Hiroshima was nuked, 6 August 1945

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Hiroshima's mayor slams Russia while marking 77th anniversary of atomic bombing

Japan is today marking the 77th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, which killed tens of thousands of people in World War II.

Bells tolled in Hiroshima on Saturday, commemorating the world's first atomic bombing, with officials including the United Nations Secretary-General warning of a new arms race in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

At 8:15am on August 6, 1945, the US B-29 warplane Enola Gay dropped a bomb nicknamed "Little Boy" and obliterated the city, which had an estimated population of 350,000.

Estimates of how many people died from the bomb, either instantly or in the following months, range between 90,000 and 166,000.

Hiroshima mayor Kazumi Matsui, whose city this year did not invite the Russian ambassador to the ceremony, was more pointed and critical of Moscow's military actions in Ukraine.

"In invading Ukraine, the Russian leader, elected to protect the lives and property of his people, is using them as instruments of war, stealing the lives and livelihoods of civilians in a different country," Mr Matsui said.




https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/101307694
 
Wasted bombs that should have been used on the future red states instead.

Now that our former ally the Soviet Union is gone, we should use them on the new fascist Russia as well.
 
I think nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral and a crime against nature. But I also think it played a role in Japan accepting it had been utterly defeated and forcing them to submit to an unconditional surrender and a military occupation.
 
Cypress said:
I think nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral and a crime against nature. But I also think it played a role in Japan accepting it had been utterly defeated and forcing them to submit to an unconditional surrender and a military occupation.
Click to expand...

They could have just surrounded the island nation with ships and just use conventional bombing without a land invasion?!! No goods or material could get into Japan, it would be just a matter of time before they would surrender?!! The atomic bombs were over kill?!!
 
signalmankenneth said:
They could have just surrounded the island nation with ships and just use conventional bombing without a land invasion?!! No goods or material could get into Japan, it would be just a matter of time before they would surrender?!! The atomic bombs were over kill?!!
Click to expand...

I don't think there has ever been a nation in human history that surrendered unconditionally and submitted to a military occupation because of a blockade.

As for bombing, I don't see fire bombing Japanese cities with incendiaries as being necessarily much more moral than a nuclear strike
 
Nuclear weapons LIMITED damage, that would have been much worse, on both sides, if there were a land invasion of Japan.

But, after reviewing the Rape of Shanghai, the Rape of Nanking, the Burmese Death March, what the Japanese did to the people of the Phillipines, the Attack on Pearl Harbor, etc. I haven't much sympathy for Japanese who attacked the US on Dec., 7th ,1941.

They kicked the sleeping lion, and got bit...bigtime.
 
Cypress said:
I don't think there has ever been a nation in human history that surrendered unconditionally and submitted to a military occupation because of a blockade.

As for bombing, I don't see fire bombing Japanese cities with incendiaries as being necessarily much more moral than a nuclear strike
Click to expand...

Then it's a land invasion, and that would justify the use of atomic bombs, to save American lives, It expected between 1.7 million and four million Allied casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities in the invasion of Japan?!! It's a no brainer!
 
Grokmaster said:
Nuclear weapons LIMITED damage, that would have been much worse, on both sides, if there were a land invasion of Japan.

But, after reviewing the Rape of Shanghai, the Rape of Nanking, the Burmese Death March, what the Japanese did to the people of the Phillipines, the Attack on Pearl Harbor, etc. I haven't much sympathy for Japanese who attacked the US on Dec., 7th ,1941.

They kicked the sleeping lion, and got bit...bigtime.
Click to expand...

You can't pin the crimes of the Japanese army on the
civilian women and children residents of Hiroshima
 
signalmankenneth said:

Then it's a land invasion, and that would justify the use of atomic bombs, to save American lives, It expected between 1.7 million and four million Allied casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities in the invasion of Japan?!! It's a no brainer!
Click to expand...

All the choices were bad, and I guess Truman thought he was making the least bad choice.
 
Cypress said:
I think nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral and a crime against nature. But I also think it played a role in Japan accepting it had been utterly defeated and forcing them to submit to an unconditional surrender and a military occupation.
Click to expand...

I don’t. In fact I think it was eminently warranted. The Japanese fascist military regime under Hirohito was ever bit as vile, inhumane, murderous, degenerate and vile as their partners in international crime as the NAZI’s. The Japanese Empire killed more than 10,000,000 human beings and destroyed the lives of far more.

To end one of the most murderous regimes in human history was ethically and morally obligatory by any means necessary including the taking of the lives of the civilians who supported that regime.

Ergo the utter destruction of Japan with the vast loss of civilian lives was utterly and completely justified. It wasn’t like they weren’t given the option to surrender to stop the destruction and deaths of their country. The fact that when they were defeated and were still unwilling to surrender gives every indication that if let alone they would have continued their unforgivable and barbaric regime would have continued with their killing of millions of more lives.

In no way were the bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki a war crime. Like the NAZI’s the Japanese Empire was an existential threat to humanity and civilization itself and the use of nuclear weapons to end that horrific regime was completely warranted and justified in the name of preserving civilization itself.

It wasn’t just about saving the lives of American service members. It was about saving civilization itself.
 
Cypress said:
I think nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral and a crime against nature. But I also think it played a role in Japan accepting it had been utterly defeated and forcing them to submit to an unconditional surrender and a military occupation.
Click to expand...

I do to...by 2020s standard. In 1945, I'd have ordered the bombs dropped. Letting the war last longer than necessary would be immoral.

From December 1941 to August 1945 America lost 407,316 of its sons and daughters plus chopped up another 671,278. Like Ukraine, the US didn't start the hostilities, but both have the right to neutralize the enemy waging war on them.

We can argue the "unconditional surrender aspect" but leading American generals were familiar hundreds of years of European wars and realized that anything short of unconditional surrender was merely a ceasefire. We'd lost too many to fall short of a 100% win to ensure it never happened again.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I don’t. In fact I think it was eminently warranted. The Japanese fascist military regime under Hirohito was ever bit as vile, inhumane, murderous, degenerate and vile as their partners in international crime as the NAZI’s. The Japanese Empire killed more than 10,000,000 human beings and destroyed the lives of far more.

To end one of the most murderous regimes in human history was ethically and morally obligatory by any means necessary including the taking of the lives of the civilians who supported that regime.

Ergo the utter destruction of Japan with the vast loss of civilian lives was utterly and completely justified. It wasn’t like they weren’t given the option to surrender to stop the destruction and deaths of their country. The fact that when they were defeated and were still unwilling to surrender gives every indication that if let alone they would have continued their unforgivable and barbaric regime would have continued with their killing of millions of more lives.

In no way were the bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki a war crime. Like the NAZI’s the Japanese Empire was an existential threat to humanity and civilization itself and the use of nuclear weapons to end that horrific regime was completely warranted and justified in the name of preserving civilization itself.

It wasn’t just about saving the lives of American service members. It was about saving civilization itself.
Click to expand...

I think killing civilians, and especially children is contrary to every moral law I believe in.

But all of war is immoral when you get down to it.

But like I said, we had to force Japan to surrender unconditionally, and submit to a military occupation, because we needed to totally dismantle their militaristic government and suppress the shogunate tenancy towards militarism.
.
And it's possible the only way we were going to achieve that goal was to make them feel they were utterly defeated and on the verge of annihilation.
.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
I think killing civilians, and especially children is contrary to every moral law I believe in.

But all of war is immoral when you get down to it.

But like I said, we had to force Japan to surrender unconditionally, and submit to a military occupation, became we needed to totally dismantle their militaristic government and suppress the shogunate tenancy towards militarism.
.
And it's possible the only way we were going to achieve that goal was to make them feel they were utterly defeated and on the verge of annihilation.
Click to expand...

The Japanese are not Euros. They have faith enough to die for their principles. :thup:

Some facts: https://www.nationalww2museum.org/s...tarters/research-starters-us-military-numbers

2uzp7v.gif
 
Cypress said:
I think nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral and a crime against nature. But I also think it played a role in Japan accepting it had been utterly defeated and forcing them to submit to an unconditional surrender and a military occupation.
Click to expand...
Japan was trying to surrender but the US had a new toy they wanted to show off to the Soviets. The US is the most immoral empire in world history. Japanese fascists were building schools and factories all over Asia so the US decided they had to conform to western rule. Japan was nuked because they are nonwhite. It's as simple as the color of their skin. German nazis were recruited to work for the Anglosphere.
 
goat said:
Japan was trying to surrender but the US had a new toy they wanted to show off to the Soviets. The US is the most immoral empire in world history. Japanese fascists were building schools and factories all over Asia so the US decided they had to conform to western rule. Japan was nuked because they are nonwhite. It's as simple as the color of their skin. German nazis were recruited to work for the Anglosphere.
Click to expand...

Japan was trying to surrender
Click to expand...

what an ignorant dumb ass, they didn't surrender util the 2nd bomb was dropped and were warned.

Emperor Hirohito and his chief political adviser, Kido Koichi, stuck with the militarists and insisted on continuing with preparations for final battles on the home islands even in late June, when all organized resistance on Okinawa had ended, and an estimated 120,000 Japanese combatants (including Koreans and Taiwanese) and 150,000 to 170,000 non-combatants lay dead. U.S. combat losses in the battle of Okinawa were approximately 12,520 killed and over 33,000 wounded. With time accelerating and their sense of the urgency of the situation deepening, Hirohito responded to this defeat by forcing the army and navy leaders to agree to the idea of an"early peace." But he still gave no indication that he was thinking in terms of an immediate surrender, let alone proposing peace to the nations he was actually fighting.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
I do to...by 2020s standard. In 1945, I'd have ordered the bombs dropped. Letting the war last longer than necessary would be immoral.

From December 1941 to August 1945 America lost 407,316 of its sons and daughters plus chopped up another 671,278. Like Ukraine, the US didn't start the hostilities, but both have the right to neutralize the enemy waging war on them.

We can argue the "unconditional surrender aspect" but leading American generals were familiar hundreds of years of European wars and realized that anything short of unconditional surrender was merely a ceasefire. We'd lost too many to fall short of a 100% win to ensure it never happened again.
Click to expand...

FDR and Truman were playing for all the marbles. And rightly so.

They were not going to offer Japan terms. They were not going to let the Japanese government survive. They were going to occupy Japan, dismantle it's institutions, and rebuild it as a pacifist democracy.

Imperial Japan was an aggressor state with a long history of invading it's neighbors

Japan in it's imperial form could not be allowed to exist and survive.

I think the argument can be made that the only way to make Japan submit to our objectives was to convince them they had been utterly defeated and were on precipice of total annihilation.
 
Cypress said:
I think nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral and a crime against nature. But I also think it played a role in Japan accepting it had been utterly defeated and forcing them to submit to an unconditional surrender and a military occupation.
Click to expand...

It was a judgement call


They were going to fight

Man

Women

And child


It was a cult
 
guno said:
what an ignorant dumb ass, they didn't surrender util the 2nd bomb was dropped and were warned.

Emperor Hirohito and his chief political adviser, Kido Koichi, stuck with the militarists and insisted on continuing with preparations for final battles on the home islands even in late June, when all organized resistance on Okinawa had ended, and an estimated 120,000 Japanese combatants (including Koreans and Taiwanese) and 150,000 to 170,000 non-combatants lay dead. U.S. combat losses in the battle of Okinawa were approximately 12,520 killed and over 33,000 wounded. With time accelerating and their sense of the urgency of the situation deepening, Hirohito responded to this defeat by forcing the army and navy leaders to agree to the idea of an"early peace." But he still gave no indication that he was thinking in terms of an immediate surrender, let alone proposing peace to the nations he was actually fighting.
Click to expand...
You Googled that, amirite. In the real world Japan was desperately trying to surrender but the US had a new toy they wanted to show off to the world. No matter what you think of Japanese yellow fascists, they were building schools and factories all over Asia. The US calls that spreading democracy. We have to bomb them into compliance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top