Inspired by Lee.

It was dropped on my birthday (August 6), so I think it is kind of neat. But my father was on the ship that the Gray took off from and he said when the plane came back the pilots immediately called for a helicopter to leave the ship and be discharged.

I say no. We could have easily kicked Japan's ass in many other ways and not kill hundreds of thousands of citizens ... and absolutely zero "military targets."

Discuss.

i told you this should've been a politics in general board or it would turn into one gradually. well actually i didn't. regardless, the a-bomb wasn't 100% necessary but it was quite justifiable. plus if japan had taken over the world there wouldn't be a 2004 election and then this thread would have to be moved to the general chat board.

Originally posted by sppunk
Inspired by Lee.

It was dropped on my birthday (August 6), so I think it is kind of neat. But my father was on the ship that the Gray took off from and he said when the plane came back the pilots immediately called for a helicopter to leave the ship and be discharged.

I say no. We could have easily kicked Japan's ass in many other ways and not kill hundreds of thousands of citizens ... and absolutely zero "military targets."

Discuss. The Gray? Do you mean the "Enola Gay"?

The point of the bomb wasn't to "kick Japan's ass." Hitler was very close to the A-Bomb. The US using it gave notice that the war ends now, or it ends with 3 eyed Germans.

Japan was the easier target because of Pearl Harbor and because there would be no Allied fallout.

Originally posted by thrillhouse
plus if japan had taken over the world there wouldn't be a 2004 election and then this thread would have to be moved to the general chat board.

:rofl:

Well...the A-bomb was essentially inevitable, unfortunately. I think there were better ways we could've used it to deter the Japanese (edit re: Nimrod's post - good point about the Germans, I wonder whether anything short of using it on a real live city like Hiroshima would've deterred them). Remember, little ripples can make big waves; who knows how different the world would be now if WWII had lasted a few more years with us trying to stop Japan without using the bomb.

Sentiment will probably change big time the minute one goes off in a major western city. I have the feeling it's not unlikely in the next decade or so...it's attached to the gut sense I have that's kinda waiting for 9/11's "other shoe" to drop...

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
The Gray? Do you mean the "Enola Gay"?

The point of the bomb wasn't to "kick Japan's ass." Hitler was very close to the A-Bomb. The US using it gave notice that the war ends now, or it ends with 3 eyed Germans.

Japan was the easier target because of Pearl Harbor and because there would be no Allied fallout.

Uh... wasn't the European war done with at that point?

Originally posted by Jason Smith


Uh... wasn't the European war done with at that point?

Well, they were certainly justified in being unsure about that, since the end of WWI was so poorly mishandled that it can be argued that WWII was just a continuation of WWI after a brief intermission...

Interesting question.

Whether the US were right or wrong to use it, the end result is that IT WORKED. It ended the war. It probably brought my grandfather home earlier thanif it wasn't used.

Unfortunately, it also means that the US are the only country in the world to have used an atomic weapon for the purpose they were designed for.

Japan was in the process of surrendering, while trying to save as much face as possible (which is still an inherent matter of cultural importance in Japan). Their military was in tatters, and the Allies were well on their way. The two cities were densely populated, and not chosen for their military significance. And we all know what the effects were.

Here's some quotes!

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower

~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."

"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs." - Herbert Hoover

[General Douglas] MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs." - John McCloy
(Assistant Sec. of War)

"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
-U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study

"I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted." He continued, "In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb." - Ralph Bard
(Under Sec. of the Navy)

~~~BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE
(The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)

"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

And Lee get's the square!

And sorry Nimrod, it's a typo. Forgive me, please. :rolleyes:

But, this forum is more of a "debate" forum that straight-up Election 2004 forum. At least that's what the mods have generaly decided upon.

Originally posted by sppunk
At least that's what the mods have generaly decided upon.

Cuba Libre!

Originally posted by Jason Smith


Uh... wasn't the European war done with at that point? Essentially, the convential warfare was coming to an end.

A-Bomb /= conventional warfare.

Originally posted by sppunk
And sorry Nimrod, it's a typo. Forgive me, please. :rolleyes:
You're in print.. your proofreader would have caught it... unless of course, you're too homophobic to type "Gay."

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Hitler was very close to the A-Bomb.
That's not true. German scientists working for Hitler were far away from it. U.S. thought they are much further with that and that was the reason why U.S. were trying to get one as fast as possible.
However, as soon as Germany surrended and the laboratories were discovered, everybody was surprised, how much they were left behind.

whether or not it was necessary, the fact that two of things were deployed on humans made the political impact of possession of atomic weapons very real to even the average citizen. had they not been detonated, it's hard to say how long the tests would have been keep under wraps.

i guess my point is, given that these weapons are undeniably a part of the major powers in the world, it's very important that we all know what they're capable of. there's something far more real and affecting about actually seeing two cities erased, as opposed to hearing scientists tell you how many kilotons a bomb will yield.

now were the bombs necessary inventions? that's a tough one. was it one of those inevitable ideas? to me it seems obvious that it was - the "new" physics was in full swing by the late 1930s, meaning that the power of fission had long been understood (E = mc^2 anyone?).

Originally posted by RopeyLopey

That's not true. German scientists working for Hitler were far away from it. U.S. thought they are much further with that and that was the reason why U.S. were trying to get one as fast as possible.
However, as soon as Germany surrended and the laboratories were discovered, everybody was surprised, how much they were left behind.

it's a really bizarre story. if i recall correctly, heisenberg was leading the project, and, in correspondences with bohr, suggested that he was trying to lead the germans astray. whether or not that was the case, they were not anywhere near nuclear-ready when the labs were found.

the thing is the science behind the atomic bomb was largely based in relativity and quantum mechanics, which, in nazi germany, was referred to as "jewish" or "lesser" physics (the modern physicists were predominantly jewish), whereas classical physics was revered for its simplicity. because of this, the jewish physicists sought refuge in the united states, basically sealing our first place finish to the bomb.

The a-bomb on japan. Another reason why the US is better than canada and, virtually any country in the world.

Originally posted by killed radio star


it's a really bizarre story. if i recall correctly, heisenberg was leading the project, and, in correspondences with bohr, suggested that he was trying to lead the germans astray. whether or not that was the case, they were not anywhere near nuclear-ready when the labs were found.

the thing is the science behind the atomic bomb was largely based in relativity and quantum mechanics, which, in nazi germany, was referred to as "jewish" or "lesser" physics (the modern physicists were predominantly jewish), whereas classical physics was revered for its simplicity. because of this, the jewish physicists sought refuge in the united states, basically sealing our first place finish to the bomb. It's nice to see you follow the history of physics as well and not just the current stuff.

I think Heisenberg and Weizsacker are true heroes. Heisenberg alone discovered the potential of atom weapon way before the U.S., however he knew such a thing would have been a true disaster in the hands of Hitler. So he chose that difficult task of not revealing this to official places and basically he was hijacking the whole research.
He wanted to get in touch with the scientists on the other side to let them know they won't attempt to develop the atom bomb. He thought Bohr could be the guy to hand over the message, however due to the safety issues and the intrust from Bohr, the message got fucked up as Bohr acquired an impression Heisenberg doesn't tell the truth.
So in 1943 as Bohr was leaving Denmark for England, he ironically urged the scientists in US to hurry up to develop the weapon before Hitler.

Thumbs up to Heisenberg and Weizsacker that they basically kept it for themselves, and after the war they weren't bragging around telling everybody how they saved the world. Their position must have been so difficult!

To drop the first one was bad enough, but what about Nagasaki? :erm

Originally posted by sppunk
But my father was on the ship that the Gray took off from and he said when the plane came back the pilots immediately called for a helicopter to leave the ship and be discharged.
not to call you out or anything, but the Enola Gay was a B-29 bomber and was way too huge to take off from an aircraft carrier.
It departed from Tinian Island.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/eg-1.jpg

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son


The point of the bomb wasn't to "kick Japan's ass." Hitler was very close to the A-Bomb. The US using it gave notice that the war ends now, or it ends with 3 eyed Germans.

Japan was the easier target because of Pearl Harbor and because there would be no Allied fallout.

Here's a little history lesson for you:

April 28, 1945 - Mussolini is captured and hanged by Italian partisans; Allies take Venice.

April 30, 1945 - Adolf Hitler commits suicide.

May 2, 1945 - German troops in Italy surrender.

May 7, 1945 - Unconditional surrender of all German forces to Allies.

May 8, 1945 - V-E (Victory in Europe) Day.

May 23, 1945 - SS Reichsführer Himmler commits suicide; German High Command and Provisional Government imprisoned.

June 5, 1945 - Allies divide up Germany and Berlin and take over the government.

July 1, 1945 - U.S., British, and French troops move into Berlin.

Aug 6, 1945 - First atomic bomb dropped, on Hiroshima, Japan.

Aug 8, 1945 - Soviets declares war on Japan and invade Manchuria.

Aug 9, 1945 - Second atomic bomb dropped, on Nagasaki, Japan.

Aug 14, 1945 - Japanese agree to unconditional surrender.

Originally posted by DeviousJ


Did you people even read those quotes I posted? They were from the military commanders and government leaders in charge of these operations - if anyone had access to confidential information it was them, and they were all of the opinion that a ground invasion would not even be necessary. And believe me, there are more quotes like that from people in similar positions of power.

yeah i read them. very interesting. and i think they're almost certainly right. but i'm still not going to say "it was wrong to drop the bomb it was entirely unnecessary" cause I haven't seen evrything i would need to to make that statement. i'm a scientist, always sceptical unless i've seen it with my own eyes. meh

HAhahahahaha I think its funny that you people seem to think that because Japan wanted to surrender and Germany had already surrendered that we should have just forgot about dropping the bomb.

Japan attacked American soil. We don't really take that very well (as you have seen) and especially when it drags us into world war II, a war we were previously avoiding. After Pearl Harbor it was war. It was time for America to flex its technological muscle and show its enemies (and the rest of the world) that we are a super power and if you attack us it will result in a great loss of life to your people. We did not want Japan to surrender on good terms. We didn't want Japan to be a strong country right after it surrendered. We wanted them to be defeated, just like Germany was. In shambles, weeping for their dead and regretting ever entering the war. We wanted their unconditional surrender. America dropped those bombs to make a point and not only win the war but to defeat our enemies. I do not have a real opinion on the matter as I wasn't alive at the time and therefore have no real idea of the exact situation. I do however think it sent a strong and powerful message to the rest of the world about America as a military and technological power which wouldn't have been conveyed any other way besides dropping the bomb.

Originally posted by I_was_aborted
HAhahahahaha I think its funny that you people seem to think that because Japan wanted to surrender and Germany had already surrendered that we should have just forgot about dropping the bomb.

Japan attacked American soil. We don't really take that very well (as you have seen) and especially when it drags us into world war II, a war we were previously avoiding. After Pearl Harbor it was war. It was time for America to flex its technological muscle and show its enemies (and the rest of the world) that we are a super power and if you attack us it will result in a great loss of life to your people. We did not want Japan to surrender on good terms. We didn't want Japan to be a strong country right after it surrendered. We wanted them to be defeated, just like Germany was. In shambles, weeping for their dead and regretting ever entering the war. We wanted their unconditional surrender. America dropped those bombs to make a point and not only win the war but to defeat our enemies. I do not have a real opinion on the matter as I wasn't alive at the time and therefore have no real idea of the exact situation. I do however think it sent a strong and powerful message to the rest of the world about America as a military and technological power which wouldn't have been conveyed any other way besides dropping the bomb.

What you said is more or less true. and guess what -- morally wrong. that's why its unecessary.

Originally posted by I_was_aborted
We did not want Japan to surrender on good terms. We didn't want Japan to be a strong country right after it surrendered. We wanted them to be defeated, just like Germany was.
Actually, America invested a shitload of money into Japan after the war in order to improve its infrastructure.
Maybe you should take a history course sometime.

Originally posted by DeviousJ


Did you people even read those quotes I posted? They were from the military commanders and government leaders in charge of these operations - if anyone had access to confidential information it was them, and they were all of the opinion that a ground invasion would not even be necessary. And believe me, there are more quotes like that from people in similar positions of power.


And yet for some reason the bombs were still dropped by those very same people. I think those quotes are most likely taken out of context or as with anything involving our government this is more to it than any civilian will ever know.

Originally posted by dean moriaty


yeah i read them. very interesting. and i think they're almost certainly right. but i'm still not going to say "it was wrong to drop the bomb it was entirely unnecessary" cause I haven't seen evrything i would need to to make that statement. i'm a scientist, always sceptical unless i've seen it with my own eyes. meh

Well can you say 'it was right to drop the bomb it was entirely necessary' then? Because this is the kind of thing you should be really fucking sure about before you do it. Historians have since decided that the primary factor in dropping the bombs was to show Russia they were in a weak position, giving the US much more leverage in dictating the terms of the end of the war. This is pretty much when the Cold War started. There are also suspicions that Truman didn't want to allow Japan to surrender conditionally since it could have been an unpopular decision back home. Personally, I don't feel this justifies what happened in the least.

Originally posted by machinaddict

Actually, America invested a shitload of money into Japan after the war in order to improve its infrastructure.
Maybe you should take a history course sometime.


AFTER the war. It was also a benefit to America to invest in Japan. But it wasn't the same Japan as if we wouldn't have dropped the bombs. You totally missed the point. You need to take a reading comprehension course sometime.

Originally posted by Debaser


absolutely not true. japan was ready to surrender. the only hold up was japan wanted the united states to "recognize" the position of japan's emperor just to let him save face and honor.
Japan, while weakened, did not have the resources to continue the war. In fact, when they started the war, they knew that they could last 2 years, before america would be able to catch up and defeat them (much more war time productivity). However, they were willing to fight to the last individual because of the propaganda they were giving their own soldiers. This was the reason for all the kamakazi pilots with planes that had no landing gear and only enough fuel for a one way trip.
The emperor was the most important person in the country, but he was far from powerful. The country, military and war were not in his grasp of control, the were controlled by the elected government. You are right to say that the Japanese wanted the emperor to save face because he was the most recognized individual and it was thought that he would be able to help rebuild the country after the war.

Originally posted by Debaser


What you said is more or less true. and guess what -- morally wrong. that's why its unecessary.


If you think everything that governments do is going to be morally right you have some growing up to do. This isn't a perfect world and I didn't say it was necessary.

Originally posted by I_was_aborted



AFTER the war. It was also a benefit to America to invest in Japan. But it wasn't the same Japan as if we wouldn't have dropped the bombs. You totally missed the point. You need to take a reading comprehension course sometime. Your point was that America wanted Japan to be defeated and a ruined country as punishment for Pearl Harbour/starting the war.

Which doesn't have anything to do with what American wanted to do with Japan after the war. We just wanted their surrender to be unconditional, on our terms.

Also, just for those who don't know:
Japan never considered the attack on Pearl Harbour to be a huge surprise. It was intended that the letter containing the declaration of war and warning of the attack on Pearl Harbour would be occuring was supposed to arrive BEFORE the attack. However, something went wrong with the lines of communication and the US military didn't receive the notice until half an hour after the attack started.
The Japanese still believe this, and that's why the don't show much regret. They consider it a mixup of communication, not a huge surprise attack for no reason.

They sure paid for that "mix up" in communication.

Originally posted by I_was_aborted



And yet for some reason the bombs were still dropped by those very same people. I think those quotes are most likely taken out of context or as with anything involving our government this is more to it than any civilian will ever know.

Oh ok, so when involved military leaders express regret and revulsion for what took place, this is probably taken out of context and, as civilians, we have to assume they *were* taken out of context because the events did take place?

These people were under orders to drop the bombs - they didn't like it, but they had to do it. At the end of the day, whatever the reality of the situation, they have to do as they're told and it's not always for the best. Remember how close the US and the USSR came to a nuclear war? If that had gone ahead, and people were pushing for it, would that have been for the best?

I agree that a point was being made, but this was a calculated, devestating strike against civilians in a country which was defeated. I really don't see how you can justify something like that as some kind of 'lesson'.

Originally posted by I_was_aborted



If you think everything that governments do is going to be morally right you have some growing up to do. This isn't a perfect world and I didn't say it was necessary.

what's the title of this thread?

Originally posted by I_was_aborted
I do not have a real opinion on the matter as I wasn't alive at the time and therefore have no real idea of the exact situation.


Before you start assuming things about how I personally feel please remember I said this. As far as what you say, all I'm saying is there is more to it than what gets release to the public for you to read. Of course those people wanted to come off as regretting the incident. Also it is possible to regret something even if it was effective. I've never said it was the only way out, but it was one way out and it seemed to take care of the job.

Originally posted by I_was_aborted
Of course those people wanted to come off as regretting the incident. Also it is possible to regret something even if it was effective. I've never said it was the only way out, but it was one way out and it seemed to take care of the job.

You do realize the official line is that there's nothing to regret though? The US has not and will not apologize for the bombings as a matter of policy, so these opinions are personal ones - and they're all saying that the action wasn't necessary. That's what this thread's about - whether it was <b>necessary</b>, not if it worked. Of course it worked. If you wanted to punish a kid for stealing candy and wanted to make him regret it, would it be necessary to blindfold him and tie him to a tree for 3 weeks, randomly beating him? I mean, it sure would work!

I do not think you can actually determine if it was necessary. That is only going to be a matter of opinion.

Like Lee said, it worked.

But let's say you are angry at a friend of a friend. Do you a) talk to your friend about it and work it out that way or b) just go beat the living fuck out of the person ... and his close friends as well?

Of course you go with a. So, why did America chose b?

I find it laughable that many of you think you can make a clear cut and informed decision about a military action that happened 60 years ago. You do not have all of the information surrounding the situation now and you wouldn't have had it then. I don't see how you can make these hard stances when you will never have all of the facts about the situation.

Originally posted by I_was_aborted
I find it laughable that many of you think you can make a clear cut and informed decision about a military action that happened 60 years ago. You do not have all of the information surrounding the situation now and you wouldn't have had it then. I don't see how you can make these hard stances when you will never have all of the facts about the situation.

If that is the case, we should all shut up about the Iraq conflict, WWI, Vietnam, etc. ... because we don't know the reasons.

In fact, this board shouldn't exist because we are all just second-guessing candidates ... and we don't know their motives for everything, right?

Pretty much.

I don't feel as if I know anything about what our government does and no matter how much I read or how much I study I never will.


Although its still fun to debate. I may talk like I take a firm line on many of these subjects but in reality I know we are all wondering blindly through a haze of filtered information.

Originally posted by DeviousJ


Well can you say 'it was right to drop the bomb it was entirely necessary' then? Because this is the kind of thing you should be really fucking sure about before you do it. Historians have since decided that the primary factor in dropping the bombs was to show Russia they were in a weak position, giving the US much more leverage in dictating the terms of the end of the war. This is pretty much when the Cold War started. There are also suspicions that Truman didn't want to allow Japan to surrender conditionally since it could have been an unpopular decision back home. Personally, I don't feel this justifies what happened in the least.

if you look back to my original post i think you'll get the impression i don't think it was necessary to drop an atom bomb on a city, and i don't think it was right either. but these are only thoughts. i can't say 'i am right. that was wrong' definitavely. as i say if they wanted to scare japan into unconditional surrender they could have demonstrated to them that they had atomic power without dropping a bomb on a city. BUT there are undoubtably things i don't know. so i refuse to state "that was wrong" hope that makes things a bit clearer.

Originally posted by I_was_aborted

Japan attacked American soil. We don't really take that very well (as you have seen) and especially when it drags us into world war II, a war we were previously avoiding.

by the time Pearl Harbor was attacked, we were all but in the war anyway. hell, the President let it happen to get public support behind war.

and you do know that 90 years earlier we sent our navy over to Japan and threatened them with force unless they traded with us, right? hmm. so who initiated hostilities here? sure, it was a long time ago, but it's kind of karmic.

Well if thats the case then every country in the world has a "right" to attack another because everywhere has been faced with war, colonization or some kinda of outside threat.

Originally posted by I_was_aborted
Well if thats the case then every country in the world has a "right" to attack another because everywhere has been faced with war, colonization or some kinda of outside threat.

Right.

Just like the U.S. has the right to attack countries because we decide the people aren't happy.

DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE! SINCE WE HAVE IT, YOU SHOULD TOO!

Originally posted by Irrelevant
and you do know that 90 years earlier we sent our navy over to Japan and threatened them with force unless they traded with us, right? hmm. so who initiated hostilities here? sure, it was a long time ago, but it's kind of karmic.
not only this, but forced them to sign agreements that controlled their tariffs and taxes on foreign goods, and allowed foreign citizens to do anything in the country without fear of prosecution.

Originally posted by sppunk


Right.

Just like the U.S. has the right to attack countries because we decide the people aren't happy.

DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE! SINCE WE HAVE IT, YOU SHOULD TOO!
don't like it? DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO LIKE IT

I guess Sppunk's sarcasm detector was defective the day he read my last post.