Happy 70th Anniversary of Hiroshima Massacre

[Topaz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US and Germany probably killed more people in WW2 than any other nations. It doesn't matter who has the nukes, it which nation is going to DROP it and so far only one has for whatever reason. BTW, apparently, Germany was also working on the nukes, which if he had, Israel would probably been hit.

[Boges]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US and Germany probably killed more people in WW2 than any other nations. It doesn't matter who has the nukes, it which nation is going to DROP it and so far only one has for whatever reason. BTW, apparently, Germany was also working on the nukes, which if he had, Israel would probably been hit.

I think the USSR killed more than the US. They certainly lost more than all combined.

[Big Guy]

As I have mentioned earlier, immediate history is written by the victors but time is the final filter of truth. I have read where various posters rationalize that in Hiroshima, the end did justify the means, that to save 500,000 Japanese we incinerated 250,000 (very interesting logic and just a coincidence that is was only Japanese who we "sacrificed" for their own good), might is right, all kinds of disasters if other options had been considered, etc. So be it.

Under those rationalizations, conditions and theories then the most efficient and effective battle in recent history was 9/11.

A small group of people made a major suicide attack on their enemy. The subsequent retaliation led to those Western fiascos in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Libya and growing anti-West turmoil in all other Middle East nations. At this point in time a new Sunni nation (ISIL) has declared itself legitimate and it will be interesting who will be first to recognize its existence.

I suggest that this was exactly what Bin Laden had in mind when he organized that suicide squad. I am sure that he believed that this successful end to his attack sure justified the means.

Is this how civilized nations interact?

Edited August 6, 2015 by Big Guy

[bush_cheney2004]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US and Germany probably killed more people in WW2 than any other nations.

No...you are forgetting Japan and it's long occupation of China and other nations.

[Boges]

Is this how civilized nations interact?

What about WW2 seemed civil to you? The idea that using Nukes could come with a Nuclear response has made not using them a preferable option every time they are considered. See the standoff between India and Pakistan.

Again you have yet to give an alternative method the US might have more peacefully ended WW2. Are you saying that an invasion was the proper response simply because using the bombs seemed to be way to pragmatic to people 70 years later?

[Big Guy]

To Derek 2.0 - I do not share your confidence in "smart munitions and modern targeting techniques." These new technologies have resulted in over 450 deaths in the Wests bombing war against ISIS.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/03/us-led-air-strikes-on-isis-targets-killed-more-than-450-civilians-report

That figure does not include the maimed and injured.

Does not seem very smart or well targeted - unless of course targets included "acceptable collateral civilian damage".

[Boges]

To Derek 2.0 - I do not share your confidence in "smart munitions and modern targeting techniques." These new technologies have resulted in over 450 deaths in the Wests bombing war against ISIS.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/03/us-led-air-strikes-on-isis-targets-killed-more-than-450-civilians-report

That figure does not include the maimed and injured.

Does not seem very smart or well targeted - unless of course targets included "acceptable collateral civilian damage".

Much better than the area bombing that had to be used in WW2.

Initially they tried to use targeted assaults on only military targets in the RAF's bombing raids on Germany. It was found that was way too inefficient and inaccurate so they used a tactic called "Area bombing". This would involve carpet bombing entire cities.

This would increase the civilian casualties but it would allow for more effective use of the resources available. I'm sure you'd consider that type of pragmatism another case of the ends justifying the means. But it had to be done. The US were reluctant in doing the same style of bombing initially but came around.

Technology today is better at targeting specific buildings but by no means is perfect. Of course we have the problem that the "enemy" doesn't present themselves as a "military" target. They hide themselves amongst the civilian populations. Germany and Japan did this as well.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Boges

[cybercoma]

Happy 70th? Are you for real?

[cybercoma]

As I have mentioned earlier, immediate history is written by the victors but time is the final filter of truth. I have read where various posters rationalize that in Hiroshima, the end did justify the means, that to save 500,000 Japanese we incinerated 250,000 (very interesting logic and just a coincidence that is was only Japanese who we "sacrificed" for their own good), might is right, all kinds of disasters if other options had been considered, etc. So be it.

Under those rationalizations, conditions and theories then the most efficient and effective battle in recent history was 9/11.

A small group of people made a major suicide attack on their enemy. The subsequent retaliation led to those Western fiascos in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Libya and growing anti-West turmoil in all other Middle East nations. At this point in time a new Sunni nation (ISIL) has declared itself legitimate and it will be interesting who will be first to recognize its existence.

I suggest that this was exactly what Bin Laden had in mind when he organized that suicide squad. I am sure that he believed that this successful end to his attack sure justified the means.

Is this how civilized nations interact?

Do you have any idea what Japan was doing in China around WWII? There's a reason it's called the Asian Holocaust.

[Big Guy]

Yes I do. If your logic is that it is OK to do to them what they do to others then we should be putting live ISIS captives into cages and burning them alive. I would not recommend that action. It goes against my principles as a Canadian.

[TimG]

If your logic is that it is OK to do to them what they do to others then we should be putting live ISIS captives into cages and burning them alive. I would not recommend that action. It goes against my principles as a Canadian.

Instead of pontificating, please explain how you would have ended the war with the Japanese? Should the US simply have surrendered and went home? Launched an invasion? What? A decision had to be made no matter what. Doing nothing was not an option. Your opinions are irrelevant unless you can articulate what you think the US should have done other than drop the bombs *and* provide some rational basis for believing that your preferred option would have resulted in fewer deaths. Edited August 6, 2015 by TimG

[Boges]

Yes I do. If your logic is that it is OK to do to them what they do to others then we should be putting live ISIS captives into cages and burning them alive. I would not recommend that action. It goes against my principles as a Canadian.

The Allies weren't doing what the Japanese did. They were taking part in a war. They didn't try to exterminate Germans or the Japanese. They defeated them in military conflict by any means necessary.

More false equivalency from you. And no theories as to how how WW2 could have ended in a more preferable manor.

[WWWTT]

I would have thought that after Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen we would have learned something.

Ever heard the saying "learning the hard way"?

Most North Americans will not learn until it is North America that is invaded and millions are killed right here.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

I find the idea that we wipe out a quarter million Japanese civilians because we are doing them a favour as ludicrous. So we kill 250,000 of them because if we did not then we would have to kill more than 250,000 of them? This is a rational argument?

Yes and no.

What about the millions of Chinese and thousands of Korean, Vietnamese, Phillipino and Indonesian etc etc civilians killed?

Why do you forget those?

Even to this day, the Japanese still celebrate the victories of their war criminals!

The nuclear bomb actually gave the Japanese an out to garnish sympathy after their atrocities!

WWWTT

[Derek 2.0]

To Derek 2.0 - I do not share your confidence in "smart munitions and modern targeting techniques." These new technologies have resulted in over 450 deaths in the Wests bombing war against ISIS.

That's your opinion of course, but doesn't change the fact that without the advent of smart munitions, coalition forces striking Iraqi (in 1991 & 2003) reinforced targets would have required flattening Baghdad with months of aerial bombardment, resulting in not only mass Iraqi casualties, but coalition losses akin to the Allied bombing campaign over Germany.......as a result, and quite probably a precursor to a large scale conventional attack, the usage of low-kiloton nuclear weapons (still larger than those dropped on Japan) on Baghdad, or the dams upstream of Baghdad, on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in effect, flattening the entire city.

Smart munitions enabled both NATO and the Soviets the ability to drastically start cutting their production and development of smaller nuclear warheads in the 1970s, granting the furtherance of a reduction in strategic (city killers) warheads with SALT II...........Even today, the development of smart guidance packages is allowing a reduction in size and scope of nuclear warheads, in effect, further reducing the number of large warheads in the various nuclear arsenals around the World.

[Big Guy]

The atomic obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not end the war or lead to the surrender of the Japanese. The threat of dropping more bombs in the future, instilling that threat of more bombs (terrorising them by any definition) is what caused capitulation.

As far as equivalency of argument or proportion response or whatever is a subjective view. You are entitled to your and I to mine. You may consider the cutting the heads off 20 journalists on video to be the most outrageous example of terrorism. I think that killing a quarter million people to terrorize the rest of the living to capitulate to be a more horrendous act.

When we do it we rationalise that by killing a whole bunch of them to terrorize the rest of the population into submission is OK.

When they kill a few of us or fly a couple of our planes into our buildings then it is an outrageous act of savage terrorism.

I have no intention of trying to convince anybody of my views. You believe and rationalize what you do so you can sleep at night with a clear conscience and certainly that we "do the right thing" and "have God on our side" and good for you. You will continue to support military action based on that criteria and again wonder why we have by far the most, best, most lethal and overwhelmingly superior military force - and we keep getting our butts kicked by folks with no air force, no armaments and elementary weapons.

For those looking for more material to criticize those who look at war objectively - here is another one:

The explanation by the USA for Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that it was necessary to show the Japanese that we had just developed a far superior weapon which could, if dropped in large numbers, kill most of the people in Japan.

I believe that the USA could have achieved the same effect and response if it targeted a smaller island or a sparsely populated area in Japan for the show of the force of an A bomb. The terror instilled into the Japanese population would have been enough to gain the same effect. Most here will probably disagree but most Japanese would agree - but who cares what they think anyway.

I no longer drink the Koolaid given out by governments to rationalize their indiscriminate taking of innocent lives of people in other countries. I assume that there are still those who believe that our actions in Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen were a good idea. Good for you.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Big Guy

[TimG]

I believe that the USA could have achieved the same effect and response if it targeted a smaller island or a sparsely populated area in Japan for the show of the force of an A bomb.

First, 1945 was is not 2015 with light speed communication from anywhere so it would have to near a populated area for people to know about it. Second, without actually destroying a city the claim that it 'could destroy a city' could been seen as a bluff. Third, it was a war, civilians were dying whenever conventional bombers attacked Japanese cities and it takes a special kind of myopia to believe that death by nuclear bomb is somehow worse than death by conventional bomb. Lastly, it is all about the probabilities: even if they entertained your suggestion the military planners would know that the highest probability of success required an actual city be bombed. Given the massive numbers of deaths that had already occurred in WW2, another 1/4 million was a rounding error and not enough of a reason to take a route that was less likely to succeed. Edited August 7, 2015 by TimG

[kimmy]

As I have mentioned earlier, immediate history is written by the victors but time is the final filter of truth. I have read where various posters rationalize that in Hiroshima, the end did justify the means, that to save 500,000 Japanese we incinerated 250,000 (very interesting logic and just a coincidence that is was only Japanese who we "sacrificed" for their own good), might is right, all kinds of disasters if other options had been considered, etc. So be it.

The idea was never "let's go save the Japanese by bombing them!"

The idea was "let's end this war swiftly." But Japan's swift surrender after the atomic bombs fell *did* save millions of Japanese lives. Millions.

The Americans were expecting to lose 500,000 American lives in finishing the conventional war against Japan during Operation Downfall. Japan would have lost military personnel in the millions, and the civilian casualties would have been catastrophic. As I mentioned before, Operation Downfall plans included the use of 7 more nuclear bombs against Japan.

Thank god Japan surrendered before Operation Downfall happened.

The US demonstrated that they had overwhelming might, and they demonstrated that they had the resolve to use it. Saner minds in Japan recognized the inevitable result of continuing to fight. Hardliners in Japan wanted to fight to the very last man, even at the cost of total annihilation, but the graphic demonstration of American power at Hiroshima and Nagasaki convinced enough people that surrender was the only option. And if that hadn't been the case, we would be talking about Japan in the past tense, like Pompei.

Yes, it is terrifying and horrible that a quarter million people were incinerated in a matter of seconds.

But it would have been more horrible if the conventional war had continued and millions died of conventional bombs and conventional bullets and conventional starvation and conventional disease. Millions would have died from conventional horrors of war.

So while it is ok to be shocked and horrified at the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, keep in mind that more horrible things were coming for Japan and that their surrender at that time saved millions of people and homes and basically saved Japan as a nation.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

It wasn't that hard of a decision.....B-29s had already dropped about 150,000 tonnes of conventional HE and incendiary bombs on many Japanese cities, which were made of wood and paper. Too slow and expensive...nuke 'em.

[Big Guy]

No matter what might or could have happened it still happened. One nation dropped a nuclear device on another to create as much damage as possible - to terrorize them into surrender. It worked !!!

I am surprised that when other groups use the same tactic - terrorizing the populace - I read opinions of outrage and condemnation from posters on this board.

Of course terrorism is repugnant - as is genocide, mass murder, killing of innocent civilians and other methods of attaining a desired result. That is war. But if the enemy uses the same tactics as you do then why the outrage? I suggest that it is more important to learn why they are doing those things than the things they do.

Does anybody really believe that the chaos in the Middle East would still have taken the place if the West would have just stayed out?

But of course we are talking about if - if we did not invade Iraq and Afghanistan, if we did not drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if ... All speculation.

As to what was happening in Japan and the thinking at the time, I trust the Japanese in their perspective of what was happening at that time in Japan and the Japanese mind. The Americans have been plying us with their perspective as is the right of the victors - it is not an impartial description of reality.

Anyway - Happy 70th Anniversary of this "action" that saved a lot of American lives. It will be interesting what the attitude and perception of the world will be on the 100th Anniversary.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Anyway - Happy 70th Anniversary of this "action" that saved a lot of American lives. It will be interesting what the attitude and perception of the world will be on the 100th Anniversary.

Saved a lot of Canadian lives too....no wonder Canada was more than happy to supply the uranium for atomic weapons development and warhead production for over 50 years....still does. Congratulations !

[Boges]

As to what was happening in Japan and the thinking at the time, I trust the Japanese in their perspective of what was happening at that time in Japan and the Japanese mind. The Americans have been plying us with their perspective as is the right of the victors - it is not an impartial description of reality.

Anyway - Happy 70th Anniversary of this "action" that saved a lot of American lives. It will be interesting what the attitude and perception of the world will be on the 100th Anniversary.

Your knowledge of History is pathetic.

Japan invaded China and committed many horrific war crimes. The USA didn't attack Japan they just implemented embargoes and cut off their supply of oil. Doesn't that sound diplomatic? Not violent at all actually.

Instead of realizing that their actions were causing concern internationally Japan aligned with Hitler and attacked the US base in Pearl Harbour as well as several other nations and colonies in the South Pacific.

They almost took control of half the world. They awakened the industrial Giant of the US and over the course of 3 years they were slowly defeated by the might of the US but still didn't surrender until after the Nuclear Bombs were dropped.

Your revisionist view of history is alarming. But I wonder why you see the lives lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are somehow more important than the lives lost in all the other bombing raids in Japan or the other lives lost in battles where the US had to slowly take away territory Japan took years earlier.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Boges

[Big Guy]

To Boges - You refer to my sense of History as "pathetic", "revisionist" and "alarming" - and you expect a courteous and civil reply?

I do not play that game nor do I play in that sandbox.

[Boges]

To Boges - You refer to my sense of History as "pathetic", "revisionist" and "alarming" - and you expect a courteous and civil reply?

I do not play that game nor do I play in that sandbox.

I don't require your response to be civil at all. I didn't make any ad hominem attacks against you, but your position here is rather indefensible.

[TimG]

As to what was happening in Japan and the thinking at the time, I trust the Japanese in their perspective of what was happening at that time in Japan and the Japanese mind.

Do you also trust the Japanese perspective on the Nanking massacre or their view that the use of "comfort women" was no different from what other militaries did? Do you trust the Japanese perspective that they did nothing the European colonial powers had not already been doing in Asia? Or that the US is responsible for Pearl Harbour because of the oil embargo?

While it is important to be skeptical of the "victor's narrative" that does not mean any counter narrative is more accurate.