Hiroshima anniversary

[Cypress]

Fair point, fission vs. fusion is the distinction. I know the usage is more colloquial than scientific. The point about the limited supply was probably the deciding factor. There was no margin for error. Today, that demonstration of force would work, in 1945, probably not. I wish we would have tried. I'm guessing all those involved in dropping the bombs would have slept better. But that is hindsight.

Despite the inhumanity of the war, it is hard to argue with success. Waging total war to annihilate and eradicate fascism, Nazism, and Japanese imperialism resulted in a world where there has not been a major European or east Asian war in nearly a century, historic aggressor nations like Germany and Japan have basically pacifist constitutions and abide by them, and Germany and Japan became two of our best allies of the last half century

[T. A. Gardner]

Just a small note, these were atomic bombs, not nuclear weapons, nukes are far more powerful, but it's not a terribly important distinction. That being said, I cannot imagine how difficult the decision to use this weapon must have been. From my viewpoint, I think it would have been more humane to leave this to the fighting forces, regardless of the death toll. Civilian casualties should be avoided whenever possible. Hindsight is 20/20, but you have to wonder if Truman could have brought Japan to heel by making an isolated demonstration of the bomb. Probably not, since they were unmoved by the first attack, but the collective conscious of the nation might have been eased at least somewhat had we tried that. Debating and discussing this is is an appropriate and important exercise. I think what we all agree on is that this was an incredibly difficult decision, and Truman did not foist the decision or the responsibility on someone else. That is leadership.

The first nuclear bombs--called atomic bombs at the time--were nuclear weapons. They used fission and either enriched uranium or plutonium as the core material. They could produce an explosion ranging to about 25 to 30 Kilotons at most. The two used on Japan were between 15 and 20 kilotons.
Then the hydrogen bomb was invented. This used fusion of hydrogen for most of the energy produced. It worked by having a fission bomb, like above, at its core surrounded by layers of material rich in hydrogen that would then fusion when the bomb went off. These ranged up to 350 or so megatons. They were were a whole different animal thousands of times more powerful than the WW 2 nuclear bombs were.
The recent Beirut explosion was on the order of about one (1) kiloton. Imagine that amplified by say 2000 times in size. That's what a thermonuclear fusion bomb does. Both fission bombs and fusion bombs are nuclear bombs.

[Minister of Truth]

I can't begin to express how angry I am that we did not attempt to launch an invasion of Japan to end WWII. I side with progressives on this one.

[Callinectes]

Fair point, fission vs. fusion is the distinction. I know the usage is more colloquial than scientific. The point about the limited supply was probably the deciding factor. There was no margin for error. Today, that demonstration of force would work, in 1945, probably not. I wish we would have tried. I'm guessing all those involved in dropping the bombs would have slept better. But that is hindsight.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...oryId=15858203

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...y19-story.html

Neither of these guys lost any sleep after the missions(these were the pilots, can't say anything about the crews. A B-29 carried 10 or 12 crewmen) In fact, Sweeney went to Nagasaki 3 months after the surrender, looked around, and said he went home and slept like a baby.

[T. A. Gardner]

I can't begin to express how angry I am that we did not attempt to launch an invasion of Japan to end WWII. I side with progressives on this one.

Without nuclear weapons, those cities would have been turned to ash. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the 6th Japanese Army at the time and a major naval base. The US would have fire bombed it to ash. The same goes for Nagasaki. The US would have mined every port in Japan so thoroughly they couldn't sail out of one in a rowboat without being sunk.

The invasion wouldn't have been less costly in lives either. It would have been far more costly. As at Okinawa, the civilian population would have either committed suicide or been killed by their own troops to prevent their capture.

All-in-all, nuking two cities was well worth the price. It saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

[moon]

Agreed. Moon is not an American and brings some foreign hate towards America in his posts.

Asshole.

[Doc Dutch]

Asshole.

Yes. I've been called an asshole** since 1975 and up until I retired this year (partially as a result of Trump's virus economy). As you just proved, I still am being labeled that by people like yourself.

Given that there is clearly a difference between a person who is an asshole and those who are simply labeled as such by snowflakes, cowardly, spineless Beta males jealous of their superiors and the like, I do my best to do what is right, just and true even if it hurts fragile egos.



**Asshole: 1. anal orifice, vulgar slang. 2. Often used ironically to describe one's superior in knowledge, wisdom, skill or position. esp one's Boss or manager.

[Doc Dutch]

I can't begin to express how angry I am that we did not attempt to launch an invasion of Japan to end WWII. I side with progressives on this one.

On this forum, it's important to remember Poe's Law:

 

I agree that bombing the cities was the best choice for several reasons with number one being ending the war ASAP to save American lives. People forget that the US alone was losing over 300 Americans a day in WWII. Any President who paused for an extra day under such circumstances or went golfing before doing everything in their power to stop the carnage and loss of American lives should be crucified upside down on the gates of the White House.

No American family wanted that war to go on one more day than it did. Based on the US casualties and resistance increasing the closer the US moved toward Japan the estimated casualties on both sides for invading Honshu were horrific. Too many people whining about the US dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima forget that the US was regularly killing just as many Japanese with firebombing during that time. The big difference was one plane, one bomb as opposed to hundreds of planes and thousands of incendiary bombs.

[ParachuteAdams]

After the first bomb Emperor Hirohito Hirohito didn't surrender.

[Nordberg]

Ike said we should not have used it. He said Japan was beaten and ready to surrender. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/i...ombs-was-wrong He only was in charge of the war. So what did he know?

[Phantasmal]

Ike said we should not have used it. He said Japan was beaten and ready to surrender. 0opinion%20that,in%20our%20war%20against%20Japan.

That’s why I respect Ike, amongst other things.

[Cypress]

Ike said we should not have used it. He said Japan was beaten and ready to surrender. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/i...ombs-was-wrong

He only was in charge of the war. So what did he know?

Eisenhower was commander of the European theater of operations and never served in the Pacific theater.

80 years after the war it is still a mystery what Japan's intentions were. Nobody can really say with certainty.
They fought to the death in 1945 at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and those islands weren't even the Japanese home islands

[moon]

The bombs were dropped on Japanese civilians by those with the self-same cowardly mindset as those that designed and operated the European death-camps.

You will never be forgiven.

[Anvil Kasseri]

The bombs were dropped on Japanese civilians by those with the self-same cowardly mindset as those that designed and operated the European death-camps.
You will never be forgiven.

Hiroshima was a huge military center with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers awaiting deployment to resist our invasion. It was also the military headquarters in charge of repelling that invasion.

The second A-bomb was intended for Kokura Arsenal, a huge weapons-making complex. Due to a number of factors it was not dropped on the desired target, but that was where they wanted to put it.

[Anvil Kasseri]

Ike said we should not have used it. He said Japan was beaten and ready to surrender.

Ike only expressed his opposition to a single person (Stimson).

When Stimson reacted by calling him an idiot, Ike decided to keep quiet and not tell anyone else.

Even if Ike had managed to somehow be convincing, he was too late anyway. Stimson had sent the final orders to drop the A-bombs out to the military and then departed the Potsdam conference on July 25. When Ike voiced his opposition in Frankfort on July 27 it was just hours before Stimson departed Europe for home. Truman was still at sea aboard the Augusta when Hiroshima was bombed, and had not been in the same room with Stimson since July 25.