Question about Hiroshima and Nagasaki

sponger

AllNiteThing wrote:

The allies basically ignored the offers of surrender or dragged out their decision intentionally because they had planned on using the bombs for a long time.

I believe that Truman unnecessarily nuked two of Japan's largest cities, but I don't believe in supporting that with false logic.

There is no evidence that Japan officially extended an offer of compliance to the Potsman Declaration before sizzle sizzle fry fry happened.

tybird

AllNiteThing wrote:

The allies basically ignored the offers of surrender or dragged out their decision intentionally because they had planned on using the bombs for a long time.

Let's see....the bomb was tested in July in the U.S. and dropped in August on Japan. Yes, they were planning to use something that they weren't sure was going to work for a long time.

Byrnzie

tybird wrote:

Let's see....the bomb was tested in July in the U.S. and dropped in August on Japan. Yes, they were planning to use something that they weren't sure was going to work for a long time.

Let's see...there's been plenty of evidence provided on this thread which proves that Japan was making moves towards agreeing terms for surrender - along with the fact that the Japanese army was all but finished. You, on the other hand, have provided no evidence that the dropping of the atomic bombs was necessary.
I think that anyone viewing this thread can see that you lost this argument about 5 days ago.
Have you ever heard the phrase 'Pissing in the wind'?

Byrnzie

tybird wrote:

Quite capable....just not going to do it for something so widely known. I gave you directions in which to begin your search. Childish goading will not accomplish anything.

You've not provided any evidence because there isn't any. You've simply embarrassed yourself by spouting shit.

Its Evolution Baby

Byrnzie wrote:

Let's see...there's been plenty of evidence provided on this thread which proves that Japan was making moves towards agreeing terms for surrender - along with the fact that the Japanese army was all but finished. You, on the other hand, have provided no evidence that the dropping of the atomoc bombs was necessary.
I think that anyone viewing this thread can see that you lost this argument about 5 days ago.
Have you ever heard the phrase 'Pissing in the wind'?

I was involved in this debate at the beginning and nobody has PROVEN either way if Japan was going to Surrender or not. The reason is its all Theory and Rumors.

Everyone who knows the truth has passed on or is very very old. The original debate is whether we should feel bad about dropping the bomb or not. I don't think its wrong to feel bad about dropping the bomb just like its not bad to not feel bad about it. The fact is they attacked us first and dragged us into the war. Had they not done that we would have never dropped the bomb.

I don't get why the US has to get all of the blame especially AFTER Pearl Harbor.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Let's face it though...popping off two nukes in a row is good for at least 2-3 inches of virtual penis enlargement, in both length and girth.

Not to mention all the wonderful avenues of additional virtual penis development to discover immediately, and well after the fact.

Talk about the quintessential, all encompassing, MIC reacharound of the day!

Full Metal Jacket meets crispy critters...

tybird

Byrnzie wrote:

Let's see...there's been plenty of evidence provided on this thread which proves that Japan was making moves towards agreeing terms for surrender - along with the fact that the Japanese army was all but finished. You, on the other hand, have provided no evidence that the dropping of the atomoc bombs was necessary.
I think that anyone viewing this thread can see that you lost this argument about 5 days ago.
Have you ever heard the phrase 'Pissing in the wind'?

How about some information courtesy of a Mister Richard B. Frank, author of two notable works of military history including "Downfall: The End of the Japanese Empire." This is taken from his essay, "No Bomb: No End."

"In Japan's misshapen political structure, only eight individuals excercised any meaningful power of decision. An inner cabinet called the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War constituted ultimate governmental authority, but only if its members achieved unanimity. The contemporary shorthand for this body was the "Big Six": Prime Minister Suzuki Kantaro, Foreign Minister Togo Shigenori, War Minister Anami Korechika, Navy Minister Yonai Mitsumasa, Chief of the Army General Umezu Yoshijiro and Chief of the Navy General Staff Toyoda Soemu....The remaining two men who wielded real authority were the emperor and his intimate adviser, Keeper of the Privy Seal Kido Koichi. Kido's power lay in his ability to sway the emperor, and the emperor's power depended upon the compliance of the government and the armed forces to his orders."

"To this day, no pre-Hiroshima document has been produced from Japan demonstrating that any one of these eight men ever contemplated a termination of the war on any terms that could, or should have been acceptable to the United States or her allies. What history does document about their thinking illustrates just how intransigent they remained as late as August 9. On the day the second atomic struck Nagasaki-and following three years of almost unrelenting defeats, the destruction of Japan's shipping lifelines, the incineration of sixty cities, and Soviet intervention-the Big Six for the first time seriously discussed, and agreed on, a set of terms for ending the war."

"The emperor himself confessed that he actually shared the core convictions of the Big Six at least until June 1945, and he never moved decisively away from the stance. This explains why these men failed to move to end and points to what their response would have been in the absence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Plainly stated, they believed, and with good reason, that Japan still possessed an excellent chance to obtain an negotiated peace that would maintain the old order in Japan-in which they would be dominant."

"They (the Big Six) were confident that no amount of blockade and bombardment, even if it cost the lives of millions of their countryman, could compel them to yield."

"With a firm grasp of the strategic essentials, Japan embarked on a massive mobilization program. By midsummer (1945) there would be sixty divisions and thirty-four brigades mustering 2.9 million men in the homeland. A strict conservation program, plus the conversion of the aviation training establishment to kamikaze units, yeilded over 10,000 aircraft, half suicide planes, to confront the invasion."

So, 2.9 million men is a "finished" army???? The 10k aircraft would have equaled the number of U.S. aircraft planned for the initial invasion of the Japanese homeland. According to Mr. Frank, the Japanese military was at this point still 4 million men strong.

Other facts from Mr. Frank's essay:

"No Japanese government had capitulated in 2600 years; no Japanese detachment had surrendered in the entire course of the Pacific War. Accordingly, there was no guarantee either that a Japanese government would ever capitulate, or that Japan's armed forces would bow to such a command."

"Intelligence analysts had expressly warned policy makers on July 27, 1945 that so long as the Imperial Army remained convinced of its success in Ketsu Go (the homeland mobilization program mentioned earlier), there was NO prospect that Japan would yield to terms America could abide."

"There is, however, a still more fundamental point about why Japan's organized surrender stemmed from the atomic bombs, not Soviet intervention. Halting the war required both the decision of a legitimate Japanese authority that the war must end, and the compliance of Japan's armed forces with that decision. In explaining Japan's surrender shortly after the war, Prime Minister Suzuki testified that Japanese leaders remained devoted to continuing the war so long as they believed that the Imperial Army and Navy could ultimately conduct the "decisive battle" against the U.S. invasion. Suzuki confessed that Japan's leaders agreed to surrender only after the advent of nuclear weapons. They recognized that the United States would no longer need to invade Japan. If there was no invasion, Japan had no military and political strategy short of national suicide."

tybird

Byrnzie wrote:

You've not provided any evidence because there isn't any. You've simply embarrassed yourself by spouting shit.

Post-World War II Assistance to Japan
Total U.S. assistance to Japan for the years of the occupation, from 1946-1952
was roughly $2.2 billion ($15.2 billion in 2005 dollars), of which almost $1.7 billion
was grants and $504 million was loans. The Greenbook presents these figures as
provided under five headings. Over three-quarters (77 percent) of these funds were
provided through GARIOA grants. Most of the remainder (i.e., 23 percent) was $490
million in related funds that Japan repaid and is classified as a loan. There is no
information in the Greenbook or readily available published sources regarding how
much of this was provided for economic reconstruction, although the intent of the
occupation after 1948 was to promote economic recovery.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33331.pdf

Commy

Think about what you are defending. Atomic weapons on civilian centers.

Japan was in a hopeless strategic position. Militarily they had already lost. And when Germany was defeated Russia was freed up to focus on Japan as well. That's two superpowers against a tiny island nation that was already militarily defeated, in a hopeles position. Yet still they were nuked.


.........
"The bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 turned into powder and ash, in a few moments, the flesh and bones of 140,000 men, women, and children. Three days later, a second atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki killed perhaps 70,000 instantly. In the next five years, another 130,000 inhabitants of those two cities died of radiation poisoning.

A woman with her jaw missing and her tongue hanging out of her mouth was wandering around, in the heavy black rain, crying for help.

In The Making of the Atomic Bomb, probably the most thorough and most vivid narrative of that long, costly, and secret enterprise on the New Mexico desert known as "The Manhattan Project," Richard Rhodes, scrupulously controlled up to this point, describes the results with unmistakable feeling: "People exposed within half a mile of the Little Boy fireball were seared to bundles of smoking black char in a fraction of a second as their internal organs boiled away. The small black bundles now stuck to the streets and bridges and sidewalks of Hiroshima numbered in the thousands. At the same instant birds ignited in midair. Mosquitoes and flies, squirrels, family pets crackled and were gone.

A woman, then a girl in the 5th grade, remembered: "Everybody in the shelter was crying out loud. I do not know how many times I called begging that they would cut off my burned arms and legs."

The sociologist Kai Erikson, reviewing the report by the Japanese team of scientists, wrote:

"The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 'combat' in any of the ways that word is normally used. Nor were they primarily attempts to destroy military targets, for the two cities had been chosen not despite but because they had a high density of civilian housing. Whether the intended audience was Russian or Japanese or a combination of both, then the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration. The question is: What kind of mood does a fundamentally decent people have to be in, what kind of moral arrangements must it make, before it is willing to annihilate as many as a quarter of a million human beings for the sake of making a point."

Howard Zinn. http://polymer.bu.edu/~amaral/Personal/zinn.html

Abookamongstthemany

Commy wrote:

Think about what you are defending. Atomic weapons on civilian centers.

Seriously. Seeing the things human beings can bring themselves to rationalize makes me weary.

lazymoon13

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Seriously. Seeing the things human beings can bring themselves to rationalize makes me weary.

the rationalization is use the bombs or risk more innocent people and US soldiers dying by a US invasion of the mainland.


the facts of the situation can be debated all day but those are the 2 sides of the argument.

Its Evolution Baby

The Potsdam ultimatum

On July 26, Truman and other allied leaders issued The Potsdam Declaration outlining terms of surrender for Japan. It was presented as an ultimatum and stated that without a surrender, the Allies would attack Japan, resulting in "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland" but the atomic bomb was not mentioned. On July 28, Japanese papers reported that the declaration had been rejected by the Japanese government. That afternoon, Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki declared at a press conference that the Potsdam Declaration was no more than a rehash (yakinaoshi) of the Cairo Declaration and that the government intended to ignore it (mokusatsu).[8] The statement was taken by both Japanese and foreign papers as a clear rejection of the declaration. Emperor Hirohito, who was waiting for a Soviet reply to noncommittal Japanese peace feelers (see July 17 Allied discussion of the Japanese offer), made no move to change the government position.[9] On July 31, he made clear to Kido that the Imperial Regalia of Japan had to be defended at all costs.[10]

In early July, on his way to Potsdam, Truman had re-examined the decision to use the bomb. In the end, Truman made the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. His stated intention in ordering the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction, and instilling fear of further destruction, that was sufficient to cause Japan to surrender.[11]

---

This is what I was always taught by History books, the History Channel, my grandparents etc. Unless I see hard evidence to the contrary I will refuse to believe that Japan was on the verge of surrender and that we dropped the bomb just to show Russia what's up. We could have nuked an Island that killed no people to show what we could do. So I just don't buy this argument. This is coming from someone who is convinced that LBJ had Kennedy whacked so I'm not Anti Conspiracy.

Abookamongstthemany

lazymoon13 wrote:

the rationalization is use the bombs or risk more innocent people and US soldiers dying by a US invasion of the mainland.


the facts of the situation can be debated all day but those are the 2 sides of the argument.

Right.

So there were no other options than just those two?

lazymoon13

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Right.

So there were no other options than just those two?

dont shoot the messenger. I don't know. (I assume) that was long before any of our time. neither option was good.

but from what I read, everyone throwing down their weapons and enjoying some Californian rolls wasn't an option.

catefrances

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

.....
This is what I was always taught by History books, the History Channel, my grandparents etc. Unless I see hard evidence to the contrary I will refuse to believe that Japan was on the verge of surrender and that we dropped the bomb just to show Russia what's up. We could have nuked an Island that killed no people to show what we could do. So I just don't buy this argument. This is coming from someone who is convinced that LBJ had Kennedy whacked so I'm not Anti Conspiracy.

and what would that have shown? that the US could destroy an island. big woop? no loss of life, no horrific injuries and no vapourised bodies. exactly what would nuking an uninhabited island show again? these bombs are a terrorist weapon of mass destruction. if you dont instill terror, then there is no point. so youre wrong, just dropping them on an island devoid of human life, would have shown nothing and definitely not what they were capable of nor how horrific such a weapon is/was.

so i guess i dont buy your argument either.

Its Evolution Baby

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Right.

So there were no other options than just those two?

Well we could have kept lobbing bombs for 10 years until Japan and the US eventually reached an agreement. Of course that would have led to civilian deaths as well.

There weren't to many scenarios that didn't involve extreme loss of life because it was a friggin War. One that unlike the War in Iraq actually served a better purpose as millions and millions of Jews and Asians were being slaughtered by Germany and Japan. At the same time the US soldiers were young and were dying as well. War is hell and should never be entered lightly.

Let's say Truman held out on dropping the bomb and Japan never surrendered. Both sides would have suffered extreme soldier casualties as well as the civilians killed during the combat. And we still might have had to drop the bomb to win the war. There is no way to know how the war would have played out either way other then there would be thousands of deaths. Thats why no one should want to be president and make those kind of decisions

Its Evolution Baby

catefrances wrote:

and what would that have shown? that the US could destroy an island. big woop? no loss of life, no horrific injuries and no vapourised bodies. exactly what would nuking an uninhabited island show again? these bombs are a terrorist weapon of mass destruction. if you dont instill terror, then there is no point. so youre wrong, just dropping them on an island devoid of human life, would have shown nothing and definitely not what they were capable of nor how horrific such a weapon is/was.

so i guess i dont buy your argument either.

We first tested the bomb in July and dropped it in August. We weren't even sure of the effects. Plus dropping the bomb didn't keep Russia off of our backs at all. If anything it made it worse as they developed there own weapons. So if dropping the bomb was met for a show for Russia then it didn't really prevent anything.

Just seems likes something strange to do when the Cold War didn't really start until after we dropped the bomb.

catefrances

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

We first tested the bomb in July and dropped it in August. We weren't even sure of the effects. Plus dropping the bomb didn't keep Russia off of our backs at all. If anything it made it worse as they developed there own weapons. So if dropping the bomb was met for a show for Russia then it didn't really prevent anything.

Just seems likes something strange to do when the Cold War didn't really start until after we dropped the bomb.

oh my, fancy that... the US government acting militarily without full knowledge of what their actions would result in.
and the fact that they had NO clue as to what the result would be makes the act even more heinous. i can't ever condone an action that basically says, lets drop these bombs and see what happens.
and as for their relationship with russia.....

tybird

catefrances wrote:

oh my, fancy that... the US government acting militarily without full knowledge of what their actions would result in.
and the fact that they had NO clue as to what the result would be makes the act even more heinous. i can't ever condone an action that basically says, lets drop these bombs and see what happens.
and as for their relationship with russia.....

In 1945, they (the government) had hopes that the atomic bomb could be safely used in domestic engineering projects that required the removal of tons of earth...big bomb is equal to a compact little bundle of TNT was one line of thinking. They didn't know the effects of the bombs....no one knew the effects of the bombs.

tybird

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Well we could have kept lobbing bombs for 10 years until Japan and the US eventually reached an agreement. Of course that would have led to civilian deaths as well.

There weren't to many scenarios that didn't involve extreme loss of life because it was a friggin War. One that unlike the War in Iraq actually served a better purpose as millions and millions of Jews and Asians were being slaughtered by Germany and Japan. At the same time the US soldiers were young and were dying as well. War is hell and should never be entered lightly.

Let's say Truman held out on dropping the bomb and Japan never surrendered. Both sides would have suffered extreme soldier casualties as well as the civilians killed during the combat. And we still might have had to drop the bomb to win the war. There is no way to know how the war would have played out either way other then there would be thousands of deaths. Thats why no one should want to be president and make those kind of decisions

Based on the Japanese rice harvest in 1945 and the blockade of the country, famine was in line for winter 1945-46 if the war continued. The U.S. was shifting it's bombing strategy from cities to industrial sites and the rail system. This would have stopped food production and movement through the country and worsened any famine conditions.