Hiroshina and Nagasaki -- Speak Out

[joespaniel]

I am glad Richard III pointed this out sooner than I did:

Japan was much, much more "inhumane" in its conduct of the war. And Im pretty sure they dont teach that in school over there now, like they do in Germany. Japan is much more indignant about starting the war, than the repentant Germans.

I reccomend to my friend RMShape to read up on the Japanese offensives from 1932 to 1941, before Pearl Harbor, only to get an idea of the brutal, unconscionable evil they commited against people of many "inferior" races and nations.

Nobody ever mentions the millions of Chinese and numerous other Asian civilians killed by the Japanese Army. Did they not count?

Japan and Germany were the ones who invented the modern concept of bombing civilian-centers to expedite surrender. I fear we learned it from them...

Hiroshima and Nagasaki had ligitimate military targets in and nearby them too. In case no one knew that.

It does not excuse the murder of Japanese civilians by our bombers, but it would give you an understanding of what it took to defeat such a foe. In spirit and in material.

The mindset it takes to commit genocide is not in your understanding, RMShape. And thats a good thing. It means you are a decent, humane person.

In the 1930s, in the Pacific, life was cheap.

I know what its like firsthand to kill people in combat. Its really not that hard when they shoot at you. But to kill unarmed, unresisting civilians by the millions, like Japan did, speaks evil.

Im glad I didnt live in such times, nor had to make decisions of that magnitude. Im really not sure how I would have measured up. Id like to think I would have done the same in the face of such tyranny, but who knows...

 

[amadeus]

First, it's rmsharpe! Get it right!

I really believe we could have had the same result (peace) with the threat of use of the atomic bomb... perhaps, taking the Japanese embassador to a small, unpopulated island, and drop one of our bombs on the island and tell him -- "now, would you want this to happen to downtown Tokyo?"

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
I really believe we could have had the same result (peace) with the threat of use of the atomic bomb... perhaps, taking the Japanese embassador to a small, unpopulated island, and drop one of our bombs on the island and tell him -- "now, would you want this to happen to downtown Tokyo?"

It would have been an excercise in futility.

Japan's foriegn office was convinced the war was lost in 44, as were many Japanese officials, but culture, habit, upbringing all worked against excepting the truth, as did the fact that the military controlled the government, and the military was comitted to continuing the war.

Even after the Atom strikes, when Hirohito made the surrender recording, younger army officers rebelled, and tried to size the Emperor and the recording before it's release, to spare Japan the humiliation they couldn't bare.

A demonstration on an island would have fallen on deaf ears.

 

[scorch]

ironic isn't it?
It seems plenty of youse can justify killing thousands of japanese civilians, who had no say in japans decision on pearl harbour, yet osama killing thousands of americans is terrible.

 

[BlueMonday]

Originally posted by scorch
ironic isn't it?
It seems plenty of youse can justify killing thousands of japanese civilians, who had no say in japans decision on pearl harbour, yet osama killing thousands of americans is terrible.

I'm positively sure of the Japanese people's complete and total status as conscientious objectors to world war two. None of them in any way contributed to Japan's crusade. None of them produced guns, bombs, planes, or even ships.

...The only innocent in this world are the unborn.

 

[adamsj]

I think that the use of atomic bombs at all is a very stupid thing to do!


I think that Truman should have just blockade Japan!

 

[Simon Darkshade]

To scorch: It is a very simple and important difference: They started the war, prosecuted it with absolute barbarity, and were determined to literally go down fighting. It is a terrible decision to have to make, to sacrifice some lives to save many times more lives, but it was one that had to be made. This was not an unprovoked terrorist attack, but part of a war and an assault on a military target.

To adamsj: As has already been pointed out, a blockade would have been quite ineffective, and would have probably caused even more suffering . And on the other point, there is a time and place for everything, and that includes times and places where the employment of nuclear weapons is legitimate, justified, and absolutely necessary.

As to the issue of the confinement of foreign nationals, and those of foreign descent, it was an ill advised policy, but I will say this much: in the quite charged climate of the time, particularly as news of enemy atrocities came in, these people were possibly safer in custody, rather than in the wider community, where action may have been taken against them by citizens. This does not in anyway justify the policy, but it does raise another point.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by scorch
ironic isn't it?

Not in the least.

It seems plenty of youse can justify killing thousands of japanese civilians, who had no say in japans decision on pearl harbour, yet osama killing thousands of americans is terrible.

The problem, you have yet to develop a sense of right and wrong, and cannot tell the difference between ending a world war and a mad man killing indiscriminatly.

When you mature a bit, you will see how silly your paragrapgh really is, and that is true irony.

 

[joespaniel]

Scorch, that was pretty silly...

And as to a blockade of Japan, there was one in effect. We already were doing just that.

It had no effect on the ruling military dictators who surrounded the Emporer.

 

[Padma]

A few comments from one who has spent most of his life working with nuclear weapons:

AT THAT TIME, it was the best (and probably most humane) decision that could be made. I don't have the numbers readily available, but IIRC, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people in one night than were killed at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki (or both together?) so from that perspective it was certainly no worse.

Hamlet suggested looking at Okinawa for an example of how hard and costly an invasion of the main Japanese islands would be. Allied planners assumed (correctly, they learned after the war) that an invasion of Japan would be even more costly for both sides. The result would have been the near extermination of the Japanese people, as well as a million or more additional casualties on the allied side.

Several others have poointed out the uselessness of a blockade, or of a 'demonstration' atomic blast. Believe me, Truman considered these options carefully.

Finally, a question: why do we demonize nuclear weapons so? I have watched this attitude grow ever since I first became aware of the subject. From a military standpoint, it is nothing more than a very powerful explosive. Detonating one will not destroy the earth. Yes, there are radiation effects to be concerned with. But in anything short of a full-arsenal nuclear exchange, the problems are manageable. (No, I wouldn't want to HAVE to manage it, but it could be done.) In short, nukes are not some magical, mythical, monstrous evil genies whose very existance threatens the world. They are just tools in a (horrible, but necessary) toolbox.

 

[kobayashi]

Originally posted by Kefka
Ya know Iv'e always wanted to find out the Jap's take on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, what the Japanesse history books say about it.
cause personally I always wonder about the "other persons story".

I plan to be visiting the the park at ground zero and the A-bomb Museum in Nagasaki in a few days. Maybe I'll post a picture or two and tell you guys what it says in the museum.

 

[Daryl17]

On the other hand, Padma, I don't think people take nuclear weapons seriously enough. Sure, one won't destroy the entire planet, but I think people tend to view the whole thing through rose-colored glasses. There's a common mis-belief that nuclear explosions instantly vaporize people, and that a massive nuclear exchange would be merely a mild annoyance to farmers (I'm talking about the crappy TV movie "The Day After"). Try reading some real-life accounts of the attacks-- you'll probably be shocked out of your wits.
If no one minds, I'm thinking of posting some of these in a seperate thread. Just keep the responses apolitical, please.

 

[Padma]

Daryl17 - I doubt if I'd be "shocked out of my wits" as you put it. Let me clarify the FIRST line of my post: I have been working with nuclear weapons in one capacity or another for over 20 years. I have had to study them, inside and out. I have had to learn details about them that I STILL can't talk about, years later. I have read nearly all first-hand accounts from Japan. I have seen the sites where they were dropped. No, they do not vaporize people instantly. Yes, they would be more than a minor inconvenience.

The point I was after was the huge number of people for whom they have become a hot-button issue. They hear the words "nuclear weapons" and immediately begin a diatribe on how they are the most evil creation of mankind, they should all be banned, because if we don't, the world will become a glowing blue ball of molten rock, etc.

Actually, as I write this, I think I do agree with you: people don't take them seriously enough. If they did, they would actually THINK about it, and not just parrot the talk of whatever camp they decide they are in (not directed at you, Daryl). I'm not against rational discussion, and disagreement. It's the unthinking masses that bug me.

Oh, and back on the topic of this thread, I believe I owe my life to the use of these weapons back in '45. My father's division was slated to be in the first wave of the assault on Japan. The expected casualty rate was over 90%.

 

[Daryl17]

Padme,
Do you agree that some kind of middle ground is needed, some place between utter demonization and mindless praise , when talking about nuclear weapons? After all, politically, not everyone is either a "bleeding heart liberal" or a Nazi

 

[Padma]

Daryl17,

Absolutely! I agree!

 

[CornMaster]

I agree with everyone who is for the bombing. They say there would have been 1,000,000 Allied (American) deaths by trying to invade Japan. That is a horrific number....but just think about how many Japanese would have been killed!?!?!

Many more I'm sure......plus villages would be desimated as civilians resisted and the Allied army marched on Tokyo.

I think the dropping of the bomb was a VERY positive experience.
1) It saved hundreds of thousands of Allied lives.
2) Saved millions of Japanese....including Civilians.
3) Showed us how horrible these weapons are....and that we should not use them ever again.
4) The research and data recovered afterward help compound what was learned in point 3, and will help prevent future attacks.

 

[mrog]

My wife is Japanese so I may have some insight into the way the Japanese percieve the use of the bomb.

There is enormous individual variation (Japan has its own lefties, hard-right and everything in between). Some view it as a war crime, others as simply a terrible tragedy of war. I think that the majority know little or nothing about why it was done.

Clearly this relates to the Japanese people's understanding of the war as a whole. It is certainly true that most Japanese people know far less about their countrie's war time actions than do the Germans.

As for my own view, I always felt that the use of the bomb, as horrible as it was, was the lessor of 2 evils when compared to the likely consequences of invaison. However, Starlifter posted some very interesting material on this a while ago that gave me pause for thought- I don't recall the details but I assume it is in the archive somewhere.

 

[Greadius]

Just about everything on this topic has been said...

I just think it is absolutely vital to remember that history can always be seen much more clearly than at the time. Truman needed to end the war. That was a period, the rest goes into the quagmire of history as to the decision making process involved.

It is absolutely futile to apply the morality of humanity today on the past. I'm sure Truman condemned slavery and used the atom bomb. We may condemn the atom bomb. What will our grandchildren condemn about us? Morality in decision making is extremely relative to the time and circumstance.

 

[scorch]

i'll give up my arguement now, to avoid another osama bin laden arguement

 

[damunzy]

Originally posted by Padma
Finally, a question: why do we demonize nuclear weapons so? I have watched this attitude grow ever since I first became aware of the subject. From a military standpoint, it is nothing more than a very powerful explosive. Detonating one will not destroy the earth. Yes, there are radiation effects to be concerned with. But in anything short of a full-arsenal nuclear exchange, the problems are manageable. (No, I wouldn't want to HAVE to manage it, but it could be done.) In short, nukes are not some magical, mythical, monstrous evil genies whose very existance threatens the world. They are just tools in a (horrible, but necessary) toolbox.

I think we demonize them because in some rights they are like Chemical and Biological Weapons (hell, the Army groups them together NBC, Nuclear, Biological, Chemical). They kill large groups of people and leave behind horribly disfigured survivors they have there life spans shortened by years and decades(choromozome damage, birth defects as a result). Are there Chemical or Biological weapons that will cause birth defects? I don't know of any off-hand but Desert Shield/Storm vets are complaining about such things as birth defects so that is another link between N + BC, BC being demonized all the time in the news.

scorch:
i'll give up my arguement now, to avoid another osama bin laden arguement [b/]

You brought it up!