Hiroshima and history.

[mafwons]

What would the world look like today if Truman had allowed Japan to surrender instead of killing 160,000+ of their citizens with Openheimer's new toy?

 

[SteveNZ]

Hi mafwons,
You know how to be cheerful at Christmas? Please do not take that wrong but instead of looking at the fun and joy over this time it is questions on incredible destruction and hurt.

PS - Japan would not have surrendered without terrible fighting and death. At this time in history we can learn from the events as happened then but that is all.

 

[mafwons]

Hi mafwons,
You know how to be cheerful at Christmas? Please do not take that wrong but instead of looking at the fun and joy over this time it is questions on incredible destruction and hurt.

PS - Japan would not have surrendered without terrible fighting and death. At this time in history we can learn from the events as happened then but that is all.

I do not celebrate Christmas, this is December 25 to me a day on which because the rest of the world is doing nothing I can relax a bit as well. So my cheer is no more or no less than on any other day my Lord has given me.

Japan offered the same conditional surrender in May 1945 that we accepted after committing the worst acts of genocide in the History of the world, you will say Hitler or Stalin did worse, not so neither every destroyed so many at once. We must as you say learn but I think you may not be referring to learning the same thing as I am.

 

[David4223]

That is not exactly true...

While it is true in May 1945 the Big 6 of the Japanese Government (the so called Supreme Council for the Direction of the War) did approved approaching the Soviet Union in an attempt to keep them out of the war. In addition, the big 6 published a document (with 1 dissenting vote) that stated the people of Japan would rather fight to extinction than surrender.

Then at Potsdam, on July 26th, the terms to end the war were announced for Japan. Unconditional surrender would be all that was acceptable. Granted, the unconditional surrender was only aimed toward the Japanese military, and not the civilian population or the emperor.

By this time, any attempts for peace were basically out of time. On August 6, the U.S. dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan. While Japan did make peace attempts to keep the Soviet Union out of the war -- and even attempted to use the Soviet Union in an attempt to make peace with the U.S. and British -- it is doubtful that these attempts would ever have been successful.

Without using the atomic bomb, the other option was an invasion of the home islands of Japan (Operation Down Fall). Estimates for U.S. casualties alone ranged from around 500,000 KIA. The estimates for casualties on the side of Japan were much higher.

Now, while the ethical dilemma and ramifications from using the atomic bomb will continue to be debated for a long, long time -- based on lives alone, it seems that using the atomic bombs were the appropriate choice.

 

[mafwons]

That is not exactly true...

While it is true in May 1945 the Big 6 of the Japanese Government (the so called Supreme Council for the Direction of the War) did approved approaching the Soviet Union in an attempt to keep them out of the war. In addition, the big 6 published a document (with 1 dissenting vote) that stated the people of Japan would rather fight to extinction than surrender.

Then at Potsdam, on July 26th, the terms to end the war were announced for Japan. Unconditional surrender would be all that was acceptable. Granted, the unconditional surrender was only aimed toward the Japanese military, and not the civilian population or the emperor.

By this time, any attempts for peace were basically out of time. On August 6, the U.S. dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan. While Japan did make peace attempts to keep the Soviet Union out of the war -- and even attempted to use the Soviet Union in an attempt to make peace with the U.S. and British -- it is doubtful that these attempts would ever have been successful.

Without using the atomic bomb, the other option was an invasion of the home islands of Japan (Operation Down Fall). Estimates for U.S. casualties alone ranged from around 500,000 KIA. The estimates for casualties on the side of Japan were much higher.

Now, while the ethical dilemma and ramifications from using the atomic bomb will continue to be debated for a long, long time -- based on lives alone, it seems that using the atomic bombs were the appropriate choice.

If what you say is true why was theballied commander in the pacific theatre not informed of the impending genocide and why did we drop 2 bombs.

 

[LionL]

If what you say is true why was theballied commander in the pacific theatre not informed of the impending genocide and why did we drop 2 bombs.

I think that the USA was readying itself for the post war international politics. The world had changed a lot. The British Empire had all but crumbled and Germany, Japan and France were both weakened considerably. This left the USSR as the USAs only equal in arms. The fact that the USA had nuclear weapons had to be shown to its rival and Japan proved to be an ideal exhibition of their power.

It is possible (though highly unlikely) that without the USA's use of nuclear bombs that World War II would have been followed shortly after by World War III.

 

[SteveNZ]

One question I have often asked is 'why the second bomb?'

The destruction of Hiroshima was so great that I think the Japanese would have surrendered. Although as I looked at the events my conclusion is that there was always the intention of dropping the two bombs first, and then look to see what would happen.

I almost wonder if the whole idea of having a public test of the two different types of A bomb was part of the thinking. I hope not.

But we can only look back and learn from history.

 

[mafwons]

I think that the USA was readying itself for the post war international politics. The world had changed a lot. The British Empire had all but crumbled and Germany, Japan and France were both weakened considerably. This left the USSR as the USAs only equal in arms. The fact that the USA had nuclear weapons had to be shown to its rival and Japan proved to be an ideal exhibition of their power.

It is possible (though highly unlikely) that without the USA's use of nuclear bombs that World War II would have been followed shortly after by World War III.

Our droping of the bomb was one of a number of events that started the cold war with the impending threat of ww3 always present. Remember until then no one knew we had the bomb, it could have been decades until the U.S.S.R. built their own.

 

[mafwons]

One question I have often asked is 'why the second bomb?'

The destruction of Hiroshima was so great that I think the Japanese would have surrendered. Although as I looked at the events my conclusion is that there was always the intention of dropping the two bombs first, and then look to see what would happen

I almost wonder if the whole idea of having a public test of the two different types of A bomb was part of the thinking. I hope not.

But we can only look back and learn from history.

Yes we should learn what the government does in the name of the American people is frequently, if not always more sinister than it is spun to appear.

 

[LionL]

Remember until then no one knew we had the bomb...

Did they not? I was always under the impression that the Manhattan Project was a 3 nation effort : the USA, the UK and Canada all shared their knowledge.

 

[SteveNZ]

Did they not? I was always under the impression that the Manhattan Project was a 3 nation effort : the USA, the UK and Canada all shared their knowledge.

Yes it was these but no 'Stalin'. BUT his spies were so good it made little difference.

It was one of those technologies where the theories were reasonably well known to scientists (even to the Nazi) but the ability to generate the isotopes required to then create an atomic reactor/bomb was the key issue.

* I still cringe when I think that the first test of an atomic pile (effectively the first nuclear reactor) was in Chicago a city with a huge population. Still I suppose they took precautions.......

 

[keith99]

One question I have often asked is 'why the second bomb?'

The destruction of Hiroshima was so great that I think the Japanese would have surrendered. Although as I looked at the events my conclusion is that there was always the intention of dropping the two bombs first, and then look to see what would happen.

I almost wonder if the whole idea of having a public test of the two different types of A bomb was part of the thinking. I hope not.

But we can only look back and learn from history.

Some elements of the Japanese military were calling the first bomb a hoax, that it was not one bomb but a huge amount of explosives smuggled in somehow.

After the second bomb there was a massive propaganda campaign saying that we had plenty of bombs and were stopping for humanitarian reasons and if we started back we would not stop again.

The second part is probably technically true. But the first was a bald faced lie, we were out.

Also note that both bomb attacks were stupid from a tactical standpoint. Only one bomber? That greatly increases the chances of it being shot down as it would be the only target. But from a strategic standpoint it was the right call. It was vital that it became clear it was one bomb, or at most the payload of one bomber.