NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm currently watching a news broadcast here in Japan about the 62nd Anniversary of the Bombing of Hiroshima. I'm going to try (Although I think it's doomed to failure, but I've been called a hopeless optimist before) to create a thread that won't get into a debate about the justification of the bombing(s).

So, 62 years after the fact, what lessons have been learned from that day and do you agree, along with the survivors, that the lessons are fading with their deaths?

The fact that we've never used an atom bomb against an enemy since is probably a good indication that something was learned. There were opportunities in Korea and Vietnam, and throughout the cold war, where it could've been done, but it's viewed as the most extreme sort of attack, which is probably a good thing.

As for the original bombings, well, they ended the war.

I'm currently watching a news broadcast here in Japan about the 62nd Anniversary of the Bombing of Hiroshima. I'm going to try (Although I think it's doomed to failure, but I've been called a hopeless optimist before) to create a thread that won't get into a debate about the justification of the bombing(s).

So, 62 years after the fact, what lessons have been learned from that day and do you agree, along with the survivors, that the lessons are fading with their deaths?

The lesson we learned is that in the end it was no better and no worse then any other kind of bombing. The citys now thrive and are in no better or worse condition relativly then London or Berlin or any other city that got carpetbombed with conventional weapons.

I've learned that people, particularly those who have never personally seen war, still find it all too easy to justify "collateral damage" and slaughter of innocent civilians if it suits their petty political agenda and happens far, far away.

I don't think the lessons are fading with thier death.

The personal experiences of those who suffered through this will forever be lost. However, that is not something that we could preserve anyway.

We launched two bombs against a military agressor, who years prior attacked our non-warring nation on a cheery, peaceful Sunday morning. Not entering into any debate...but simply going to summarize it--we didn't start it...we finished it. As horrible of a conclusion as it was...had they not bombed Pearl Harbor, thus preventing us from staying out of the Pacific during WWII, we wouldn't have needed to drop either bomb.


Could we have won without dropping the bombs? Sure... I think we could have. However, in dropping the bombs, we avoided having to sacrifice thousands of Americans who would have died in the invasion.*


*-Disclaimer--one of whom, undoubtably, would have been my grandfather. Had he not survived WWII, my mother wouldn't have been born, and neither would I...

"There will one day spring from the brain of science a machine or force so fearful in its potentialities, so absolutely terrifying, that even man, the fighter, who will dare torture and death in order to inflict torture and death, will be appalled, and so abandon war forever." ~ Thomas Edison

We can sit hear and debate the actual bombings all we want, and I'll admit I'm on the side that thinks the bombs shouldn't have been dropped. None the less, this is what we should have learned, to abandon war. In a sense we did, as in the case of MAD. However, I've heard too many assholes say things like "we should turn the Middle East to glass" and too many idiots advocate courses of action which could lead to nuclear war to think this is true.
Never mind the endless chorus of calls for conventional slaughter.

The lesson of Hiroshima is that humankind is capable of inhuman callousness.

Nuclear war is the most atrocious, destructive, and inhuman form of warfare that exists. That's why we have never had another nuclear weapon used in combat...people saw the devastation that those weapons caused and we have since then tried to use any other means at our disposal even in times of crisis to defuse the potential for nuclear Armageddon.

In the words of Viktor Frankl: "Auschwitz showed us what mankind is capable of, and Hiroshima showed us what is at stake."

The lesson we learned is that in the end it was no better and no worse then any other kind of bombing. The citys now thrive and are in no better or worse condition relativly then London or Berlin or any other city that got carpetbombed with conventional weapons.

That's true, although with today's modern bombs, that probably wouldn't be the case. Something to keep in mind. :p

I've learned that people, particularly those who have never personally seen war, still find it all too easy to justify "collateral damage" and slaughter of innocent civilians if it suits their petty political agenda and happens far, far away.

You basically summarised the problem with USA foreign "policy" right there.

You basically summarised the problem with USA foreign "policy" right there.

You prefer wars started by veterans? :p Eisenhower, Kennedy and Bush I didn't seem to mind pulling the trigger, nor did Nixon in continuing the boming over in SE Asia. ;)

You prefer wars started by veterans? :p Eisenhower, Kennedy and Bush I didn't seem to mind pulling the trigger, nor did Nixon in continuing the boming over in SE Asia. ;)
The vast majority of the people supporting the wars those men led had never been in war and almost none had seen their homes devestated by war; Nixon spent six months on a fucking boat, and you can go either way with Eisenhower on the man of peace/warmonger thing.
But I think you were just kidding so...

The vast majority of the people supporting the wars those men led had never been in war and almost none had seen their homes devestated by war; Nixon spent six months on a fucking boat, and you can go either way with Eisenhower on the man of peace/warmonger thing.
But I think you were just kidding so...

I was kidding in that I don't believe that sort of consideration to be critical in weighing jus ad bellum, sure. ;) Civilian control of the military being what it is, the uninformed (in terms of actual experience) will comprise both the pro- and anti-war movments, as it normally works out.

The lesson we learned is that in the end it was no better and no worse then any other kind of bombing. The citys now thrive and are in no better or worse condition relativly then London or Berlin or any other city that got carpetbombed with conventional weapons.

Except the problem is that modern nuclear weapons don't even slightly resemble what was used 60 years ago.

The more powerful of the two bombs, "Fat Man" had a yield of about 20 kilotons of TNT (for those not familiar with the term, this means that the bomb had an explosive force of about 20 thousand tons of TNT detonated at once).

We have 14 Ohio class submarines, each one carries 24 armed Trident II missles (that's 336). Each one carries about 5 warhead (can theoretically carry up to 12 if treaties didn't limit it). Each warhead carries a yield of 100 kilotons (5 times the yield of fatman). Again, Trident II carries 5 warheads. Again, we have 336 of them. That's about 1500 warheads each one 5 times more powerful than Fat Man.

That's over 7000 times the explosive force that leveled Nagasaki.

And that's just on our submarines.

If we want to talk land based, a single peacekeeper missle can be armed with ten re-entry warheads each one of which has a yield of about 300 kilotons. A single missle can carry 10 warheads each one 15 times more powerful than Fat Man.

In fairness we don't use peacekeepers anymore, but still utilize Minuteman II missles, which again have 10 re-entry warheads, but with a yield only of 120 kilotons each, give or take. So that's only 6 times more powerful than Fat Man...but then again, each Minuteman II carries 10 of them. We have about 500 of those missles.

And none of that counts the warheads we can slap on stealth bombers. Right now, at this moment, the United States has about 7000 nuclear warheads, each one about 5 times more powerful than Fat Man.

And that's just counting the ones that are armed. We have about half that again in reserve.

Of course this doesn't touch the big bombs that were developed during the cold war. If memory serves, the highest yield ever reached in a single bomb was about 50 megatons. That's 2.5 thousand times.

The large single detonation hydrogen bombs use explosives more powerful than fat man, not as the explosion itself, but in order to start the fusion reaction. It uses an explosion more than 20 kilotons as a trigger.

As tragic as the events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, those weapons were firecrackers compared to what we can do now.

I'm currently watching a news broadcast here in Japan about the 62nd Anniversary of the Bombing of Hiroshima. I'm going to try (Although I think it's doomed to failure, but I've been called a hopeless optimist before) to create a thread that won't get into a debate about the justification of the bombing(s).

Its been 62 years already? Man does time fly.

So, 62 years after the fact, what lessons have been learned from that day

That the A-Bomb should never be used again.

and do you agree, along with the survivors, that the lessons are fading with their deaths?

No but other WWII are fading away.

We all learned a lot about the horror and the cost of the bomb when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed. We found a weapon so phenomenally terrifying that well, there are no words to describe it.

What I never got was people's fascination with nuclear weapons afterward. Nuclear weapons are remarkably dull. Dull and highly situational. I don't approve of them.

What I never got was people's fascination with nuclear weapons afterward. Nuclear weapons are remarkably dull. Dull and highly situational. I don't approve of them.

LG prefers Unclear weapons and mud is as unclear as it gets.

Clear as mud?

I wonder if there's an equation to work out how often LG is told what he does and doesn't like in a given day.

They're bombs. Really big bombs, sure, but they're bombs. They's still measured in kilotons and whatnot.

What's to learn, an upper limit to explosions?

I've learned that people, particularly those who have never personally seen war, still find it all too easy to justify "collateral damage" and slaughter of innocent civilians if it suits their petty political agenda and happens far, far away.

it works the other way around as well.

The lesson of Hiroshima is that humankind is capable of inhuman callousness.

Quite. Although the part we're forgetting is that it's still bad when we do it.

Nukes are bad mmmkay?

And yet, is there an anniversary for the firebombings of Tokyo? Those cost alot more lives than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though the fallout isn't counted into that equation...

Anyhow, the legacy of the bombings is still around. The hydrogen bomb is surely the most feared device ever constructed and has kept the world in a state of fear the past 60 years.

And yet, is there an anniversary for the firebombings of Tokyo? Those cost alot more lives than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though the fallout isn't counted into that equation... I was just about to say that, people died about as fast from the firebombing aswell. Would need alot of firebombs to match the largest nukes that exist now though, probably isn't even possible.

The lesson, if any?....."Terrorism" works.

The use of the bombs did not bring the war to an end by much more than a couple of weeks - Japan was about to collapse anyway and could not sustain any kind of military threat.

It was more about a demonstration of US power for the fight for control in world politics that followed.

We all learned a lot about the horror and the cost of the bomb when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed. We found a weapon so phenomenally terrifying that well, there are no words to describe it.

What was it Oppenheimer said on seeing the tests on the bombs - "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds".

Now whether or not using such weapons against a largely civilian population was right or wrong, I will not comment. However I like to think that humankind as a whole learnt something from those two bombings. Hopefully we will never see such destruction wrought again, and I can only pray that the various leaders of this planets countries will appreciate the human cost of such weapons.

I was just about to say that, people died about as fast from the firebombing aswell. Would need alot of firebombs to match the largest nukes that exist now though, probably isn't even possible.

Well the theoretical yield of some of the US hydrogen bombs is around the 25Mt mark. So you would need around 25 million tons of TNT to have the same explosive yield (although not as focused due to the relative size of the two explosives).

I don't think the lessons are fading with thier death.

The personal experiences of those who suffered through this will forever be lost. However, that is not something that we could preserve anyway.

We launched two bombs against a military agressor, who years prior attacked our non-warring nation on a cheery, peaceful Sunday morning. Not entering into any debate...but simply going to summarize it--we didn't start it...we finished it. As horrible of a conclusion as it was...had they not bombed Pearl Harbor, thus preventing us from staying out of the Pacific during WWII, we wouldn't have needed to drop either bomb.


You launched two bombs against innocent civilians, 140,000+ of whom died instantly, and an unknown number dying afterwards. Over 2000 people died in Pearl Harbour. Only 55 were civilians. In no way am I trying to justify Pearl Harbour, but even an idiot could see the huge difference in lives lost. The bombings were far far worse than Pearl Harbour. And the USA were hardly non-warring. You fought. And Pearl Harbour was an attack on militaries. Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an attack on Civilians. I don't think that most Americans realise the impact and the death toll of the two A-Bombs. Yeah, Pearl Harbour this, and Pearl Harbour that. It was awful. But not as awful as Hiroshima. They attacked you on a cheery peaceful, Sunday morning? You attacked them on a weekday morning as they were going to work and eating their breakfast. They were both bad. But everyone can see which is worse. Hirshoma & Nagasaki were far worse than September 11th, a civilian attack. But no one ever talks about the Japan bombings. And they died in the most gruesome way. The ones that survived the initial impact suffered appalling burns. Want to see a picture? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gisei32.jpg
Yeah. Alot worse than September 11th and Pearl Harbour put together. And let me make this clear, I think those attacks were awful and I cannot possibly even think of justifying them. But don't you try to justify the nuclear bombings. You can't.

Well the theoretical yield of some of the US hydrogen bombs is around the 25Mt mark. So you would need around 25 million tons of TNT to have the same explosive yield (although not as focused due to the relative size of the two explosives).

We can't make tons of TNT? I mean, besides the inconvenience...

If there is something we learned then it's probably the fact that there are nations that are ready to test their new toys even when it isn't necessary and rather make up an excuse than leave it be. The A-bomb is not much unlike the iPod: If there isn't a market, let's create one.

And no, the lesson ain't fading: Vietnam, Kosovo, The Gulf. Always new toys, always new wars.

Someone in this thread said: "Nuclear war is the most atrocious, destructive, and inhuman form of warfare that exists." Well, no, it isn't. Guns that vaporize you into a dry blob in a matter of microseconds can hardly be described as inhuman or even that atrocious. Destructive, yes, that can not be argued. The fallout on the otherhand... okay, pretty atrocious. But at least, eventually you die - or get better.

Inhuman and atrocious is something that leaves you crippled for life and often in constant agony. Land mines, napalm, cluster grenades. Everything that tears you to pieces - but only almost, not quite killing you. THAT is atrocious. THAT is inhuman. That happens every day. One here, one there. Over time small trickles of blood maketh a mighty river many times the buckets of blood caused by the two a-bombs.

Accepting collateral damage is a cold, cold thought. But at least you can be decent enough and kill your enemies quickly. In that respect there aren't many decent war mongers nowadays.

No, not even close. The smallest single warhead we have is 100 kt. That's 100 thousand TONS of TNT. 2 MILLION pounds. The full yield of a Minuteman missle is over a million tons, that's two billion pounds

And that's just a minuteman missle, which is reasonably small yield. We stopped building "bigger" bombs and started building "smarter" ones. Figuring if we wanted to destroy a city, 10 100kt bombs would do just as well as one 5mt bomb, and save the fallout (blast radii, being circular, require exponentially higher yield to increase).

If we want to talk sheer destructive power, the US tested a 15mt bomb, Castle Bravo. Although the thing about that was it was only supposed to be about 5 mt, they screwed up and accidentally caused a runaway reaction, so it ended up being 3 times the yield as expected.

And that's just the United States. The Soviet Union's "empire bomb" was tested and hit about fifty megatons. fifty. It is the most powerful device ever to be used by humanity. The force of its explosion was equal to the entire yield of every single explosive used in world war 2.

10 times over.

Every shell, every bomb, every artillery, ever blitz, every air raid, even fat man itself, all rolled into one, was one tenth the yield of this thing. In the 40 nanoseconds (40 one billionths of a second) the explosion was approximately 1% of the power output of the Sun

Want to see how that compares? Check it out here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Comparative_nuclear_fireball_sizes.svg)

See that teeny tiny dot in the center? That's Nagasaki. See that HUUGE red circle? That's the 50mt giant. Fat man had a nuclear fireball of about 500 feet. That's just the fireball. That 500 foot fireball leveled a city.

This one has a diameter of 2.75 miles. Not destruction range. Not fatality range. NOt range where property damage was caused. That's the nuclear fireball.

an almost 3 mile in all directions wall of fire. It generated enough heat to melt your skin 60 miles away. It could level a city if dropped as far away as 6 miles from the center.

And none of that counts the fallout

These things are not "just bombs", you can't make equivalent destruction. These weapons aren't block busters, or even city killers.

They are civilization killers.

These things are not "just bombs", you can't make equivalent destruction. These weapons aren't block busters, or even city killers.

They are civilization killers.

Alarmist BS. Drop a nuclear bomb 62 years ago on London of ANY size and guess what, 62 years later humanity would have LONG ago rebuilt and you STILL you wouldnt even know it had happened except for the fact that it was all new buildings. The technology to rehab an irradiated area has existed for almost a century and consists mainly of bulldozers and trucks. They could have nuked the Entire Island of England into a giant glowing pothole and 62 years later tens of millions would live there.

No, not even close. The smallest single warhead we have is 100 kt. That's 100 thousand TONS of TNT. 2 MILLION pounds. The full yield of a Minuteman missle is over a million tons, that's two billion pounds

And that's just a minuteman missle, which is reasonably small yield. We stopped building "bigger" bombs and started building "smarter" ones. Figuring if we wanted to destroy a city, 10 100kt bombs would do just as well as one 5mt bomb, and save the fallout (blast radii, being circular, require exponentially higher yield to increase).

If we want to talk sheer destructive power, the US tested a 15mt bomb, Castle Bravo. Although the thing about that was it was only supposed to be about 5 mt, they screwed up and accidentally caused a runaway reaction, so it ended up being 3 times the yield as expected.

And that's just the United States. The Soviet Union's "empire bomb" was tested and hit about fifty megatons. fifty. It is the most powerful device ever to be used by humanity. The force of its explosion was equal to the entire yield of every single explosive used in world war 2.

10 times over.

Every shell, every bomb, every artillery, ever blitz, every air raid, even fat man itself, all rolled into one, was one tenth the yield of this thing. In the 40 nanoseconds (40 one billionths of a second) the explosion was approximately 1% of the power output of the Sun

Want to see how that compares? Check it out here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Comparative_nuclear_fireball_sizes.svg)

See that teeny tiny dot in the center? That's Nagasaki. See that HUUGE red circle? That's the 50mt giant. Fat man had a nuclear fireball of about 500 feet. That's just the fireball. That 500 foot fireball leveled a city.

This one has a diameter of 2.75 miles. Not destruction range. Not fatality range. NOt range where property damage was caused. That's the nuclear fireball.

an almost 3 mile in all directions wall of fire. It generated enough heat to melt your skin 60 miles away. It could level a city if dropped as far away as 6 miles from the center.

And none of that counts the fallout

These things are not "just bombs", you can't make equivalent destruction. These weapons aren't block busters, or even city killers.

They are civilization killers.

Hence my caveat of 'really big'. Bombs are destructive. Big bombs would have big destructiveness. Go on and on about how precisely big and destructive these bombs are if you want, that's largely beside the point.

On that day the world learnt the true destructive force of humanity and made humanity cower back in fear.

Alarmist BS. Drop a nuclear bomb 62 years ago on London of ANY size and guess what, 62 years later humanity would have LONG ago rebuilt and you STILL you wouldnt even know it had happened except for the fact that it was all new buildings. The technology to rehab an irradiated area has existed for almost a century and consists mainly of bulldozers and trucks. They could have nuked the Entire Island of England into a giant glowing pothole and 62 years later tens of millions would live there.

Really? So how many people are living on bikini atol right now? How about nearby Chernobyl?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be rebuilt because the bombs were tiny in comparison. And there were only 2 of them.

I'm not merely talking what happens if someone bombs NY. I'm talking about what happens when someone bombs NY, washington, boston, LA chicago philadelphia and Maimi. Every one of which was a target of soviet missles in the event of nuclear war.

American society as we know it would melt down.

Nuclear war is the most atrocious, destructive, and inhuman form of warfare that exists. That's why we have never had another nuclear weapon used in combat...people saw the devastation that those weapons caused and we have since then tried to use any other means at our disposal even in times of crisis to defuse the potential for nuclear Armageddon.

In the words of Viktor Frankl: "Auschwitz showed us what mankind is capable of, and Hiroshima showed us what is at stake."

I would put Dresden up there above Hiroshima. Atleast the nukes had the good grace to kill fast instead of being slowly roasted to death.

Dunno, die in a fire or die due to nuclear fallout. Two horrific ways to go.

I'm currently watching a news broadcast here in Japan about the 62nd Anniversary of the Bombing of Hiroshima. I'm going to try (Although I think it's doomed to failure, but I've been called a hopeless optimist before) to create a thread that won't get into a debate about the justification of the bombing(s). Rather than simply give you the luck I carry with me, I am just going to put in an industrial order on indent- you will need all we have in the warehouse.

So, 62 years after the fact, what lessons have been learned from that day and do you agree, along with the survivors, that the lessons are fading with their deaths? Lessons learned;
(1) If you are winning, and the most powerful country in the world (Especially after a devestating war), you can do what you want.
(2) Incinerating civilians is much faster than engaging the military.
(3) If you are the only person who has nukes, you can nuke anyone you want.
(4) If the USA was a person, he'd be a dick.
(5) The best way to intimidate commies is to vapourise asians.
(6) Its not a real weapon until it has been tested on a live population.
(7) Genocide is bad.

Are the lessons fading with their deaths? Yes and no. Some of the lessons are obsolete, given that there is no more communist bloc to intimidate, and everybody has nukes these days. Others are still living strong thanks to enthusiastic reinforcement by certain imperialistic powers (see: The most powerful country in the world can do as they please, it is not a real weapon until it has been tested on a live population [Desert Storm anybody?], Incinerating civilians is much faster than engaging the military, and If USA was a guy he'd be a dick). However, yes, some lessons are becoming a bit dusty, namely; Genocide is bad.

Hence my caveat of 'really big'. Bombs are destructive. Big bombs would have big destructiveness. Go on and on about how precisely big and destructive these bombs are if you want, that's largely beside the point.

No, that's ENTIRELY the point. That's EXACTLY the point. The huge destructiveness of these weapons is the point. These are not mere bombs. They are the very definition of weapons of mass destruction.

To say that the destructive potential of nuclear weapons is "not the point" so entirely completely and fundamentally misses the point that one has to wonder if you're even paying attention.

The ability for a single weapon to take out an entire city is the point.

I don't think the lessons are fading with thier death.

The personal experiences of those who suffered through this will forever be lost. However, that is not something that we could preserve anyway.

We launched two bombs against a military agressor, who years prior attacked our non-warring nation on a cheery, peaceful Sunday morning. Not entering into any debate...but simply going to summarize it--we didn't start it...we finished it. As horrible of a conclusion as it was...had they not bombed Pearl Harbor, thus preventing us from staying out of the Pacific during WWII, we wouldn't have needed to drop either bomb. You baited them into it anyhow, as pres was upset that the people and congress didn't approve of a war. Plus, surprise attacking a naval base and incinerating an entire city of civilians is no sqaure 'this for that'.


Could we have won without dropping the bombs? Sure... I think we could have. However, in dropping the bombs, we avoided having to sacrifice thousands of Americans who would have died in the invasion.*


*-Disclaimer--one of whom, undoubtably, would have been my grandfather. Had he not survived WWII, my mother wouldn't have been born, and neither would I... See, your grandfather joined the military, and by very virtue of this act, should have expected death. The women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not sign up for the war as your Grandfather did. Were it up to me I would trade the life of your willing and guilty grandfather for those hundreds of thousands of unwilling innocents.

No, not even close. The smallest single warhead we have is 100 kt. That's 100 thousand TONS of TNT. 2 MILLION pounds. The full yield of a Minuteman missle is over a million tons, that's two billion pounds

And that's just a minuteman missle, which is reasonably small yield. We stopped building "bigger" bombs and started building "smarter" ones. Figuring if we wanted to destroy a city, 10 100kt bombs would do just as well as one 5mt bomb, and save the fallout (blast radii, being circular, require exponentially higher yield to increase).

If we want to talk sheer destructive power, the US tested a 15mt bomb, Castle Bravo. Although the thing about that was it was only supposed to be about 5 mt, they screwed up and accidentally caused a runaway reaction, so it ended up being 3 times the yield as expected.

And that's just the United States. The Soviet Union's "empire bomb" was tested and hit about fifty megatons. fifty. It is the most powerful device ever to be used by humanity. The force of its explosion was equal to the entire yield of every single explosive used in world war 2.

10 times over.

Every shell, every bomb, every artillery, ever blitz, every air raid, even fat man itself, all rolled into one, was one tenth the yield of this thing. In the 40 nanoseconds (40 one billionths of a second) the explosion was approximately 1% of the power output of the Sun

Want to see how that compares? Check it out here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Comparative_nuclear_fireball_sizes.svg)

See that teeny tiny dot in the center? That's Nagasaki. See that HUUGE red circle? That's the 50mt giant. Fat man had a nuclear fireball of about 500 feet. That's just the fireball. That 500 foot fireball leveled a city.

This one has a diameter of 2.75 miles. Not destruction range. Not fatality range. NOt range where property damage was caused. That's the nuclear fireball.

an almost 3 mile in all directions wall of fire. It generated enough heat to melt your skin 60 miles away. It could level a city if dropped as far away as 6 miles from the center.

And none of that counts the fallout

These things are not "just bombs", you can't make equivalent destruction. These weapons aren't block busters, or even city killers.

They are civilization killers.

Is it wrong if I got an erection reading that?

I'm currently watching a news broadcast here in Japan about the 62nd Anniversary of the Bombing of Hiroshima. I'm going to try (Although I think it's doomed to failure, but I've been called a hopeless optimist before) to create a thread that won't get into a debate about the justification of the bombing(s).

So, 62 years after the fact, what lessons have been learned from that day and do you agree, along with the survivors, that the lessons are fading with their deaths?

We've learned not to use the atom bomb, although some idiots (chief among them Barry Goldwater) still advocate it.

How about nearby Chernobyl?Different substance. For that matter the nature near Chernobyl is *thriving (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4923342.stm)*.

Big hydrogen bombs are relatively 'emission free' compared to really scary dirty bombs we could make (let alone chemical & bio weapons).

We can make pretty much arbitrarily big bombs with the limiting factor being deployment rather than explosive technology itself ("small" MIRVs are much harder to intercept), against non nuclear nations - with little to no intercept capability - the limiting factor is foolishness of attacking nation.

btw. If you want a good example how f*ed up humanity really is try Lake Karachay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Karachay).

edit:
Has someone already mentioned Tsar Bomba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_bomba)?

No, that's ENTIRELY the point. That's EXACTLY the point. The huge destructiveness of these weapons is the point. These are not mere bombs. They are the very definition of weapons of mass destruction.

To say that the destructive potential of nuclear weapons is "not the point" so entirely completely and fundamentally misses the point that one has to wonder if you're even paying attention.

The ability for a single weapon to take out an entire city is the point.

*shrug* When a single weapon couldn't do it, we used many. And before we could use many, a fire worked just as well. So, I repeat. What's to learn, an upper limit to explosions? They are really really "massively destructive" (to corrupt your phrase) bombs. They make a really big boom. These booms, Like most booms, harm people. Big booms harm big numbers of people. They're realy really big bombs. And they explode.

I don't think the lessons are fading with thier death.

The personal experiences of those who suffered through this will forever be lost. However, that is not something that we could preserve anyway.

We launched two bombs against a military agressor, who years prior attacked our non-warring nation on a cheery, peaceful Sunday morning. Not entering into any debate...but simply going to summarize it--we didn't start it...we finished it. As horrible of a conclusion as it was...had they not bombed Pearl Harbor, thus preventing us from staying out of the Pacific during WWII, we wouldn't have needed to drop either bomb.


Could we have won without dropping the bombs? Sure... I think we could have. However, in dropping the bombs, we avoided having to sacrifice thousands of Americans who would have died in the invasion.*


*-Disclaimer--one of whom, undoubtably, would have been my grandfather. Had he not survived WWII, my mother wouldn't have been born, and neither would I...

Actually, I did a lot of research back in high school for a paper regarding whether or not the bombs could've been avoided in use. Technically, the answer is yes, but the cost of lives just for the American/Allied troops to take the small island of Okinawa was estimated at roughly one million Allied lives alone. That doesn't even begin to factor in how many Japanese people would have died.

Just food for thought.

*shrug* When a single weapon couldn't do it, we used many. And before we could use many, a fire worked just as well. So, I repeat. What's to learn, an upper limit to explosions? They are really really "massively destructive" (to corrupt your phrase) bombs. They make a really big boom. These booms, Like most booms, harm people. Big booms harm big numbers of people. They're realy really big bombs. And they explode.

The summary of nuclear physics for you is, "booms harm people".

Well excuse me while I catch my breath and have seat.

I think Neo Art makes a valid point that people of this generation seem to have forgotten. Those that lived through the eras of testing such insanely sized bombs, realised their destructive powers - and were rightly afraid. Today, we simply talk about "booms".

That's worrying to me.

The summary of nuclear physics for you is, "booms harm people".

Well excuse me while I catch my breath and have seat.

I think Neo Art makes a valid point that people of this generation seem to have forgotten. Those that lived through the eras of testing such insanely sized bombs, realised their destructive powers - and were rightly afraid. Today, we simply talk about "booms".

That's worrying to me.

QFT

The summary of nuclear physics for you is, "booms harm people".

Well excuse me while I catch my breath and have seat.

I think Neo Art makes a valid point that people of this generation seem to have forgotten. Those that lived through the eras of testing such insanely sized bombs, realised their destructive powers - and were rightly afraid. Today, we simply talk about "booms".

That's worrying to me.

You want me to talk about nuclear fission? That's even more off track.

They kill lots of people. Lots of things kill lots of people. What's the point being made here? They cause some kind of grevious super-death in idividuals no other method can cause?

You want me to talk about nuclear fission? That's even more off track.
No I don't. Maybe someone else does, but that wasn't my point.

They kill lots of people. Lots of things kill lots of people. What's the point being made here? They cause some kind of grevious super-death in idividuals no other method can cause?

The point? I think I already said it. But I'll reiterate it for you here:

I think Neo Art makes a valid point that people of this generation seem to have forgotten. Those that lived through the eras of testing such insanely sized bombs, realised their destructive powers - and were rightly afraid. Today, we simply talk about "booms".

And if you can't see why the noticable change in attitude and perceptions to the use of WMD's is worrying, then it's even more worrying.

No I don't. Maybe someone else does, but that wan't my point.



The point? I think I already said it. But I'll reiterate it for you.



And if you can't see why the noticable change in attitude and perceptions to the use of WMD's is worrying, then it's even more worrying.

Alright, fine, I'll replace the word booms with explosions. Better? Incidentally, what is my view on the use of nuclear weapons?

You want me to talk about nuclear fission? That's even more off track.

Considering nuclear fission reactions is the trigger detonation for a hydrogen bomb, that's pretty on track

They kill lots of people. Lots of things kill lots of people. What's the point being made here?

The point, which it seems you have failed to grasp is that nothing, NOTHING on this planet, save perhaps some extremely engineered biological organisms can kill so many people with such little ease. Nothing. There is no force mankind can harness with the pure destructive capabilities as nuclear weapons.

Have you not even been remotely following the discussion? The "point" which you seem so blissfully unaware of is that due to their pure destructive nature, nuclear weapons are in a class all their own.

You seem to think that we can match their power by using more of conventional weapons. Instead of one nuke, drop 10 fuel air bombs.

We can't. Not even close.

They cause some kind of grevious super-death in idividuals no other method can cause?

No. It merely causes death on a scale no other method can cause. You seem to be laboring under the misapprehention that a nuclear weapon is just a "bigger kind of bomb", and that if we didn't use one nuke, we can use 10 other weapons and it'd be the same.

We can't. There is nothing in our arsenol that comes even close. We could lob a thousand stingers into a city. Nothing we can do, save perhaps a full scale carpet bombing, could ever even come close to a nuclear weapon.

And that's just what one missle can do.

No. It merely causes death on a scale no other method can cause
A nice pandemic?

How many people have died since 1945?

It's scale and nought more. They don't get deified for that.

A nice pandemic?

The black death caused about 20 million deaths in europe. It is by far the worse pandemic in the history of mankind.

20 million deaths is 5 well placed nuclear devices. Washington, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and Miami.

How many pandemics have we had that have brought deaths in the millions since we figured out penicillin?

How many people have died since 1945?

how many of them from a single, man made cause? How many of them in one tenth of a second?

It's scale and nought more. They don't get deified for that.

Exactly, it's scale. It's all about scale. And for someone to look at the potential scale of nuclear weapons and go "meh" is truly disturbing.

The black death caused about 20 million deaths in europe. It is by far the worse pandemic in the history of mankind.

20 million deaths is 5 well placed nuclear devices. Washington, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and Miami.

How many pandemics have we had that have brought deaths in the millions since we figured out penicillin?

None, really. How many nuclear weapons have brought death since 1945?

how many of them from a single, man made cause? How many of them in one tenth of a second?

Ah, cuz that's heartening. "At least you have time to get your will together."

Exactly, it's scale. It's all about scale. And for someone to look at the potential scale of nuclear weapons and go "meh" is truly disturbing.

Did I meh? Oops. I've never denied their large scale. There's lots of big things out there. I don't get what you want me to say, I've agreed repeatedly, nuclear weapons are big, destructive, and kill many many people.

None, really. How many nuclear weapons have brought death since 1945?

And the fact that you fail to see the difference is the really troubling part.

And the fact that you fail to see the difference is the really troubling part.

The difference between millions of people dying and millions of people dying? Or something else?

How many pandemics have we had that have brought deaths in the millions since we figured out penicillin?


To be fair, the single largest death toll in the 20th Century was from a pandemic. And while the Great Flu Epidemic of 1919-25 happened technically before Penicillin, that drug (in point of fact, ALL known drugs) would have made little or no difference to the death toll.

I was going to ignore this, but I just can't:

Rambhutan:


The use of the bombs did not bring the war to an end by much more than a couple of weeks - Japan was about to collapse anyway and could not sustain any kind of military threat.

It was more about a demonstration of US power for the fight for control in world politics that followed.

I'm sorry, but while you do have a point about it being a power play for after the war, you are absolutely wrong about Japan's imminent collapse. I don't want to hijack the thread, but I strongly suggest you do some research on the subject before you post further.

To be fair, the single largest death toll in the 20th Century was from a pandemic. And while the Great Flu Epidemic of 1919-25 happened technically before Penicillin, that drug (in point of fact, ALL known drugs) would have made little or no difference to the death toll.

Darnit, I was gonna mention the little issue of virii. Point stealer. :mad:

Really? So how many people are living on bikini atol right now? How about nearby Chernobyl?

Chernobyl is actually a thriving nature preserve right now. Since people left, it has reverted back to nature and is simply blooming with life.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be rebuilt because the bombs were tiny in comparison. And there were only 2 of them.

And your point is what? That it might just take LONGER to rebuild cities that were hit by larger bombs? Or that it might take longer if there are more cities that are targeted? I conceed that point, but otherwise I dont get what your saying.

I'm not merely talking what happens if someone bombs NY. I'm talking about what happens when someone bombs NY, washington, boston, LA chicago philadelphia and Maimi. Every one of which was a target of soviet missles in the event of nuclear war.

Same answer as above. Each and every one of those cities can be rebuilt with current technology.

American society as we know it would melt down.

Yup. Right up until the point that we get our shit back together and rebuild. See above points yet again.

And your point is what? That it might just take LONGER to rebuild cities that were hit by larger bombs? Or that it might take longer if there are more cities that are targeted? I conceed that point, but otherwise I dont get what your saying.

Same answer as above. Each and every one of those cities can be rebuilt with current technology.


If it is about the stones, buildings and cities in stead of the people, why all the fuss about 9-11? Things will be rebuilt, no?

"There will one day spring from the brain of science a machine or force so fearful in its potentialities, so absolutely terrifying, that even man, the fighter, who will dare torture and death in order to inflict torture and death, will be appalled, and so abandon war forever." ~ Thomas Edison

Wrong.

"So long as there are men there will be wars."

- Albert Einstein

If it is about the stones, buildings and cities in stead of the people, why all the fuss about 9-11? Things will be rebuilt, no?

Did the people in the towers die any differently cause it was a plane instead of a nuke? Nope, all are equally as dead. We are talking about the nature of the weapon not the death count. Conventional weapons, as has already been repeatedly demonstrated kills just as well as "nukes". Another aspect was did it have the capability to end ciivilization in ways other weapons cant. This "we can rebuild it " notion is that part of the concept im trying to get across that nuclear bombs blowing up cities is not the end all be all of the end of civilization. The debate here is do nukes deserve special consideration above and beyond any other form of bomb or weapon of war seeing how thier destruction is just as reversable as say firebombing London was.

Actually, I did a lot of research back in high school for a paper regarding whether or not the bombs could've been avoided in use. Technically, the answer is yes, but the cost of lives just for the American/Allied troops to take the small island of Okinawa was estimated at roughly one million Allied lives alone. That doesn't even begin to factor in how many Japanese people would have died.

Ten Thousand Americans died on Okinawa. That was why we decided to drop the bombs on Japan. That and the fact that the Japanese Army was digging in to stop any invasion and they would mostly fight to the death also wayed into it.

Conventional weapons, as has already been repeatedly demonstrated kills just as well as "nukes".

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Show me one conventional weapon that has anywhere near the killing power of a nuclear missle

Another aspect was did it have the capability to end ciivilization in ways other weapons cant. This "we can rebuild it " notion is that part of the concept im trying to get across that nuclear bombs blowing up cities is not the end all be all of the end of civilization. The debate here is do nukes deserve special consideration above and beyond any other form of bomb or weapon of war seeing how thier destruction is just as reversable as say firebombing London was.

And once again, you miss the point. It's not just the scale, it's the ease. Sure, if you compare the damage done to london in the blitz and nagasaki by fat man, it'll probably be relatively similar (ignoring the cancer).

And sure you can carpet bomb a city to the extent that it mirrors the damage of a nuclear bomb. Fine, admitted, we can do that.

But to carpet bomb a city takes a large expenditure of resource and man hours. Excessive coordination and high risk. Not to mention pulling planes off of protecting airspace otherwise.

On the other hand, to do it with a nuke requires one man on one sub pushing one button and launching one missle.

And if he can launch one missle with that button, he can launch 24. Sure, we have the resources to carpet bomb a city and do the same damage as a nuke.

But can we do it to 24? One submarine can

Can we do it to 336? Our nuclear fleet can.

Yes we can obliterate a city through carpet bombing, we have the resources to do that. We can, through concentrated military effort, mimic the effect of a nuclear warhead.

One warhead.

We have thousands

That's the point. It's not about what one nuclear missle does, all by itself. It's what one nuclear missle does to provoke a country that in turn launches 100. It's remarkably short sighted to say that we can carpet bomb a city if we didn't nuke it. Yes, we can. But how many cities can we carpet bomb? As many as nuclear missles we can launch?

Each missle, every single one, is equivalent to a full scale military operation.

do you agree, along with the survivors, that the lessons are fading with their deaths?
*reads thread*

as the magic 8-ball would say...

Outcome doesn't look good.

This is the same story repeated over and over since armies have ever existed. Think of the scale and ease of death when you compare a bow and arrow vs when we upgraded to machine guns. Lets compare a spear with carpetbombing B-52 Bombers and talk about the horrors of 3000 military campaigns of Indians on horses matched by a single plane with completly conventional weapons. The upgrading of humanitys destructive abilities has continued since armies have ever existed on this planet. Never ONCE in human history did we ever decide that developing new weapons were a bad idea. This is simply a natural result of our technology and must be accepted as such.

I suppose one thing we learnt is that when you're the only guys with nukes they are just divine, they can be a very effective bargaining chip, and I have to point out that without doubt the nukes in Japan saved thousands, if not millions of lives (and most of these would have actually been Japanese, for all their winging at the inhumanity of the event). Unfortunately, once other people got their own, they have no use but for stopping the other guy destroying you and you can't really used them anymore, so generally it is to the detriment of everyone involved that they exist in the first place.

To whoever metioned the Tsar Bomb, you are wrong. it was ment to 100 megatons but it was cut to 50 due to fallout concerns. If it was 100 MT it would have gernerated the same amount as 25% of all of the fall out ever relased since 1945 to 2007. Thats from 1 bomb. Most of that energy would have been wasted in the upper atmosphere. so the bigger the bomb, the less energy directed groundward.

Most of that energy would have been wasted in the upper atmosphere. so the bigger the bomb, the less energy directed groundward.

Yeh, because what do we need with the upper atmosphere and all....

To whoever metioned the Tsar Bomb, you are wrong. it was ment to 100 megatons but it was cut to 50 due to fallout concerns. If it was 100 MT it would have gernerated the same amount as 25% of all of the fall out ever relased since 1945 to 2007. Thats from 1 bomb. Most of that energy would have been wasted in the upper atmosphere. so the bigger the bomb, the less energy directed groundward.

It was still a pretty fucking big bomb. :rolleyes:

Hmm. The way I see it, the moment Japan actively pursues a nuclear program, they lose the moral high ground. Right now, they have the whole "We got bombed! Hard!" thing going for them. Should they foolishly pursue the big N(and I don't mean Nintendo), they lose the ability to glare disapprovingly at others who go for it.

That and it would help future US politicians justify the initial bombings even more than they already try to.

Yup. Right up until the point that we get our shit back together and rebuild. See above points yet again.

I think he means all major cities and governmental branches pancaked.

And no. There is no "getting our shit back together and rebuilding". Not as America anyway. I know human nature enough to reliably say that if America had a large number of nuclear strikes on its cities fast enough to fry the government, you'd get a bunch of independent semi-states trying to scrape together their idea of "I'm the boss".

Heck, even if the federal government survived, if it lost enough strength, America would still crack like an egg.

You baited them into it anyhow, as pres was upset that the people and congress didn't approve of a war.
Um... no. Sorry, Japan went ahead and invaded China all by itself (Well, technically speaking, elements of the Imperial Army went ahead and did it by themselves, but the rest of Japan didn't bother to stop them). It also came up with the notion of war with the US all by itself as well.

Hmm. The way I see it, the moment Japan actively pursues a nuclear program, they lose the moral high ground. Right now, they have the whole "We got bombed! Hard!" thing going for them. Should they foolishly pursue the big N(and I don't mean Nintendo), they lose the ability to glare disapprovingly at others who go for it.

That and it would help future US politicians justify the initial bombings even more than they already try to.
There's very little to no chance of that. Any attempt would be political suicide as the former defense minister found out.

I don't think the lessons are fading with thier death.

The personal experiences of those who suffered through this will forever be lost. However, that is not something that we could preserve anyway.

We launched two bombs against a military agressor, who years prior attacked our non-warring nation on a cheery, peaceful Sunday morning. Not entering into any debate...but simply going to summarize it--we didn't start it...we finished it. As horrible of a conclusion as it was...had they not bombed Pearl Harbor, thus preventing us from staying out of the Pacific during WWII, we wouldn't have needed to drop either bomb.


Could we have won without dropping the bombs? Sure... I think we could have. However, in dropping the bombs, we avoided having to sacrifice thousands of Americans who would have died in the invasion.*


*-Disclaimer--one of whom, undoubtably, would have been my grandfather. Had he not survived WWII, my mother wouldn't have been born, and neither would I...

And of course American soldiers lives are more important than the lives of foreigners. (including the POW's in camps near Nagasaki)

I think that is the lesson learned and repeated.

In WWI 90% of casualties were in the armed forces. Today in any war or conflict around the world 90% of casualties are civilians.

The bombs were not dropped to end the war, they were dropped to see how effective they would be. How many people realise they were not the same type of bomb? The scientists (and the military) needed two to see what the effects of each would be.

The bombs were not dropped to end the war, they were dropped to see how effective they would be. How many people realise they were not the same type of bomb? The scientists (and the military) needed two to see what the effects of each would be.
I'm pretty sure the scientists had some idea what the effects would be... they can do the math. I'm not sure if they thought of the cancer thing and radiation sickness thing though.

To whoever metioned the Tsar Bomb, you are wrong. it was ment to 100 megatons but it was cut to 50 due to fallout concerns. If it was 100 MT it would have gernerated the same amount as 25% of all of the fall out ever relased since 1945 to 2007.

The halfing was probably done by removing multiple fission stages from the bomb: Remember fission bomb ~ bad, cleanly designed fusion bomb ~ just a big boom with fissile material from the trigger being the main cause of pollution. The problem with using non fissile material as a tamper is that the effective explosive power of the weapon is roughly halved.

According to this (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html) the design changes cut the amount of fallout by 97% making it the 'cleanest' (relatively speaking, most efficient would probably be better denominator) nuclear weapon of all time.

Secondly the way the 25% claim is formulated it seems to only apply to the fallout from nuclear weapons explosions. Supposing the reformed bomb contributed (0.03*25%) 0.75% of global fallout with 1.5 Mt of fission yield and taking into account there have been over 2000 nuclear tests made that would put the total fission Mt yieldage of nuclear weapons tests to 200Mt and average fissile yield to somewhere near 100 Kt per bomb which sounds about right.

Fusion bombs in general are much better weapons than dirty fission bombs, neutron bombs, (certain) chemical weapons or (certain) bio weapons: They *only* kill people and destroy cities. :D

edit:
btw. American Castle Bravo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo) seems to be the dirtiest bomb ever detonated with ~10Mt of yield coming from fission or in other terms ~5% of total global nuclear fallout from a single bomb.

That and it would help future US politicians justify the initial bombings even more than they already try to.

We do not need to justify it. The Japanese would not surrender short of being wiped out.

We do not need to justify it. The Japanese would not surrender short of being wiped out.

If that is not an attempt at justification, then what is? ;)

If that is not an attempt at justification, then what is? ;)

Historical fact?

The bombs were not dropped to end the war, they were dropped to see how effective they would be. How many people realise they were not the same type of bomb? The scientists (and the military) needed two to see what the effects of each would be.

Ye...no.

They weren't dropped just to see how effective they were. Mathematical modeling and testing of prototypes at Alamogordo did that just fine. The bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a display of the destructive might of the nuclear weapons, in order to force the Japanese to surrender.

Seriously, wherever do people get such ludicrous notions?

Historical fact?

Not really. You're making an assertion about an event that never occurred. You're talking in might-haves and would-haves. And in doing so, you're attempting to justify it.

Not really. You're making an assertion about an event that never occurred. You're talking in might-haves and would-haves. And in doing so, you're attempting to justify it.

Fact: The Japanese Army was digging in to fight off an American Invasion!

Fact: They were training their civilians to fight off an American Invasion!

Fact: The American Army was preparing for the grueling task of invading the Japanese homeland

Fact: Even after the bombs, some in the military wanted to continue to fight and even attempted a coup that failed utterly.

Fact: It took the words of the Japanese Emperor to actually end the war.

Seems to me that the Japanese military was more than willing to sacrific, not only itself, but also the civilians. So yes. With all emperical evidence at the disposal of everyone, the bombing of Japan with nukes was the only real way to save hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.

That is not justification but cold hard emperical fact.

Fact: The Japanese Army was digging in to fight off an American Invasion!

Fact: They were training their civilians to fight off an American Invasion!

Fact: The American Army was preparing for the grueling task of invading the Japanese homeland

Fact: Even after the bombs, some in the military wanted to continue to fight and even attempted a coup that failed utterly.

Fact: It took the words of the Japanese Emperor to actually end the war.

Seems to me that the Japanese military was more than willing to sacrific, not only itself, but also the civilians. So yes. With all emperical evidence at the disposal of everyone, the bombing of Japan with nukes was the only real way to save hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.

That is not justification but cold hard emperical fact.

STILL a justification. Even if it's a factually supported justification.

STILL a justification. Even if it's a factually supported justification.

Facts are indeed facts. Let us not get into why the cities were selected in the first place.

Facts are indeed facts. Let us not get into why the cities were selected in the first place.

You're completely and totally missing the point. Whatever the reasoning was, it's still a justification for an atrocity.

You're completely and totally missing the point. Whatever the reasoning was, it's still a justification for an atrocity.

What one may call an atrocity, another calls it a military necessity. What would you rather have: A couple million casualties or a couple hundred thousand causalties?

It all boils down to numbers.

What one may call an atrocity, another calls it a military necessity.

A military necessity? So you are justifying it.

Which was Deus Malum's point.

I'm pretty sure the scientists had some idea what the effects would be... they can do the math. I'm not sure if they thought of the cancer thing and radiation sickness thing though.

I find it rather hard to believe that what are essentially "rocket scientists" cannot grasp the fact that an explosion of radioactive material can produce radiation damage.:rolleyes:

What I heard was that they dropped the second bomb just to tell the Russians "We have(had) more than 1." That and there were rumours Russia was this close to brokering a surrender from the Japanese(and presumably grab another country under the curtain)

What I heard was that they dropped the second bomb just to tell the Russians "We have(had) more than 1."
That's another one of the myriad of reasons, yes.


That and there were rumours Russia was this close to brokering a surrender from the Japanese(and presumably grab another country under the curtain)
No. The Japanese held out for the hope that the USSR would act as 'honest brokers' between them and the US - in negotiating a treaty/end of the war - as the USSR were part of the Allies. Why they thought this was logical is beyond me.

Anyway, the USSR declared war on the Japanese (and were planning to before Truman ordered the bombings to go ahead) and were planning to invade from the North. Truman did not want to partition Japan in the same way as Germany was being done. He foresaw the beginning of a new war and having another split country in which to deal with the Soviets at close quarters was too much to contemplate. The dropping of the bombs were partially aimed at the Soviets to say "Watch yourselves. You have the largest army on the planet, but we can take out your cities with one bomb and you can't stop us".

Fact: The Japanese Army was digging in to fight off an American Invasion!

Fact: They were training their civilians to fight off an American Invasion!

Fact: The American Army was preparing for the grueling task of invading the Japanese homeland

Fact: Even after the bombs, some in the military wanted to continue to fight and even attempted a coup that failed utterly.

Fact: It took the words of the Japanese Emperor to actually end the war.

Seems to me that the Japanese military was more than willing to sacrific, not only itself, but also the civilians. So yes. With all emperical evidence at the disposal of everyone, the bombing of Japan with nukes was the only real way to save hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.

That is not justification but cold hard emperical fact.
*sighs* Those are partial facts, but the actual situation was far more complex and the bombs didn't end the war.

They provided the justification to end it, the face saving measure to end it, and, most importantly from the POV of the Emperor, the ass covering needed to end the war without starting a revolution in Japan, but it really cannot be said that they were dropped and the Japanese capitulated due to them.

No. The Japanese held out for the hope that the USSR would act as 'honest brokers' between them and the US - in negotiating a treaty/end of the war - as the USSR were part of the Allies. Why they thought this was logical is beyond me.
Japan and the USSR had signed a non-aggression treaty when Japan went into China (Both sides REALLY didn't want a repeat of the Russo-Japanese War). Unlike the pact between Nazi Germany and the USSR, this one stuck and was very scrupulously followed by both sides. It was Stalin's refusal to broker a cease-fire and the deceleration of war by the USSR that finally convinced the Emperor Showa that he could not avoid the Potsdam Deceleration and there was no real way for him to maintain the Imperial Throne with all the powers given to it by the Meiji Constitution.

Japan and the USSR had signed a non-aggression treaty when Japan went into China (Both sides REALLY didn't want a repeat of the Russo-Japanese War). Unlike the pact between Nazi Germany and the USSR, this one stuck and was very scrupulously followed by both sides. It was Stalin's refusal to broker a cease-fire and the deceleration of war by the USSR that finally convinced the Emperor Showa that he could not avoid the Potsdam Deceleration and there was no real way for him to maintain the Imperial Throne with all the powers given to it by the Meiji Constitution.

No it wasn't. Zhukov fought against the Japanese Imperial Army (more specifially the Kwantung Army) at the border of Mongolia and Manchukuo between 1938 and Autumn of 1939.

I'll give you that the Kwantung were near autonomous in a near autonomous military but this bad blood (Japanese invested nearly 80,000 troops plus several hundred air and tank units - and still lost) must have lasted in the minds of both military leaderships come '45.

Rumor has it, had the US not dropped the Bombs on Japan, that the Canadians had a super secret Bomb program that they were just itching to find a reason to use. The US had to beg Canada to back off so we could reap all the glory. This also helps explain Celion Dions career and how the US ended up with Alannis Moresette. Nooone ever suspects the Canadians.

Rumor has it, had the US not dropped the Bombs on Japan, that the Canadians had a super secret Bomb program that they were just itching to find a reason to use. The US had to beg Canada to back off so we could reap all the glory. This also helps explain Celion Dions career and how the US ended up with Alannis Moresette. Nooone ever suspects the Canadians.

Ye...no.

They weren't dropped just to see how effective they were. Mathematical modeling and testing of prototypes at Alamogordo did that just fine. The bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a display of the destructive might of the nuclear weapons, in order to force the Japanese to surrender.

Seriously, wherever do people get such ludicrous notions?

Mathematical modelling does not show the effects on a human being's physiology.

Mathematical modelling has limits and this was beyond them.

There was only one full test 'near' Alamogordo (about 100 miles away) but that was of the 'fat man' type. As far as I am aware a 'little boy' was never tested. I'm sure you will correct me if I am wrong.

Mathematical modelling does not show the effects on a human being's physiology.

Mathematical modelling has limits and this was beyond them.

There was only one full test 'near' Alamogordo (about 100 miles away) but that was of the 'fat man' type. As far as I am aware a 'little boy' was never tested. I'm sure you will correct me if I am wrong.

I don't see why I would need to.

You, on the other hand, need to provide proof that, given that there WAS testing of nukes before the bombings, the bombings were done for the purpose of seeing their effects on people.

The best estimates at the time postulated that there would be between 500,000 and 1,000,000 dead just on the American side if an invasion of Japan were to take place. Not an altogether unreasonable estimate, considering how bitterly the battle over Okinawa was fought. How many would have been killed on the Japanese side?

It is known that the Japanese were preparing for this invasion. One thing that gives you an idea of how bad it would be was that they planned to arm the entire populace with bamboo spears and order them to charge the American troops. The invasion of Japan would have been very bad for everyone involved. Even after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, there were quite a few in the Japanese high command who wanted to continue the war. In fact, the news that Nagasaki had been destroyed interrupted a speech by one general who was justifying doing so.

Additionally, if the war hadn't ended, the fire-bombings of Japanese cities (a separate issue for debate) would have simply continued, killing many more than the atom bomb could.

And lastly, if the invasion of Japan had gone forward, and the predictions had proven correct as to how many would die, what do you think would have happened if the American people had then learned somehow that the government had possessed a weapon that could have ended the war in days?


That said, it's very good that no one has used one since.

The best estimates at the time postulated that there would be between 500,000 and 1,000,000 dead just on the American side if an invasion of Japan were to take place.

Some me where that comes from. The only person I know who quoted that figure at the time was Stimpson.

Mathematical modelling does not show the effects on a human being's physiology.

Mathematical modelling has limits and this was beyond them.

There was only one full test 'near' Alamogordo (about 100 miles away) but that was of the 'fat man' type. As far as I am aware a 'little boy' was never tested. I'm sure you will correct me if I am wrong.

No, the "Little Boy" Plutonium Bomb was never tested prior to use. However:

-The mathematical results of the two bombs were near-identicle, and they knew their basic math was correct - as, if it was not, "Fat Man" and "Trinity" would not have worked either.

-Radiation Poisoning tests in live animals had occurred as early as 1923.

-Blast, as a single point element, is relatively easy to model, provided one has a reasonable map of the impact area.

As it was, the scientists did get a few things wrong. Radiation levels in all three cases were higher than expected, and fall-out lasted longer and flew further; we now know that some of their math wasn't quite perfect. But there was certainly no need to "test" such weapons - they knew what they would do.

Some me where that comes from. The only person I know who quoted that figure at the time was Stimpson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

I know this one is wikipedia, but it cites its own sources.

There's also this really dense thing I found, without even looking very hard.

http://home.kc.rr.com/casualties/

Also, some of this comes from watching PBS stuff, which I'm not going to bother tracking down. It was about a lot of the secret Japanese command meetings late in the war, transcripts of which had only recently been recovered or some such.

Sorry if this is insufficient for you. I don't really care enough about NSG to spend hours finding and documenting sources. For me to spend that kind of time and effort you have to make me write a research paper.

For me to spend that kind of time and effort you have to make me write a research paper.

Yeh, because its not like some of us have written papers on this or anything.

Edit: And looking through that second link, that figure is primarily coming from Stimson.

Personally, I do think that the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were justified, largely for reasons outlined in this post. Consider the following though; these are tidbits that have not yet been mentioned.

An American soldier fighting in Iraq gets injured today. He gets a Purple Heart, however, this Purple Heart was not meant for him - it was meant for his grandfather or great-grandfather who was expected to get injured in Operation Downfall. Half a million of them were ordered, and there have been no significant orders since World War II; this, in spite of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and so on.

Consider this. In early 1945, there were 100,000 Allied POWs held by the Japanese Imperial Forces - there were orders to execute every single one of them in the event of an invasion of the homeland. These lives were saved because of the atomic bomb

Consider this also. After the war, the American occupiers found out that had six crucial points on the Japanese railway network been bombed, freight would have been severely disrupted. In 1946, the Japanese barely had enough food to last, and this was with their supply chains intact. Had the railway network been bombed, as was suggested in 1945, then the Japanese people would have suffered from severe famine in 1946.

Consider this also. While American civilians had not been specifically targeted by the Japanese, the civilians of Asian countries certainly were - this year is the seventieth anniversary of the Rape of Nanking; it has been estimated that the Japanese Imperial Army murdered up to ten million civilians in Asia. Ten million makes your half a million dead Japanese civilians look like small change. Indeed, many older Asians felt that the atomic bombing was not enough, that the Americans should have completely obliterated Japan

While the atomic bombings were unfortunate, they were necessary.

I think geo-politics have changed more than the inclination of the superpowers to employ "superweapons". I believe MacArthur suggested the use of nucleur weapons along the Yalu river to create a band of radioactive waste in 1950/51/52, and was met with much popular support. However, it is simply not prudent, or necessary, to nuke a small country whose armed forces can be overcome by conventional means.

No it wasn't. Zhukov fought against the Japanese Imperial Army (more specifially the Kwantung Army) at the border of Mongolia and Manchukuo between 1938 and Autumn of 1939.
Yes, it was. I was off on my timing, the treaty was signed in 1941, after that little border incident. But the treaty itself was observed, which is why the Showa Emperor felt that the USSR would broker a cease fire between Japan and the Allies.

I'll give you that the Kwantung were near autonomous in a near autonomous military but this bad blood (Japanese invested nearly 80,000 troops plus several hundred air and tank units - and still lost) must have lasted in the minds of both military leaderships come '45.
Not as much as the Russo-Japanese war though. THAT particular bit was the driving force for the Russians and the fear for the Japanese. It also explains the Russians grabbing the Kuril Islands and not giving them back.

I'm currently watching a news broadcast here in Japan about the 62nd Anniversary of the Bombing of Hiroshima. I'm going to try (Although I think it's doomed to failure, but I've been called a hopeless optimist before) to create a thread that won't get into a debate about the justification of the bombing(s).

Yes, you are a hopeless optimist. Join the club.:)


So, 62 years after the fact, what lessons have been learned from that day and do you agree, along with the survivors, that the lessons are fading with their deaths?
Yes. The world hasn't learned anything.
The fact that both USA and Russia are renewing their arsenals with smaller yields than the Cold-War-deterrence megaton-range is the proof that military leaders still see nuclear weaponry as a viable option.

Random quote:

I am deeply moved if I see one man suffering and would risk my life for him. Then I talk impersonally about the possible pulverization of our big cities, with a hundred million dead. I am unable to multiply one man's suffering by a hundred million.

Yes, it was. I was off on my timing, the treaty was signed in 1941, after that little border incident. But the treaty itself was observed, which is why the Showa Emperor felt that the USSR would broker a cease fire between Japan and the Allies.

Fair enough.


Not as much as the Russo-Japanese war though. THAT particular bit was the driving force for the Russians and the fear for the Japanese. It also explains the Russians grabbing the Kuril Islands and not giving them back.

True, true.

Fact: The Japanese Army was digging in to fight off an American Invasion!

Fact: They were training their civilians to fight off an American Invasion!

Fact: The American Army was preparing for the grueling task of invading the Japanese homeland

Yes, all of the support the conclusion that the Japanese were willing to fight the war and not surrender.

Unfortunately for you, Japan DID surrender. These facts gain you nothing at all.

Fact: Even after the bombs, some in the military wanted to continue to fight and even attempted a coup that failed utterly.

Fact: It took the words of the Japanese Emperor to actually end the war.

These support the conclusion that the Japanese were willing to surrender. A conclusion supported by the fact that they did surrender.

What you have utterly failed to do is prove that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the cause of the Japanese surrender.

With all emperical evidence at the disposal of everyone, the bombing of Japan with nukes was the only real way to save hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.

That is not justification but cold hard emperical fact.

You can't just blurt out facts. You also need to do this thing I like to call, "thinking."