Hiroshima was nuked, 6 August 1945

[Eagle_Eye]

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.

I must disagree on the first part of your post. As terrible as the human toll was it paled in comparison with the toll on Japanese and Americans in an invasion.

General Marshall, in conference with President Truman, estimated 31,000 in 30 days after landing in Kyushu. Admiral Leahy estimated that the invasion would cost 268,000 casualties. Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths. The same department estimated that there would be up to 10 million Japanese casualties. The ‘Los Angeles Times’ estimated that America would suffer up to 1 million casualties.

https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-pacific-war-1941-to-1945/operation-downfall/

The United States detonated two atomic bombs over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August 1945, respectively. The two bombings killed between 129,000 and 226,000 people, most of whom were civilians, and remain the only use of nuclear weapons in armed conflict.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Based on the above numbers the bombs actually saved American and Japanese lives.

 

[LurchAddams]

I wouldn't say never, but agree the odds are highly against it for the reasons you mentioned. More likely are two smaller states nuking each other's capitols.

Oh, yeah. Pakistan and India. Huge problem.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

its clear i'm referring to the american people.

do you even aspire to read better or are you happy being dumb?

No, it's not clear, Fredo. How are people supposed to tell when you are referring to the American people and when you are only referring to Pedo Don cocksuckers, cucks, criminals and terrorists?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Oh, yeah. Pakistan and India. Huge problem.

Agreed.

Same for Iran and anyone or North Korea and anyone.

 

[LurchAddams]

Agreed.

Same for Iran and anyone or North Korea and anyone.

Iran doesn't have it yet. Even if we fuck up Israel will make really fucking sure they'll never get one. North Korea - I don't know. Their projectile/rockets whatever are so glitchy. Many just fall right into the sea. So, is it a "Wizard of Oz" situation? Do they really have nuclear missiles that can reach any of us?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Iran doesn't have it yet. Even if we fuck up Israel will make really fucking sure they'll never get one. North Korea - I don't know. Their projectile/rockets whatever are so glitchy. Many just fall right into the sea. So, is it a "Wizard of Oz" situation? Do they really have nuclear missiles that can reach any of us?

They will. They don't have to reach "us" to fuck up the global economy. A nuke in Seoul, Tokyo, Taipei or Manila would result in problems that would take a century or longer to recover.

It's akin to "What would the US be like in 10 years had Trump succeeded on 1/6" since, had he won, it would have been like nuking DC.

 

[Cypress]

America's invasion of Iraq and Russia's invasion of Ukraine have taught developing countries and second tier nations that acquiring nuclear weapons is probably the best way to deter invasion by powerful countries.

 

[Monad Portal]

No, it's not clear, Fredo. How are people supposed to tell when you are referring to the American people and when you are only referring to Pedo Don cocksuckers, cucks, criminals and terrorists?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Proving there was no need for nukes. The US couldn't wait to try out their new toy on nonwhites.

Wrong. Nuclear weapons were more efficient. One plane, one bomb, one city. It cut down dramatically on costs in both lives and material. A raid using hundreds of bombers with thousands of crew dropping thousands of bombs was less efficient. There were going to be accidents and mechanical losses even if none to the enemy. That increased the cost in lives and lost planes. One carefully serviced bomber with just 10 or so crew taking out a city was a major gain.

If nukes were ready in say mid 1944 we'd have nuked Germany just as surely as Japan so the racist angle is bullshit.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Wrong. Nuclear weapons were more efficient. One plane, one bomb, one city. It cut down dramatically on costs in both lives and material. A raid using hundreds of bombers with thousands of crew dropping thousands of bombs was less efficient. There were going to be accidents and mechanical losses even if none to the enemy. That increased the cost in lives and lost planes. One carefully serviced bomber with just 10 or so crew taking out a city was a major gain.

If nukes were ready in say mid 1944 we'd have nuked Germany just as surely as Japan so the racist angle is bullshit.

Agreed on all points.

FWIW, goat is trolling for idiots. He's a Trumper and if Trump said nuking all of Japan was good, he'd be onboard with the rest of the Trumpian cocksuckers.

 

[BartenderElite]

Again: civilians should never be intentionally targeted.

Period.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

If you read what I wrote, I stated that while the bombing was immoral and cruel, the argument can be made that it was the only way, short of a full blown land invasion, to make Japan submit unconditionally to a US military occupation.

True, but how long of a peace would follow? All of the ingredients for war were there. Most historians agree that WWII was WWI Part Deux. With a negotiated peace, how long before WW1 Part Troi...with nukes on all sides looking for a first strike using bombers or a freighter in the harbor?

The mistakes made during and after WWI were considered when looking at the Endgame of WWII. An unconditional surrender was the best way to ensure a lasting peace. Notice that the US didn't just dump Japan (or Germany) like the Brits and the French did the Germans after WWI. The US was behind the Marshal Plan and MacArthur's similar plan in Japan. Both were controversial back home due to the cost, but history proves they were priceless based upon their results.

None of them could have been done with a negotiated ceasefire.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Again: civilians should never be intentionally targeted.

Period.

Should is a nice sentiment, but sometimes unrealistic. The US advances in tech have allowed more precise targeting to avoid civilian casualties. Unlike the terrorist assholes who intentionally target civilians.

 

[Cypress]

True, but how long of a peace would follow? All of the ingredients for war were there. Most historians agree that WWII was WWI Part Deux. With a negotiated peace, how long before WW1 Part Troi...with nukes on all sides looking for a first strike using bombers or a freighter in the harbor?

The mistakes made during and after WWI were considered when looking at the Endgame of WWII. An unconditional surrender was the best way to ensure a lasting peace. Notice that the US didn't just dump Japan (or Germany) like the Brits and the French did the Germans after WWI. The US was behind the Marshal Plan and MacArthur's similar plan in Japan. Both were controversial back home due to the cost, but history proves they were priceless based upon their results.

None of them could have been done with a negotiated ceasefire.

Yes, that is why I think FDR and Truman made the right call that Japan had to be totally dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up as a pacifist democracy constitutionally limited to only having a small defence force.

The argument can be made that the only way to get Japan to submit unconditionally to a military occupation and turn the country over to the US military was either a full blown land invasion, or to terrorize them into believing they were on the edge of total annihilation.

I have my doubts that after four years of war, American public opinion would have stomached an invasion of the Japanese homeland.

 

[Cypress]

Should is a nice sentiment, but sometimes unrealistic. The US advances in tech have allowed more precise targeting to avoid civilian casualties. Unlike the terrorist assholes who intentionally target civilians.

From about 1890 to 1945, Japan was a militaristic aggressor state, constantly at war, constantly attacking and invading neighboring East Asian countries.

I have never heard anyone ask the question how many Japanese lives have been saved in the ensuing years by the US military occupation authority tearing down the Japanese government and rebuilding the nation as a constitutional pacifist democracy.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes, that is why I think FDR and Truman made the right call that Japan had to be totally dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up as a pacifist democracy constitutionally limited to only having a small defence force.

The argument can be made that the only way to get Japan to submit unconditionally to a military occupation and turn the country over to the US military was either a full blown land invasion, or to terrorize them into believing they were on the edge of total annihilation.

I have my doubts that after four years of war, American public opinion would have stomached an invasion of the Japanese homeland.

At that point Truman would have turned the bluff into a reality. Although we were out of bombs at that point, there were more coming down the pipeline.

Although I haven't read anything definitive on it, I'm certain the time between Nagasaki on August 9th and when the Emperor* announced Japan's surrender on the 15th, that Truman's emissaries to Japan were laying out in crystal clarity what was going to happen to Japan before Christmas.


https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/timeline

August 10, 1945 Japanese civilian and military leaders are still unable to agree on accepting the Potsdam Declaration's surrender terms. Emperor Hirohito instead breaks the tradition of imperial non-intervention in government and orders that surrender be accepted, provided that the Emperor be allowed to retain his position. General Groves reports that the second plutonium core would be ready for shipment on August 12 or 13, with a bombing possible on August 17 or 18. President Truman orders a halt to further atomic bombing until further orders are issued.

1945 Aug 11 President Truman and Secretary of State Byrnes reply with an amended form of the Potsdam Decree that acknowledges the Emperor, but still refuses to guarantee his position. General Leslie Groves decides to delay shipping the second plutonium core and contacts Robert Bacher just after he had signed receipt for shipping the core to Tinian Island. The core is retrieved from the car before it leaves Los Alamos, NM. Also, Strategic Air Forces Carl Spaatz halts area firebombing.

*Reportedly it was the first time most Japanese had ever heard their Emperor's voice was the radio surrender announcement.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

From about 1890 to 1945, Japan was a militaristic aggressor state, constantly at war, constantly attacking and invading neighboring East Asian countries.

I have never heard anyone ask the question how many Japanese lives have been saved in the ensuing years by the US military occupation authority tearing down the Japanese government and rebuilding the nation as a constitutional pacifist democracy.

In short, they were as big of a colonial asshole state as their Euro counterparts. LOL

It would be speculation at best. Writing future history or alternative history is always a fun exercise, but difficult to prove. Too many variables.

 

[martin]

Us? As in Trumpian cocksuckers and Putin lovers?

I wasn't a member of this from pre-Trump. I can only guess that our Right wingers then were not especially fond of Russia or liked autocratic governments in general but maybe I'm wrong, and this kind of anti-Americanism is in their political DNA.

 

[Cypress]

In short, they were as big of a colonial asshole state as their Euro counterparts. LOL

It would be speculation at best. Writing future history or alternative history is always a fun exercise, but difficult to prove. Too many variables.

But I think we can say with near certainty that the world has been better off because we forced Japan to adopt a pacifist constitutional democracy.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I wasn't a member of this from pre-Trump. I can only guess that our Right wingers then were not especially fond of Russia or liked autocratic governments in general but maybe I'm wrong, and this kind of anti-Americanism is in their political DNA.

...when indicates you are on the younger side of 50.

JPP's most ardent Trumpers are over 50 with most well over 60. I'm 66 so I know what they look like. LOL

RWers of my generation were traditionally fiscally conservative. Today, there are no fiscally conservative Republicans.

RWers of my generation felt that a man's home was his castle, religion belonged in church and sex in the bedroom. Today, Republicans are either Theocrats or Autocrats...some are both.

Barry Goldwater, nicknamed "Mr. Conservative", not only spoke out against such a path for Republicans but, today, would be considered a RINO by the theocrats and autocrats who have taken over the Republican Party.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1981-pt16/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1981-pt16-1-1.pdf
...I, too, believe that we Americans should return to our traditional values concerning morality, family closeness, self-reliance, and a day's work for a day's pay. These are the values our forebears clung to as they built this Nation into the citadel of freedom it is today.

And I, too, have been pleased with the swing of the pendulum for in recent years to the conservative, moral end of the spectrum.

But I object to certain groups jumping on that pendulum and then claiming that they caused it to swing in the first place.

And I am frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C," and "D.'' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

And I am more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every rollcall in the Senate.

I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism.

This unrelenting obsession with a particular goal destroys the perspective of many decent people with whom I think I agree on most issues. In the quest for moral righteousness they have become easy prey to manipulation and misjudgment....