# Hiroshima



## DA SWO (Aug 7, 2012)

Almost forgot.  6 Aug 1945.

Enola gay flown by volunteers conducted the first nuclear strike in warfare.


----------



## fox1371 (Aug 7, 2012)

One of the worst events in history.  I wish those damn things had never been invented.  However if they hadn't, the World would most likely be a different place than it is today.  Unfortunately it demonstrated the devastation of that technology, and created a basis for why we there is such a large concern over Nuclear Technology today.  It was a horrible necessity in my opinion.


----------



## AWP (Aug 7, 2012)

Tojo: Someone set us up the bomb.

Truman: All your base are belong to us.

Kudos to the men who flew those missions.


----------



## Red Ryder (Aug 7, 2012)

I think the history books often overlook or down play the atrocities commited by the Japanese during the war and almost make them seem like the victim. Lets not forget events like Bataan, and what they did in China. They are lucky we didnt turn the whole island to glass.


----------



## AWP (Aug 7, 2012)

La Roux said:


> I think the history books often overlook or down play the atrocities commited by the Japanese during the war and almost make them seem like the victim. Lets not forget events like Bataan, and what they did in China. They are lucky we didnt turn the whole island to glass.


 
They also overlook 21st Bomber Command's immolation of various Japanese cities. People scream bloody murder over the nukes, but the firebombing killed more than the two cities put together, a lot more. Hastings' _Retribution_ does a very good job of discussing the events and decisions leading up to the use of the bombs on Japan. Given what everyone thought at the time, I think it was the right thing to do. There was plenty of hand-wringing over the decision at that time, and some who opposed it, but modern critics forget to look at The Decision from a 1945/ 6+ years of world war perspective.


----------



## pardus (Aug 7, 2012)

I think it was clearly the right thing to do, politically, morally, militarily, ethically.

Good job to all involved.

Must be awe inspiring and terrifying to witness a nuclear blast.


----------



## HOLLiS (Aug 7, 2012)

When we look at the deaths by war in the first half of the 20th century and compare it to the deaths caused by war in the second half of the 20th century, the contribution of the "bomb" becomes apparent. As horrible as the thought of it's destructive powers, it actually aided in preserving life.

As I kid I remember listening to men who would have been on the invasion fleet for the attack on mainland Japan. The bomb to them was a god-send. Also the people than I knew who were from Japan, also see it that way too. The lost of life from the invasion of Japan could have easily run into the multimillion number of deaths.


----------



## talonlm (Aug 7, 2012)

My grandfather was on that list.  I'm glad the dropped the damned thing; I hate the fact dropping it became such an absolute necessity.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 7, 2012)

Much was learned from the first use of an atomic weapon, it took two to teach everyone.

RF 1


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 8, 2012)

My uncle was a Marine, and Japan would have been his third landing, he had 1 Purple Heart, and I can't imagine him not getting a second one.
My other Uncle was a Navy Aviator who was shot down/rescued once, again.
Another Uncle was a Sailor.

I am glad they did not have to partake in an invasion of Japan.

I feel no remorse for those who died in the Nuclear attacks or firebombings, a person only needs to read about the Rape of Nanjing aka (Nanking) to understand how barbaric the Japanese Culture is, and to understand why total devastation was required.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 9, 2012)

Is or was?


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 9, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> Is or was?


Former,
Was (He's dead)
Was (He's dead).

BTW-Happy Nagasaki Day to everyone.
Bomb #2 finally convinced the Emperor to stop fighting and save his people.
The Military was willing to sacrifice the entire Japanese Race thinking they could kill enough people to somehow come out victorious.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 9, 2012)

I think we've crossed wires, I'm talking about your Japanese culture comment. I wasn't too clear on that.


----------



## alibi (Aug 9, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> I think we've crossed wires, I'm talking about your Japanese culture comment. I wasn't too clear on that.


Japanese culture can be incredibly racist and xenophobic.  I wouldn't want to be a Korean living in Japan, that's for sure...


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 9, 2012)

I understand that but it doesn't explain how they could be as they were in China/Korea today.


----------



## RetPara (Aug 10, 2012)

In the decades leading up to the Japanese invasion of China the religious deviation of Shintoism - or a different sect called Bushido ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushido ) took root in the Army which eventually took control of the government.  While the Emperor was still worshiped as a living God, the Way of The Warrior was the principal path.  Japan had never fully come out of its self imposed isolationist polices up through the 19th Century.  While they imitated a great deal (and still do) of western culture and fashion many of the ancient traditions carried through still to this day.  Under Bushido, as was with Nazism, the manifest destiny of a superior race was obvious to the Japanese upper class and military leadership.  This lead to the enslavement of Korea and absolutely brutal invasion of China.  When the US cut off oil and scrap metal imports to Japan, economically their backs were against the wall.  They were forced into the military expansion into the Asian Sphere of Co-Prosperity before they were really ready. 

So you take a culture that has not really assimilated western more's and values, is imbued with a cultural inferiority complex and a religious code of being a superior race...  Then the cultural individual strictures of obedience,  extreme formality, along with a group identity as opposed to any kind of individual one.  You have a recipe for the Rape of Nanking and the destruction of life at the wholesale level though the Pacific.  Because of a group identity as opposed to an individual one; the value of life in the East is much lower than in the West.

The decision to drop nuclear weapons were ones that haunted those who were part of the process the rest of their lives.  In truth, from researching the question for over forty years now...  It was the only rational decision that could be made.  The Japanese war plans for the defense of the home islands were declassified, translated, and published some years ago.  These plans included every man, woman, and child in Japan.  It would start at the waters edge and end only in death for the invader or the defender.  In depth, interconnected fields of fire of everything from spears on up was planned.  Suicide weapons were planned for on the sea, in the air, and ground.  Fighting would of been going on quite easily into 1950.  Japan would of been a bombed out series of island with its infrastructure destroyed with only a token population left.  Allied casualties would of been almost unbelievable.  Tarawa, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima would of been the way to describe the battle for Japan.  The US generation that fought in WWII took a serious hit in the casualties that had taken place already.  The invasion of Japan would been our equivalent of what WWI did to the gene pool of France and England.  The very nature of the American people would of been changed forever. 

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the most inhumane, humane act in the history of the world.  When I was much younger I spent a great deal of time in Hiroshima.  Peace Park which was the island connecting to the bridge that was the aiming has been a mass grave for over 100,000 bodies or what could be found.  Countless others were vaporized or consumed by the fire storm.  What caused such a incredible level of destruction is the fact that Hiroshima sits in a alluvial plain/delta.  The blast wave reflected off the surrounding hill sides 2-3 times.  Along with the blast, the heat was also reflected into this churning mass of debris which much of which was wood.  Most of Hiroshima at the time was wood frame post and beam construction with with masonry or concrete construction.  The bomb created it's own fire storm.  The remains of the bombing can still be seen today on the still standing bridge and A Bomb dome near ground zero.  Hiroshima also has a remarkable research hospital for radiation illnesses.  Birth defects one or two generations removed from the bombing were starting to be seen.  Not unlike what is seen in Iraq in the area where Nerve Agent and Mustard Gas was used against the Kurds in the 1980's.

It could of been worse.  Hiroshima was a secondary target.  The primary was Kyoto, home to hundreds of ancient Japanese shrines.  The destruction of those would of been tragic and actually been counter productive. 

The damage and death rate at Nagasaki were not near like those in Hiroshima.  Nagasaki, also a major port city, is not on a plain but on rolling hills which shielded many buildings and much of the population.

There was one man who was in Hiroshima and Nagasaki when both were bombed.  I don't know if it was good luck he survived or not. 

If we had not bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki I don't believe we could of prospered as we did in the 50's and 60's.   It was the only choice.

Just a few idle thoughts over lunch.


----------



## AWP (Aug 10, 2012)

Great post, RP.


----------



## DoctorDoom (Aug 30, 2012)

There needs to be new "Agree in part" and "Disagree in part" buttons...


----------



## Red Ryder (Feb 2, 2013)

DoctorDoom said:


> There needs to be new "Agree in part" and "Disagree in part" buttons...


Would you like to discuss why you disagree?


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 2, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> They also overlook 21st Bomber Command's immolation of various Japanese cities. People scream bloody murder over the nukes, but the firebombing killed more than the two cities put together, a lot more. Hastings' _Retribution_ does a very good job of discussing the events and decisions leading up to the use of the bombs on Japan. Given what everyone thought at the time, I think it was the right thing to do. There was plenty of hand-wringing over the decision at that time, and some who opposed it, but modern critics forget to look at The Decision from a 1945/ 6+ years of world war perspective.


 
*The firebombing of Dresden* killed a hell of a lot of people, too.  If the US would have lost the war, I'm pretty confident there would have been some war crimes trials over it.  That and the firebombing of various Japanese cities, including Tokyo, are reported to have killed more people than one or both of the nukes.  Yet you don't often hear about the firebombings.  And they definitely weren't enough to end the war.

WWII was pretty much the last time that Western powers saw civilian populations as legitimate military targets during a time of war.  It is also the last time that we won a convincing military victory outside of the Western hemisphere.  I wonder if the two are related.


----------



## pardus (Feb 2, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> *The firebombing of Dresden* killed a hell of a lot of people, too. If the US would have lost the war, I'm pretty confident there would have been some war crimes trials over it. That and the firebombing of various Japanese cities, including Tokyo, are reported to have killed more people than one or both of the nukes. Yet you don't often hear about the firebombings. And they definitely weren't enough to end the war.
> 
> WWII was pretty much the last time that Western powers saw civilian populations as legitimate military targets during a time of war. It is also the last time that we won a convincing military victory outside of the Western hemisphere. I wonder if the two are related.


 
I agree there probably would've been war crimes if the boot was on the other foot, and they would've been justified too. Though it would be rather ironic to have the Nazi's and Japs presiding over war crimes trials after what they perpetrated.  

I have heard nothing that said the bombing of civilians did anything but steel the resolve of the respective civilian populations.

My personal opinion is that unless there is a legitimate military target to be destroyed civilan areas should not be legitimate targets. It's terrorism.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 2, 2013)

Well, this thread is a prime example of how targeting the civilian population ends wars. Japan was getting defeated militarily right and left, at huge cost to both sides, and they weren't quitting. Two bombs later... war's over.

The ultimate aim in any war is to defeat the will of the populace, not necessarily to destroy the other side's military, correct? Without hitting the people where they live, either literally or figuratively, there is little incentive for them to pressure their government to change, or to submit to the will of another government.

Without destroying the infrastructure that supports the war effort (including the population) and denying sanctuary, the enemy can re-generate combat power in perpetuity. We can see that in Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Do you think our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan would have lasted as long as they did/have if the other side was able to target our civilian infrastructure? I don't think so.

I think a case can be made that Western society has become far too risk-averse and overly-conscious of "collateral damage" and civilian casualties, to the point where we're paralyzed by indecision and hamstrung by half-measures. This, perversely, ultimately results in greater loss of life than would occur by crushing the enemy WWII style.


----------



## AWP (Feb 2, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> *The firebombing of Dresden* killed a hell of a lot of people, too. If the US would have lost the war, I'm pretty confident there would have been some war crimes trials over it. That and the firebombing of various Japanese cities, including Tokyo, are reported to have killed more people than one or both of the nukes. Yet you don't often hear about the firebombings. And they definitely weren't enough to end the war.
> 
> WWII was pretty much the last time that Western powers saw civilian populations as legitimate military targets during a time of war. It is also the last time that we won a convincing military victory outside of the Western hemisphere. I wonder if the two are related.


 
I think it was LeMay and possibly Arnold who thought that by the fall/ winter of '45 the Japanese would surrender due to starvation. I'm sure some of that was the "bomber mafia" in them speaking, but I used to wonder if they were right or not. Having read about Leningrad's state in 41-42, I don't think our blockade and bombings were enough to eliminate Japanese opposition. Regardless, another overlooked variable in our mentality back then was the Japanese defense of the Marianas, but especially Okinawa that sealed Japan's fate. The tenacious defense, mass suicides by civilians, and high casualties closed the door on Japan.

The firebombings....those were horrific. LeMay's squadrons actually ran out of napalm....as in "almost all of it in the Pacific" ran out of napalm. That played a factor in switching B-29 missions to mining harbors; what the subs didn't kill the mines did. So, another successful piece in the defeat Japan puzzle was a result not of strategy but because we'd expended almost every drop of napalm in the entire theater, forcing the retasking of the delivery assets. Bomber crews flying at 10,000 feet could smell the burning flesh.

Let that rattle around in your brain for a bit.

So, to repeat my earlier points, a lot of factors went into the decision, it wasn't a simple cut-and-dried reason, but numerous factors. Also, I don't think we should judge the past based on our worldview, but that at the time of the events. What is "barbaric" today was "ho hum, shrug" 50, 100, 500 years ago.


----------



## pardus (Feb 2, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Well, this thread is a prime example of how targeting the civilian population ends wars. Japan was getting defeated militarily right and left, at huge cost to both sides, and they weren't quitting. Two bombs later... war's over.
> 
> The ultimate aim in any war is to defeat the will of the populace, not necessarily to destroy the other side's military, correct? Without hitting the people where they live, either literally or figuratively, there is little incentive for them to pressure their government to change, or to submit to the will of another government.
> 
> ...


 
If your reasoning were true the Japs/Germans would've surrendered after the fire bombings that killed more than the nukes.
The nukes achieved what they did because of the awesome power they had in one bomb. (IMO)

The Nazi targeting/of the civilan population in the USSR turned the population against them in the Ukraine that was initially sympathetic. 
The bombing campaign against the UK in 1940 steeled the resolve of the British people and helped get the USA involved I'm sure.

The Russians tried the kill everything plan in Afghanistan in the 80's and it wasn't the reason they were winning. Vietnam, the reason we weren't making progress was because we were not attacking the enemy's infrastructure/supply lines effectively.

Now that all said, I do agree 100% that we are far too collateral damage shy nowadays, but the deliberate targeting of civilians (unless you are going to go Roman/Mongol on a population) doesn't seem to work. 



Freefalling said:


> I don't think we should judge the past based on our worldview, but that at the time of the events. What is "barbaric" today was "ho hum, shrug" 50, 100, 500 years ago.


 
Exactly.


----------



## Polar Bear (Feb 2, 2013)

Interesting thread. My Aunt from marriage, her mom lived through the bomb. She is the one that makes me shrimp fried rice at Thanksgiving. I have always been afraid to ask her about her experiences during that time.


----------



## MikelP (Feb 3, 2013)

Too many people try to view 1945 events with 2013 thinking.

I live in a large liberal dominated srea and am used to it.

We did the best we could back then with the tactics and technology of the times.

I grew up in an area where WW2 involved everybody-I think one would have to have lived it to really understand.

No apologies are due any of the aggressors of those times. 

The "victims" of our responses need blame their own systems.


----------



## Jettie (Feb 28, 2013)

As I remember it, all bomb strikes on Japan were military-industrial targets, not civilian. I studied at Heilongjiang Uni in Harbin in the 1980s. Check out what the Japanese did there: besides taking over to rake up all the minerals, check out their medical Unit 731. I also taught English at Nagasaki's Junshin Jyoshi Gakuen all-girls Catholic high school, which was destroyed by the fat-boy bomb. The people in that city never hated me (maybe because many are Catholic), unlike the folks in Hiroshima who seem to hate all Westerners. And Nagasaki was pick 2 for the nuke bomb, because clouds obscured Kokura.


----------



## AWP (Feb 28, 2013)

Jettie said:


> As I remember it, all bomb strikes on Japan were military-industrial targets, not civilian.
> 
> check out their medical Unit 731.


 
Not entirely true. The thinking at the time was that the Japanese had moved a lot of manufacturing into workshops in and around the home, to to mention that factories (as in Germany) were located in cities. High altitude bombing by B-29's was wildly ineffective with less than 10% of the bombs falling near their targets. LeMay had led bomber wings in Europe and knew the power of incendiary attacks against cities; the construction of Japanese homes only made the situation worse for the Japanese. The strategic bombing survey found that manufacturing was generally unaffected directly by the raids, but the deaths and injuries on the civilian populace coupled with the loss of infrastructure decreased production by 54%.

The atomic bombing sites were chosen based upon both military and civilian criteria.
http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html#D



> Dr. Stearns described the work he had done on target selection. He has surveyed possible targets possessing the following qualification: (1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter, (2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and (3) they are unlikely to be attacked by next August. Dr. Stearns had a list of five targets which the Air Force would be willing to reserve for our use unless unforeseen circumstances arise.


 
Unit 731...the guy who headed it up, and some of his staff, were brought to the US and given immunity. They worked on US biological weapons after the war. Whether we like it or not, Nazi and Japanese medical experimentation on unwilling human subjects advanced the cause of medicine and weaponry. Hypothermia and hypoxia knowledge? Most of that was built upon Nazi experiments.


----------



## pardus (Mar 2, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Unit 731...the guy who headed it up, and some of his staff, were brought to the US and given immunity. They worked on US biological weapons after the war. Whether we like it or not, Nazi and Japanese medical experimentation on unwilling human subjects advanced the cause of medicine and weaponry. Hypothermia and hypoxia knowledge? Most of that was built upon Nazi experiments.


 
I just watched a doco on unit 731, interesting.
I don't know how many shows I've seen that talk about the "pointless and medically irrelevant" human experiments the Nazis conducted.
Quite erroneous as Freefalling has stated. 
There is still much to be learnt that we can only learn through these types of experiments today.


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 3, 2013)

Some of them were pointless and irrelevant, IIRC they did one experiment where they did something with virgin teenage Jews to keep aircrew warm or something. Details hazy.


----------



## pardus (Mar 12, 2014)

SpitfireV said:


> Some of them were pointless and irrelevant, IIRC they did one experiment where they did something with virgin teenage Jews to keep aircrew warm or something. Details hazy.



I'm not sure about the virgin teenage thing, but I know there were (Ive seen footage and it was of adult males as test subjects) altitude and temperature tests being conducted that didn't end well for the subjects.
--------------------------------


I came across this Oliver Stone documentary about why the bombs were dropped that I found quite interesting indeed. While I know Stone is very liberal and biased, if the quotes from the historical figures are true, it is food for thought. 

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewv...The_Untold_History_of_the_United_States_ep03/


----------

