Question about Hiroshima and Nagasaki

catefrances

tybird wrote:

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.

doesn't make them less negligent. tis a bit aiming a gun at someone and saying well, im not sure just how big a hole this will open up in your body, lets find out shall we?
anyhoo at least with the knowledge we now possess about how destructive these weapons are perhaps no one will ever again be foolish enough to test their strength. mutual assured destruction does have a certain ring to it don't you think?

tybird

lazymoon13 wrote:

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.

Invade the country...major loss of life expected on both sides with this option.
Drop the atomic bombs
Siege/blockade/continued aerial bombardment....in the long run, probably more Japanese lives lost with this option.

No one, outside of Japan, was going to accept the continued reign of the Imperial government that started the Asian war. It would have been like leaving the Nazis in power.

Commy

tybird wrote:

Invade the country...major loss of life expected on both sides with this option.
Drop the atomic bombs
Siege/blockade/continued aerial bombardment....in the long run, probably more Japanese lives lost with this option.

No one, outside of Japan, was going to accept the continued reign of the Imperial government that started the Asian war. It would have been like leaving the Nazis in power.

But they accepted the one condition Japan wasn't willing to concede anyway, the irony in this terrible affair. And you have to realize, according to official US documents, a ground invasion wasn't even needed to force Japan to surrender.

Think we have to remember negotiations are for the weak, when it comes to international affairs. Countries get what they want if they can back it up militarily.

tybird

Commy wrote:

But they accepted the one condition Japan wasn't willing to concede anyway, the irony in this terrible affair. And you have to realize, according to official US documents, a ground invasion wasn't even needed to force Japan to surrender.

Think we have to remember negotiations are for the weak, when it comes to international affairs. Countries get what they want if they can back it up militarily.

The Japanese were so trusting in negotiations....like carrying on with them while the fleet steamed towards Pearl Harbor???

Post-war documents may say...well we really didn't to invade...but in July/August 1945, that was the plan....until they re-ran the numbers and didn't like them. The navy backed out of the initial plans first.

Commy

tybird wrote:

The Japanese were so trusting in negotiations....like carrying on with them while the fleet steamed towards Pearl Harbor???

Post-war documents may say...well we really didn't to invade...but in July/August 1945, that was the plan....until they re-ran the numbers and didn't like them. The navy backed out of the initial plans first.

What fleet? Japan had no navy in 1945, they were militarily defeated in 1945.

And this was known to the fewwho decided to DROP AN ATOMIC BOMB ON CITIES BECAUSE OF THEIR CONCENTRATION OF CIVILIANS, NOT DESPITE.

Commy

What fleet? Japan had no navy in 1945, they were militarily defeated in 1945.

And this was known to the fewwho decided to DROP AN ATOMIC BOMB ON CITIES BECAUSE OF THEIR CONCENTRATION OF CIVILIANS, NOT DESPITE.

You keep asking for pre-Hiroshima reports about Japan's military state-which was obviously reduced to nothing if the war was over Tokyo, but you provide nothing pre-Horoshima that says ATOMIC WEAPONS were necessary. Typical hypocritacal US posturing.

Kel Varnsen

tybird wrote:

Invade the country...major loss of life expected on both sides with this option.
Drop the atomic bombs
Siege/blockade/continued aerial bombardment....in the long run, probably more Japanese lives lost with this option.

No one, outside of Japan, was going to accept the continued reign of the Imperial government that started the Asian war. It would have been like leaving the Nazis in power.

THat is sort of what I have always thought about the bombing it was one terrible option out of a group of many terrible options. Personally I think if you start a war any casuatiles on your side are on you. Of course it is sad that people were killed but I think the Japanese created their own fate. Even if they were trying to surrender they should have made it perfectly clear that they did not want to be attacked (like broadcasting your surrender on every radio frequency) so that there could have been no debate about it today. If they had done that and were still attacked they would obviously have gotten infinitely more sympathy. Otherwise I have to say it is mostly on them.

Byrnzie

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

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.

Yeah, but it's just not quite as black and white as that though. I think you'll find that - not unlike 9/11 - there was a bit of history prior to that event. These things don't occur out of an historical vaccum.

Byrnzie

tybird wrote:

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

Thanks. That's all I was asking for - a bit of clarification.
And as far as these Japanese factories being superior to U.S factories - do you have any material on that?

Collin

tybird wrote:

They didn't know the effects of the bombs....no one knew the effects of the bombs.

Perhaps they didn't know about radiation sickness but they certainly knew they'd kill thousands of innocent people. They deliberately killed thousands of innocent people.

But whether they knew or not, "Is a fool on the throne relieved of all responsibility merely because he is a fool?" I think not.

tybird

Commy wrote:

What fleet? Japan had no navy in 1945, they were militarily defeated in 1945.

And this was known to the fewwho decided to DROP AN ATOMIC BOMB ON CITIES BECAUSE OF THEIR CONCENTRATION OF CIVILIANS, NOT DESPITE.

U.S. Navy...backed out of the original invasion plans.

tybird

Byrnzie wrote:

Thanks. That's all I was asking for - a bit of clarification.
And as far as these Japanese factories being superior to U.S factories - do you have any material on that?

Try the Juran Institute web site or look up Juran...a U.S. quality assurance guru who went to Japan post-war and got them behind the six-sigma movement long before anyone in the U.S. would listen to him.

The story about Toyota and the Korean War should also be easy to find....they were going belly up until their proximity to the conflict swelled their orders.

tybird

Kel Varnsen wrote:

THat is sort of what I have always thought about the bombing it was one terrible option out of a group of many terrible options. Personally I think if you start a war any casuatiles on your side are on you. Of course it is sad that people were killed but I think the Japanese created their own fate. Even if they were trying to surrender they should have made it perfectly clear that they did not want to be attacked (like broadcasting your surrender on every radio frequency) so that there could have been no debate about it today. If they had done that and were still attacked they would obviously have gotten infinitely more sympathy. Otherwise I have to say it is mostly on them.

The problem was that the Japanese Old Guard who started the war wanted to stay in power....according to the Allies that was completely unacceptable...just like it would have been in Germany or Italy. The Old Guard was trying to circumnavigate that by "searching" for peace.