NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is it, that people think the americans have invented the atom bomb?
It was the germans, and they NEVER used it.
So...if the americans are out for pease, why are they the only ones to have lanched one it anger? :sniper:

Troll

I think the US should not have dropped the nukes on Japan. However the US did in fact invent the atomic bomb, with the help of many German and other European scientists who fled the Nazis during the 1930s. The first nuclear fission reaction occurred in Chicago in 1942, and the first atomic bomb was tested in early 1945 in New Mexico.

I think the US should not have dropped the nukes on Japan.

What should the US have done then, launched a conventional invasion of Japan? That would have probably ended up killing a lot more people.

What should the US have done then, launched a conventional invasion of Japan? That would have probably ended up killing a lot more people.
Before the bombs were dropped Japan's government already notified the US that Japan will accept unconditional surrender. However President Truman ignored the peace proposal and decided to drop the bombs, in order to scare the Soviet Union.

Why is it, that people think the americans have invented the atom bomb?
It was the germans, and they NEVER used it.
So...if the americans are out for pease, why are they the only ones to have lanched one it anger? :sniper:

ARE YOU FOR REAL?

Before the bombs were dropped Japan's government already notified the US that Japan will accept unconditional surrender. However Truman ignored the peace proposal and decided to drop the bombs, in order to scare the Soviet Union.

You have your facts way wrong.

It was a necessary evil, dropping the bomb

i dont understand why we need to kill 39,000 people in a split second but atrocities were comitted by the allies and the axis. more so by the axis of course with the holocaust. :mad:

Why is it, that people think the americans have invented the atom bomb?
It was the germans, and they NEVER used it.
So...if the americans are out for pease, why are they the only ones to have lanched one it anger? :sniper:
Depends on what you mean by invent. If you're talking about theory, I'm not sure who invented the concept of an atom bomb. In practical use, the USA, with help from the UK, invented the atom bomb. The Germans were close, but the British raid on their heavy water supplies halted their project.

Germany was working on an atomic bomb during WW2, but the Americans were the first to successfuly make and test one. As for using it, well Allied intelligence was predicting possibly 1 million casualties. So the bomb seemed like a far less risky choice. Also, it probably also had a scare tactic agianst the Soviets.

Accualy, the Japanese were negotiating through the king of Sweden. The reason Truman droped the bomb was because they weren't willing to accept an unconditional surrender. They wanted to keep their emporer no matter what, the Americans wanted unconditional surrender so they would be able to dictate the end of the war to them. Wether or not the use of the nuclear warhead was nessisary is open to debate, however, the fact that the first atomic weapon was constructed by America isn't. I've lived in Oak Ridge just about all of my life, so I know the history about as well as anyone. The Germans were looking for an atomic bomb, but never got to it because of Allied sabatoge efforts. By the end of the war, Hitler was throwing V2 warheads against civilians, do you really think that he would have any alms about throwing nukes at the Alies to stem their flow? If nothing else, Russia would have been smited to allow the army to surrender to the US and Britain. Please learn some history before you spout off bullshit like this.

You have your facts way wrong.
Care to refute my facts? I don't have confidence that you'll get anywhere, especially considering that you think the assassination of a king started WWI, but you are welcome to try. All the documents related to the atomic bombing of Japan prove that the Japanese government repeatedly begged the US to accept their surrender but Truman insisted on demonstrating the atomic bomb and thus started the Cold War arms race. In fact even after the atomic bombs were dropped, Japan did not surrender unconditionally, and we allowed them to keep their war criminals in office.

If you're talking about theory, I'm not sure who invented the concept of an atom bomb.
Well, it was Albert Einstein's theories that allowed fission bombs to even be begun, but he did not want his research to be used for violent causes like that.

i dont understand why we need to kill 39,000 people in a split second but atrocities were comitted by the allies and the axis. more so by the axis of course with the holocaust. :mad:

I think it was an accident. The pilot that is was a Red Cross package for the American prisoners in the city.

Troll
Where? Where? I wanna see the troll!

What should the US have done then, launched a conventional invasion of Japan? That would have probably ended up killing a lot more people.
The US already had already tried large-scale conventional attacks, and the way they carried out firebombings on areas where houses were very flammable, the result was really no more inhumane than the effects of the atomic bomb.
(The large conventional-weapon raids were far more expensive than dropping one enormours bomb)

...The first nuclear fission reaction occurred in Chicago in 1942...

This'd be correct with a minor change in wording, but...


The high-speed, high-energy protons produced by an accelerator can cause violent reactions that break up the nucleus of an atom. Looking at the remains, researchers can discover what elementary particles are inside the nucleus and how they form the nuclear structure. In 1932 physicists John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton used a beam of high-energy protons to induce the first nuclear reaction with artificially accelerated particles. They bombarded lithium atoms with protons, and the atoms split into two helium nuclei.


http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArtTextonly.aspx?refid=761577976&print=3

americans are out for pease, why are they the only ones to have lanched one it anger?
Israel had planes in the air with nukes onboard during the first gulf war, after Hussein launched SCUDs at them during the onset. They didn't actually use them, as Bush didn't like the idea of nuking all that oil, but it was "launched in anger."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-376516,00.html&e=42

As to why... we hold a big stick, and they're now common enough for MAD to actually be a threat.


but atrocities were comitted by the allies and the axis. more so by the axis of course with the holocaust.
Collectivization of agriculture?

Why is it, that people think the americans have invented the atom bomb?
It was the germans,

you couldn't be more unequivocally false, werner heisenberg was either too incompetent or intentionally sabatoged the project to prevent hitler from getting the bomb. regardless of which school of thought you belong to, the result is the same, no atom bomb in germany....

interestingly on a side note, the germans did have nerve agents, but were actually afraid of british retaliation and never used them because they were certain the allies had them too (as it turns out, britain did not "discover" them until the '50's)

Go look it up in the history books... America is the true inventor of the A-Bomb. It's not who thinks of the idea. It is who can take that idea, develop it, and put it on the market/use.

Care to refute my facts? I don't have confidence that you'll get anywhere, especially considering that you think the assassination of a king started WWI, but you are welcome to try. All the documents related to the atomic bombing of Japan prove that the Japanese government repeatedly begged the US to accept their surrender but Truman insisted on demonstrating the atomic bomb and thus started the Cold War arms race. In fact even after the atomic bombs were dropped, Japan did not surrender unconditionally, and we allowed them to keep their war criminals in office.

If you say the were willing to accept unconditiona then why didn't they?

This'd be correct with a minor change in wording, but...



http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArtTextonly.aspx?refid=761577976&print=3

Ah yes, I should have said first fission chain reaction.

Care to refute my facts? I don't have confidence that you'll get anywhere, especially considering that you think the assassination of a king started WWI, but you are welcome to try. All the documents related to the atomic bombing of Japan prove that the Japanese government repeatedly begged the US to accept their surrender but Truman insisted on demonstrating the atomic bomb and thus started the Cold War arms race. In fact even after the atomic bombs were dropped, Japan did not surrender unconditionally, and we allowed them to keep their war criminals in office.
"We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under Japanese control wherever situated."
Drive to the National Archives if you want to see for yourself.
Archives online (http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/featured_documents/japanese_surrender_document/)

If you say the were willing to accept unconditiona then why didn't they?
The US, instead of totally remaking the Japanese government, decided to let the Japanese keep the war criminal Emperor Hirohito, and other war criminals who later became prime ministers of Japan. This is because the US administration, led by Gen. Macarthur, thought that opposing the Soviet Union was the most important priority and so America was willing to ally with the war criminals and fascists in order to maintain stability in our new ally Japan.

Before the bombs were dropped Japan's government already notified the US that Japan will accept unconditional surrender. However President Truman ignored the peace proposal and decided to drop the bombs, in order to scare the Soviet Union.

Not true. The 'doves' in the Japanese government made a peace proposal to allies, but this wing of the government was a minority compared to the 'hawks' who were in control. The latter rejected the idea of surrender to the very end, and even attempted to overthrow the emperor only few hours before he was to go on radio and declare the surrender.

"We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under Japanese control wherever situated."
Drive to the National Archives if you want to see for yourself.
Archives online (http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/featured_documents/japanese_surrender_document/)
Actually the Japanese government and the US government made one important condition to the surrender of Japan - the Emperor would retain his throne and be shielded from war crimes prosecution. The surrender documents do not show this but this was the condition to surrender worked out by diplomats from both sides. Later on, Macarthur stopped all war crimes prosecution against the Japan and reinstated hundreds of war criminals to the Japanese government.

Actually the Japanese government and the US government made one important condition to the surrender of Japan - the Emperor would retain his throne and be shielded from war crimes prosecution. The surrender documents do not show this but this was the condition to surrender worked out by diplomats from both sides. Later on, Macarthur stopped all war crimes prosecution against the Japan and reinstated hundreds of war criminals to the Japanese government.
Unconditional surrender and letting Hirohito (and others) stay in power aren't mutually exclusive.

Not true. The 'doves' in the Japanese government made a peace proposal to allies, but this wing of the government was a minority compared to the 'hawks' who were in control. The latter rejected the idea of surrender to the very end, and even attempted to overthrow the emperor only few hours before he was to go on radio and declare the surrender.
The ultra right wing militarists were a puny minority, and the reason the coup by a few disgruntled officers failed was because the Japanese Army did not agree with them and crushed the rebellion.

Unconditional surrender and letting Hirohito (and others) stay in power aren't mutually exclusive.
The Japanese agreed to surrender on the condition that Hirohito remain in office. The presence of a pre-negotiated condition means obviously means the surrender was conditional.

Actually the Japanese government and the US government made one important condition to the surrender of Japan - the Emperor would retain his throne and be shielded from war crimes prosecution. The surrender documents do not show this but this was the condition to surrender worked out by diplomats from both sides. Later on, Macarthur stopped all war crimes prosecution against the Japan and reinstated hundreds of war criminals to the Japanese government.

So do you owe Truman an apolgy or not?

So do you owe Truman an apolgy or not?
What do you mean?

The Japanese agreed to surrender on the condition that Hirohito remain in office. The presence of a pre-negotiated condition means obviously means the surrender was conditional.
Do you have a source for that? From the documents I see, it seems that the Japanese surrendered unconditionally, and then America let Hirohito stay on anyway, to help gain the support of the Japanese people.

Accualy, the Japanese were negotiating through the king of Sweden...

Huh? This is news to me. I know the Japanese negotiated with the Allies through their embassy in Moscow (Russia and Japan had a non-agression pact for almost the entire duration of the war). Why approach the Swedish king? Can you elaborate on this, or maybe refer to some sources on the issue?

What do you mean?

Well jeez you accused Truman of ignoring Japanese pleas to surrender just so he could scare the Soviets. That's pretty cold-hearted.

Do you have a source for that? From the documents I see, it seems that the Japanese surrendered unconditionally, and then America let Hirohito stay on anyway, to help gain the support of the Japanese people.

Lest the "whole nation be reduced to ashes" by the hundred atomic bombs America was thought to have, the imperial government accepted the Potsdam Declaration, "with the understanding that [it] does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler." Actually, the Allied terms only offered "sovereignty" for the Japanese nation, not the dynasty per se. The rulers of the island were insisting (as one Japanese diplomat confirmed) that there would be no change in the political institutions of imperial Japan, even if no Japanese empire was left standing to rule. These men were accepting, twenty months too late, the sole demand of the Cairo Conference for the liquidation of all overseas possessions. By now this was "conditional surrender," according to NBC radio news.60

In reply to Japan's offer, Truman issued a carefully drawn compromise position between the doves in the War Department, who thought "the Emperor was a minor matter," and the hawks at State, who wanted his head. He did not demand Hirohito's abdication nor expressly guarantee the existence of the throne. He did specify that "the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule that state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper" to fulfill the Potsdam Declaration. This was exactly what the War Department wanted -- the chance to rule Japan through the Japanese - because it knew it would never have enough manpower to rule Japan on its own. Truman's conditions were nonnegotiable, no matter how Hirohito saved face by proclaiming "the cessation of hostilities" (he never said "surrender") and claiming he had "been able to safeguard and maintain the structure of the Imperial State." Truman, for his part, could maintain that there "is no qualification" and that "the war lords of Japan and the Japanese armed forces have surrendered unconditionally." He probably crossed his fingers and hoped that the more hawkish elements in the government and the general public would agree. Up until the end, America had not yet decided exactly how to define unconditional surrender (whether, in the application of such a term, a verbal nicety such as "no contractual elements" was more important than one specifying "not subject to conditions" at all) and whether they should execute the emperor, even if he seemed willing to serve an occupation army.61

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Pearlman/pearlman.asp

Truman reached a "gentleman's agreement" with Japan in which both the US and Japan could save face... Japan can keep the emperor while the US could publicly claim that Japan surrendered unconditionally.

The US already had already tried large-scale conventional attacks, and the way they carried out firebombings on areas where houses were very flammable, the result was really no more inhumane than the effects of the atomic bomb.
(The large conventional-weapon raids were far more expensive than dropping one enormours bomb)

The firebombing was carried out by the bomber squadrons under the command of colonel LeMay. At the time when the nuclear bombs were dropped, plans were ready for the bombings to be heavily intensified by lowering the requirements for valid targets. Now, cities with as little as 30,000 inhabitants were to be targeted as well, and since headquarters had already pointed out 180 such cities, this could have resulted in as much as 5.4 million casualties (of which 20% would be dead instantly).

Well jeez you accused Truman of ignoring Japanese pleas to surrender just so he could scare the Soviets. That's pretty cold-hearted.
So after the bombs were dropped and American military might proven, Truman finally accepted peace with Japan. Why do I need to apologize for my comments?

I think the US should not have dropped the nukes on Japan. However the US did in fact invent the atomic bomb, with the help of many German and other European scientists who fled the Nazis during the 1930s. The first nuclear fission reaction occurred in Chicago in 1942, and the first atomic bomb was tested in early 1945 in New Mexico.
What were we to do if not drop the bombs? Take it from someone who was in the war. I'm not talking about myself, but my Grandfather and all of his buddies from the war said that was the right decision since the olnly other option would be a full-scale invastion of Japan. My Gradpa's brother was in the European theater and after the war ended there, he had already been shipped off to the Pacific becuase everyone expected an invasion of Japan ond that they would need all the troops they could get. Everyone I know who was actually in the war says an Allied invasion of Japan would not only have resulted in more overall casualties, but civilian casualties too.

So after the bombs were dropped and American military might proven, Truman finally accepted peace with Japan. Why do I need to apologize for my comments?

Not to belabor the point, but the Japanese did not offer unconditional surrender before Truman dropped the bomb. Therefore he did not kill thousands of people just to scare the Soviets. You made some pretty terrible incorrect statements about a man. If you think your statements are correct then you don't need to apologize. Nuff said as far as I'm concerned.

Care to refute my facts? I don't have confidence that you'll get anywhere, especially considering that you think the assassination of a king started WWI, but you are welcome to try. All the documents related to the atomic bombing of Japan prove that the Japanese government repeatedly begged the US to accept their surrender but Truman insisted on demonstrating the atomic bomb and thus started the Cold War arms race.


Try again.

Try reading about the Potsdam conference.

The UK-China-US ALL decided that Japan's surrender was to be unconditional.
"The United States, China and Britain approved military plans for invasion and drafted a declaration to be sent to the Japanese demanding unconditional surrender. On July 26, 1945, the Potsdam Declaration was broadcast to the Japanese by the Allied forces. The Japanese government decided that a reply should await the result of peace overtures to the Soviets. Prime Minister Suzuki announced to the world on July 28 that he would ignore the ultimatum."

Even after the 2nd bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, the Japanese government was adamant about not surrendering. After the Japanese government HAD decided on unconditional surrender, there was an unsuccessful military coup in the final days of August that was put down. So Japan's military and government weren't all willing to surrender(unconditionally or otherwise).

Do I think there was any other way? No.
I'm just glad that my aunt was living just outside Tokyo when the bombings started.

Wow - makes one wonder if this thread was started in reply to tonights programme 'Horizon' on BBC2 about the life of Einstein. Intriguing really, considering the science behind it was taught to me as a 15 year old and was easy to understand - of course I'm sure it's more detailed than that... but really... The Americans spent the equivilent of 40-50 billion dollars on a scheme to develop the A-bomb. The Germans had started BEFORE WW2. It was a retaliation effect by the American government who were told through Einstein that the German's had planned to use his E=Mc2 formula to create a devestating weapon. So really, Europeans discovered the A-Bomb, with American funding in America. I forgot the guys name, but he knew the science behind the A-Bomb long before it was achieved and was in fact, German - Uranium atom neutron bombardment, simple no?.

And were the Americans not trying a conventional invasion via their island hopping idea? Pathetic for what it was worth. 10,000 men lost just to advance a wee bit closer to Japan? For ONE island? Imagine how many islands had to be invaded on the way to Japan - then imagine how many lives that must have cost.

[Atrocities such as the] Collectivization of agriculture?
Collectivization certainly resulted in some terrible atrocities--"war communism" must have had Marx rolling over in his grave--but I think the reference was to something more like the bombing of Dresden. A city reduced to a blasted moonscape...

Dammit, the A-bomb dropping was a necessary evil people - when will people realize this and stop being hippies? War is inevitable, sadly

Do I think there was any other way? No.
I'm just glad that my aunt was living just outside Tokyo when the bombings started.

I take from this post that you are Japanese?

Dammit, the A-bomb dropping was a necessary evil people - when will people realize this and stop being hippies? War is inevitable, sadly

It isn't just hippies who think human life is a valuable enough commodity that destroying it wholescale deserves to be called an atrocity. Also, careful study of history will reveal that war is anything but inevitable. It's more often caused by breakdowns in diplomacy, miscalculations, and failure to rein in ideologues than by anything fundamental to human nature.

Besides, if war is human nature, how do you explain peace?

Dammit, the A-bomb dropping was a necessary evil people - when will people realize this and stop being hippies? War is inevitable, sadly

I was a hippie. I don't think war is inevitable; and I do think that dropping the A bomb was the only response that a reasonable person could have made.

It isn't just hippies who think human life is a valuable enough commodity that destroying it wholescale deserves to be called an atrocity. Also, careful study of history will reveal that war is anything but inevitable. It's more often caused by breakdowns in diplomacy, miscalculations, and failure to rein in ideologues than by anything fundamental to human nature.

Besides, if war is human nature, how do you explain peace?

Peace is human nature also, that is explained by the dual nature of the human spirit.

I think the US should not have dropped the nukes on Japan. However the US did in fact invent the atomic bomb, with the help of many German and other European scientists who fled the Nazis during the 1930s. The first nuclear fission reaction occurred in Chicago in 1942, and the first atomic bomb was tested in early 1945 in New Mexico.


And here I was thinking the first nuclear reactor on Earth occured at the Oklo site in Gabon, West Africa, some 2 billion years ago.

Besides, if war is human nature, how do you explain peace?

Humans are also naturally lazy.
We can't fight all the time.

Wow - makes one wonder if this thread was started in reply to tonights programme 'Horizon' on BBC2 about the life of Einstein. Intriguing really, considering the science behind it was taught to me as a 15 year old and was easy to understand - of course I'm sure it's more detailed than that... but really... The Americans spent the equivilent of 40-50 billion dollars on a scheme to develop the A-bomb. The Germans had started BEFORE WW2. It was a retaliation effect by the American government who were told through Einstein that the German's had planned to use his E=Mc2 formula to create a devestating weapon. So really, Europeans discovered the A-Bomb, with American funding in America. I forgot the guys name, but he knew the science behind the A-Bomb long before it was achieved and was in fact, German - Uranium atom neutron bombardment, simple no?.
if the science behind it was enough every county on earth who wanted one would have one.

I was thinking the first nuclear reactor on Earth occured at the Oklo site in Gabon, West Africa, some 2 billion ears ago
How many days are in this so-called 'ear'? :D

How many days are in this so-called 'ear'? :D


Caught the evil typo-demon red-handed.
Edited for content, lol.

Fight the evil Typo-Demon!

if the science behind it was enough every county on earth who wanted one would have one.

science is never particularly complicated if you have a genius in your midst. what makes a bomb technology exclusive to a few countries is the matter of money. and politics, of course.

From what I know, Einstein's theories don't really help describe how to build an atomic bomb. They simply describe exactly how much energy it would release. Even without them, people knew it would be "a whole frickin lot." Knowing "E=mc^2" doesn't help build the bomb - what helps is knowing the atomic physics involved in fission. Though I suppose Einstein's first paper was proving the existence of atoms, so it's related; but his work was mostly on a more basic level than that which was needed. Just like knowing the equation for the force between two electric charges doesn't help you build a laptop, even though it is the physics behind it. Or the fact that knowing the orbitals of the electrons around atoms doesn't help you build a car engine, even though at the heart of the combustion reaction you have intermolecular interactions. The science that you need to build a car/computer/bomb is simply on a higher level - which could be derived from the lower level, in theory, if it wasn't so complex.

Or that's my understanding of it. I could be wrong.