Hiroshima, 6 August 1945

christiefan915 said:
That wasn't the view of many scientists at the time.

"The development of atomic power will provide the nations with new means of destruction. The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the first step in this direction, and there is almost no limit to the destructive power which will become available in the course of their future development. Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of natures for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale.

If after the war a situation is allowed to develop in the world which permits rival powers to be in uncontrolled possession of these new means of destruction, the cities of the United States as well as the cities of other nations will be continuous danger of sudden annihilation. All the resources of the United States, moral and material, may have to be mobilized to prevent the advent of such a world situation. Its prevention is at present the solemn responsibility of the United States--singled out by virtue of her lead in the field of atomic power.

The added material strength which this lead gives to the United States brings with it the obligation of restraint and if we were to violate this obligation our moral position would be weakened in the eyes of the world and in our own eyes. It would then be more difficult for us to live up to our responsibility of bringing the unloosened forces of destruction under control."

http://www.hiroshima-remembered.com/documents/Petition.html
Click to expand...

If you read that whole letter, the tone taken was one of the scientists wanting to give Japan a chance to surrender before being nuked. They had little compunction against the actual act but rather wanted it to be an act after other options were exhausted.
The US military opinion at the time was it would save lives and hasten the end of the war. Japan had had opportunities to surrender and showed no signs of wanting to do so. Truman sided with that opinion.
The bombs of the period, in the kiloton range, resulted in about the same level of destruction on a city that a large scale conventional bombing raid did. A raid on Tokyo with conventional bombers resulted in more deaths and wider destruction than either atomic bomb. But it required several hundred bombers and thousands of aircrew to pull off. Nuclear bombs of the sort then available were a better option for roughly the same level of destruction.

It would be thermonuclear (fusion) bombs that were truly terrifying.

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

Try the results using a Hiroshima bomb versus something in the MegaTon (MT) range on this.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Historian's fallacy. You can't judge actions of the past by today's moral standards. In this case, atomic weapons in 1945 were seen as nothing more than a bigger, better bomb. They weren't considered some special sort of weapon you were reluctant to use like chemicals (gas).
After all, the US could have sent several hundred bombers and done the same thing to Hiroshima they did with a nuclear bomb.

It was only when thermonuclear weapons came about that it suddenly became unthinkable to have a nuclear war. These were a thousand times more powerful than fission bombs were.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have repeatedly noted in this thread that we have the luxury of projecting our life experiences and our knowlege 77 years into the past.

On the other hand, even Truman understood he was about to unleash a weapon of unprecedented destructive power on a civilian population. The Pottsdam Declaration contained a tepid attempt to warn Japan they faced utter annihilation if they did not surrender unconditionally.
 
anatta said:
only advisors and SEATO. technically correct - but the war effort took off under JFK.
LBJ did it on steroids
Click to expand...

exactly, by the time Eisenhower left office, open fighting had broken out between Diem’s forces and the so-called Viet Cong, communist insurgents in the South who were backed by North Vietnam. Each side employed brutal tactics, including torture and political assassinations. The Vietnam War was then in full swing, and the United States was right in the middle of it.
 
AProudLefty said:
It's a proxy war from China and USSR.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There were Soviet and Chinese Air Force pilots in many NVA fighters plus techs all over the ground.

Remember the Russian "advisor" with the pro-Russian separatist Russian-owned Buk missile battery that shot down MH 17**? Like that but more of them.


**It was another example of Soviet/Russian war crimes, especially under Putin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
 
AProudLefty said:
Click to expand...

I always loved that video. It proves mankind has dominated the planet and fully capable of destroying himself and all major lifeforms on the Earth.

4cor38.gif
 
Jack said:
Translation; 'I have a vagina, I'm like a child, I don't make decisions'.

Yes. There's a reason for the expression 'Women and Children'.
Click to expand...

Translation: I cannot show a single post where Owl said she was either for or against the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so I'll just resort to my usual misogyny instead.

You're older than I am, Jack. Just why DIDN'T you serve in the Vietnam War years? Dodged the draft? Got deferments? Hid out in Canada? Had bonespurs?

Like most armchair warriors, you're fast and loose with other people's lives but very, very careful when it comes to your own.
 
christiefan915 said:
"...the rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication, which has gained surprising currency — that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives. These, supposedly, are the lives that would have been lost in the planned invasion of Kyushu in December, then in the all-out invasion of Honshu the next year, if that had been needed. But the worst-case scenario for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands was forty-six thousand American lives lost.7

The ridiculously inflated figure of a half-million for the potential death toll — nearly twice the total of US dead in all theaters in the Second World War — is now routinely repeated in high-school and college textbooks and bandied about by ignorant commentators. Unsurprisingly the prize for sheer fatuousness on this score goes to President George H.W. Bush, who claimed in 1991 that dropping the bomb "spared millions of American lives."8

[url]https://mises.org/library/harry-truman-and-atomic-bomb
[/URL]
Click to expand...


"Why the little yellow bastards!"
Time Magazine 1941, following the attack on Pearl Harbour

Better to save one American life at the cost of even one hundred thousand 'little yellow bastard' lives.

Wouldn't you agree?

:laugh:
 
christiefan915 said:
"...the rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication, which has gained surprising currency — that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives. These, supposedly, are the lives that would have been lost in the planned invasion of Kyushu in December, then in the all-out invasion of Honshu the next year, if that had been needed. But the worst-case scenario for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands was forty-six thousand American lives lost.7

The ridiculously inflated figure of a half-million for the potential death toll — nearly twice the total of US dead in all theaters in the Second World War — is now routinely repeated in high-school and college textbooks and bandied about by ignorant commentators. Unsurprisingly the prize for sheer fatuousness on this score goes to President George H.W. Bush, who claimed in 1991 that dropping the bomb "spared millions of American lives."8

[url]https://mises.org/library/harry-truman-and-atomic-bomb
[/URL]
Click to expand...

In the end that's what my Dad came to realize, as well.
 
christiefan915 said:
^ And you guys like to say that the left always operates on emotion. Your post proves that's a lie.
Click to expand...

Why should we try to simplify reality if the little yellow bastard defenders would twist the simplified truth anyway?

Our emotions are informed by Christian, nationalistic and self serving principles.

If it is in our best interests, that is what counts.
 
Trumpy said:
Why should we try to simplify reality if the little yellow bastard defenders would twist the simplified truth anyway?

Our emotions are informed by Christian, nationalistic and self serving principles.

If it is in our best interests, that is what counts.
Click to expand...

Yellow bastards? :thinking:
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Historian's fallacy. You can't judge actions of the past by today's moral standards. In this case, atomic weapons in 1945 were seen as nothing more than a bigger, better bomb. They weren't considered some special sort of weapon you were reluctant to use like chemicals (gas).
After all, the US could have sent several hundred bombers and done the same thing to Hiroshima they did with a nuclear bomb.

It was only when thermonuclear weapons came about that it suddenly became unthinkable to have a nuclear war. These were a thousand times more powerful than fission bombs were.
Click to expand...

Untrue. As mentioned earlier, my father worked on one of the many small parts of the Manhattan Project. All they were told is that it had something to do with a new weapon. Once the war was over and the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki reached Americans, they knew that it was not just a "bigger, better bomb." In fact, there was concern before its testing at Trinity that it might cause a chain reaction igniting the atmosphere and destroying the planet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top