Hiroshima anniversary

[moon]

' I come and stand at every door
But none can hear my silent tread
I knock and yet remain unseen
For I am dead for I am dead

I'm only seven though I died
In Hiroshima long ago
I'm seven now as I was then
When children die they do not grow

My hair was scorched by swirling flame
My eyes grew dim my eyes grew blind
Death came and turned my bones to dust
And that was scattered by the wind

I need no fruit I need no rice
I need no sweets nor even bread
I ask for nothing for myself
For I am dead for I am dead

All that I need is that for peace
You fight today you fight today
So that the children of this world
Can live and grow and laugh and play'

Nazim Hikmet


Assholes.

 

[Callinectes]

Assholes.

 

[Concart]

I think it is appropriate to use this anniversary to talk about the difficult decisions that leaders make in dark times. Truman's decision cost the lives of 120,000 Japanese, and left tens of thousands of others with fatal illnesses or conditions. It was an absolutely horrific weapon. Whether you agree with Truman's decision or not, you cannot argue that his decision prevented an invasion of Japan that would have also been horrific for both sides. Truman famously said 'the buck stops here', and he never shirked his responsibility for this decision. Enough said.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

My dad worked on the Manhattan Project. He never spoke about it until we were adults. We happened to be talking about this sad anniversary one day when he told us that. He felt guilty for decades but he also said that it was war, and it had to be done.

I guess the best that can be said is that as volatile and angry as the world gets from time to time, so far none of us have used this weapon since.

 

[Cypress]

This country has not done a good job reflecting on the victims and human consequences of the two nuclear attacks.

I do not know how the Japanese were going to be coerced into unconditional surrender, short of invasion of the home islands. The Japanese were tenacious and fanatical in fighting to the last man on every Pacific island we engaged them. They would refuse to surrender or even be taken prisoner. They were willing to endure horrific fire bombings of their cities

The Soviets may have destroyed the Japanese Army in Manchuria, but that alone could not have been sufficient to induce unconditional surrender.

I am not sure Americans would even have had the stamina to endure an invasion of the home islands. Truman probably made the cold blooded and inhumane decision that this was the best way to bring the war to a rapid conclusion

 

[Concart]

This country has not done a good job reflecting on the victims and human consequences of the two nuclear attacks.

I do not know how the Japanese were going to be coerced into unconditional surrender, short of invasion of the home islands. The Japanese were tenacious and fanatical in fighting to the last man on every Pacific island we engaged them. They would refuse to surrender or even be taken prisoner. They were willing to endure horrific fire bombings of their cities

The Soviets may have destroyed the Japanese Army in Manchuria, but that alone could not have been sufficient to induce unconditional surrender.

I am not sure Americans would even have had the stamina to endure an invasion of the home islands. Truman probably made the cold blooded and inhumane decision that this was the best way to bring the war to a rapid conclusion

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.

 

[Cypress]

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.

I assumed that any weapon using the energy of nuclear fission was a nuclear weapon - but I am not trained in particle physics, so I defer to you.

The decision to wage war on civilians was made way before 1945. The battlefield stalemate of WW1 was still fresh in memories. I hate to say this, but I think the reason Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were coerced into unconditional surrenders is because the allies made the strategic decision early in the 1940s to wage total war on the Axis powers -- to bring so much pain and suffering to their nations and peoples that unconditional submission would look preferable to continued resistance, or even to demanding terms for surrender.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

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.

Hard to even imagine the Toadstool coming close, isn't it?

We only had three bombs; one was tested at Alamogordo. As you pointed out, it took the use of the remaining two devices to push Japan into surrender. If we had tested another publicly, that would have left only one.

I think by "nuclear weapons," you mean thermonuclear, or hydrogen, bombs which use fusion rather than fission. The uranium-based fission devices are also referred to as nuclear weapons.

 

[Concart]

I assumed that any weapon using the energy of nuclear fission was a nuclear weapon - but I am not trained in particle physics, so I defer to you.

The decision to wage war on civilians was made way before 1945. The battlefield stalemate of WW1 was still fresh in memories. I hate to say this, but I think the reason Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were coerced into unconditional surrenders is because the allies made the strategic decision early in the 1940s to wage total war on the Axis powers -- to bring so much pain and suffering to their nations and peoples that unconditional submission would look preferable to continued resistance, or even to demanding terms for surrender.

I agree with this, the firebombing of Dresden being perhaps the most egregious example. The abhorrent behavior of the allies after World War I was a major factor in triggering the second war. At least we got the post war part (mostly) right, but there are no clean hands or good guys in World War II.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

' I come and stand at every door
But none can hear my silent tread
I knock and yet remain unseen
For I am dead for I am dead

I'm only seven though I died
In Hiroshima long ago
I'm seven now as I was then
When children die they do not grow

My hair was scorched by swirling flame
My eyes grew dim my eyes grew blind
Death came and turned my bones to dust
And that was scattered by the wind

I need no fruit I need no rice
I need no sweets nor even bread
I ask for nothing for myself
For I am dead for I am dead

All that I need is that for peace
You fight today you fight today
So that the children of this world
Can live and grow and laugh and play'

Nazim Hikmet


Assholes.

Hiroshima day AKA "Remember Pearl Harbor Motherfuckers?"

 

[Concart]

Hard to even imagine the Toadstool coming close, isn't it?

We only had three bombs; one was tested at Alamogordo. As you pointed out, it took the use of the remaining two devices to push Japan into surrender. If we had tested another publicly, that would have left only one.

I think by "nuclear weapons," you mean thermonuclear, or hydrogen, bombs which use fusion rather than fission. The uranium-based fission devices are also referred to as nuclear weapons.

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.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I assumed that any weapon using the energy of nuclear fission was a nuclear weapon - but I am not trained in particle physics, so I defer to you.

The decision to wage war on civilians was made way before 1945. The battlefield stalemate of WW1 was still fresh in memories. I hate to say this, but I think the reason Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were coerced into unconditional surrenders is because the allies made the strategic decision early in the 1940s to wage total war on the Axis powers -- to bring so much pain and suffering to their nations and peoples that unconditional submission would look preferable to continued resistance, or even to demanding terms for surrender.

Agreed. Specifically 1940 when Germany attacked Britain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz
The Germans conducted mass air attacks against industrial targets, towns, and cities, beginning with raids on London towards the end of the Battle of Britain in 1940 (a battle for daylight air superiority between the Luftwaffe and the Royal Air Force over the United Kingdom). By September 1940, the Luftwaffe had lost the Battle of Britain and the German air fleets (Luftflotten) were ordered to attack London, to draw RAF Fighter Command into a battle of annihilation.[5][6] Adolf Hitler and Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, commander-in-chief of the Luftwaffe, ordered the new policy on 6 September 1940. From 7 September 1940, London was systematically bombed by the Luftwaffe for 56 of the following 57 days and nights.[7] Most notable was a large daylight attack against London on 15 September.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

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.

Agreed the limited supply was a major deciding factor. Another factor was they didn't know if the Little Boy bomb would work since only the Trinity implosion device was tested and only once. Again due to lack of fissionable material.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

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

 

[Cypress]

Agreed. Specifically 1940 when Germany attacked Britain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz
The Germans conducted mass air attacks against industrial targets, towns, and cities, beginning with raids on London towards the end of the Battle of Britain in 1940 (a battle for daylight air superiority between the Luftwaffe and the Royal Air Force over the United Kingdom). By September 1940, the Luftwaffe had lost the Battle of Britain and the German air fleets (Luftflotten) were ordered to attack London, to draw RAF Fighter Command into a battle of annihilation.[5][6] Adolf Hitler and Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, commander-in-chief of the Luftwaffe, ordered the new policy on 6 September 1940. From 7 September 1940, London was systematically bombed by the Luftwaffe for 56 of the following 57 days and nights.[7] Most notable was a large daylight attack against London on 15 September.

Yes, both sides waged total war.
Hitler's goal in the east was the annihilation and forced removal of Slavic peoples to make space for German colonization

 

[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.

 

[Airstrip One]

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/story.php?storyId=15858203

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-jul-19-me-sweeney19-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.