a story on the pilots who actually dropped the bombs? I would like to know how they dealt with that afterwards.
    Stix and Stones may break my bones, but More than Words will never hurt me.
  • PickrPickr Posts: 161
    dkst0426 wrote:
    Do YOU fucking know anything about this topic? Japanese pride dictated that they needed to be brought to their knees. Hirohito WANTED an empire stretching from Japan to the southern tip of the Indonesian islands, damn whomever got in their way, and they were ruthless on their march south. Both my grandfathers and most of my father's side of the family who still lived in southern China at the time were wiped out when the Japanese began massacring Chinese.

    So while you talk about weeping for Japanese and their families, I, and millions and billions of other Chinese around the world today, THANK the US for doing what it took to bring those atrocities to an end.

    I think the point still stands that the Japanese army was pretty much done for at that time.
    Stix and Stones may break my bones, but More than Words will never hurt me.
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Pickr wrote:
    Has there ever been a story on the pilots who actually dropped the bombs? I would like to know how they dealt with that afterwards.

    That video I linked above your post has testimony from the Enola Gay crew aswell.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • dkst0426dkst0426 Posts: 523
    Pickr wrote:
    I think the point still stands that the Japanese army was pretty much done for at that time.
    And Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the culmination of a counteroffensive against the Japanese by the Americans after the Doolittle Raid, Coral Sea battle, Guadalcanal, Battle of the Philippines, Midway, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa.

    Take a look at the big picture--Hiroshima and Nagasaki alone are not why the Japanese surrendered, and as hindsight has proven, it was a necessary event of war in a series of such events.
  • spongersponger Posts: 3,159
    I find it hard to believe how no one so far has mentioned the fact that the Japanese civilian population was ready to fight to the death even if it meant picking up garden tools. A perfect example is what was happening in Okinawa at that time. The women and children were committing suicide en masse because they were being told that they would suffer horrific abuses at the hands of the invading americans.

    The japanese population was very much like that of modern-day extremists in the sense that they were willing to sacrifice themselves and their children at the behest of their government. They took patriotism to a whole new level. If anything, the kamikaze pilots were the WWII equivalent of today's suicide bombers, the only difference being that they weren't also using children to carry out those suicide attacks.

    So, the fact that the japanese military was virtually non-existent does not mean that an immeasurable amount of lives could not have been lost on both sides had the US decided to invade.
Sign In or Register to comment.