No Apologies For Hiroshima or Nagasaki (from an email)

I agree with you up to this point.

Closer to the middle than what? The extremes? perhaps but perhaps not. Let's look at your questions.

I don't see any reasonable criteria that suggests otherwise.

Clearly it did.

Since they didn't surrender after Hiroshima clearly dropping it on "the country side" would not have caused them to surrender. Dropping a second on the "country side" would have suggested that we didn't have the will to drop in on a real target. This was unknowable at the time as it is today but they didn't consider the risks worth it and I'd tend to agree.

I object strenuously to the wording of this one. What "terror bombing" was carried out by the US? The target was military and industrial, they even dropped leaflets to war the Japanese people. Beyond that what do you mean by "different"?

Again I think the answer is pretty clearly yes both from the view point of the time and looking back on it.

 

Too many quote blocks to get this in with the last.

From numerous readings of the conventions I have to say you are not correct on this. Of course if it was just recruting offices you might have a case but both the cities involved had major military and industrial facilities. Yamato was built in Nagasaki for instance. Furthermore ending the war as soon as possible minimized the civilian and military losses so I don't agree that it was morally wrong either.

That is in essence an illogical argument. They didn't take into account incinidaries either. There was no void as WMD's are a modern construct.

Please point out where in the conventions that they are so labled. The primary purpose of the military in a democratic society is not to "protect the civiian" it is to protect the country and it's civilians. In any case ending the war ASAP was the best way to protect civilians and military.

The distinction was blurred when industry became a deciding factor in war. The bombs didn't do that they mearly addressed it.

Proud? That's an open question but the comparison with the Mongols is rather flawed in a number of ways.

 

Just a minor correction...Musashi was built at Nagasaki.

 

I will try to answer your questions/comments although I don't have the individual quoting down,

So to the second sentence. What I have found in my life time it is seldom that the far right or far left have a reasonable answer, but typically the truth is in the middle. With the atomic question the far right often have the " make a glass parking lot" menality and the far left wants to treat our foes with " love and hugs". I think that a reasonable response would be found in between those two.

Your 3rd point/question. The luxury of distance and time allow us to explore what is a reasonable criteria, that those discussions such as this allow different folks to express their views allowing the rest of us to learn.

The 4th point is the question, did it save lives? Again there are varying opinions, it is a more detailed answer than just yes or no. What were the alternates? Would any of these worked with a lesser loss in life? I don't know, again the point of discussion is to learn.

The 5th point, would of dropping the bomb else where had the desired effect? I don't know, but I truly do not believe that the Japanese had any doubt about our "will". Our service men proved time and time again that we did not lack "will".

The 6th point, Terror bombing. When civilians are bombed in order to break the country's will and there is no military advantage. What does one call this? Bombing to effect terror I think is an apt description. The right or wrong of it is another question and deserves another discussion.

The 7th and final sentence. Unfortunately the "atomic bomb Pandora's" is the box I am referring to, not the atomic age. It would be nice to think that mankind is capable of not doing certain things. Even Hitler didn't use gas has been done in WWI. Maybe there are some things are better left undone?

Thank-you for your replies. I agree with much of what I believe you are saying, but in my old age I find that I am much more open to different ideas, although I lean to the right, I also believe in much that the left has to say.

KTK

 

And not to be too flippant, the bomb dropping and subsequent surrender kept Japan's never been invaded boast alive...

 

Everywhere was a military target, I doubt that there was a place in the world that did not have something to do with the war. The question is where on the scale were these places?

KTK

 

#14
Three cheers for George Patton and what he said.

Who are our great heros now... Few men try to shoot down aircraft with ivory handled pistols anymore.
USMCPrice for president. ..I would sneak across the border to vote for that guy.

 

Put the US through boot camp...actually Australia could do with that too..."Private fat body! Get over here...!"

 

There was actually a coup by some officers to try to seize the emperor and force him to rescind the surrender order. They just missed grabbing the recording of his order and the coup quickly fazed out. With out the emperor intervening there were plenty in the military who would have allowed tens of millions of civillians die in order to save the army from the disgrace of surrender

 

Try this :

Barrel Over Niagara Falls

 

Thanks. Liittle things are important and I hate posting bad info. Memory isn't improving much though.

 

Place cursor above the credit line. Highlight the entire quote. Copy and paste it then edit for content.

I disagee typically the truth is toward the middle but not necessarily in the middle. You are correct that the extremes are usually wrong but fairly often one extreme is much closer to the truth than the other.

Indeed we have the luxury of exploring them but I have yet to see any such explorations produce said "reasonable critieria".

In this case the simple answer is correct. There was only one alternative to dropping the bomb and that was not dropping the bomb. The US and allies had spent considerable time developing a strategy that simply did not include the bomb. Not dropping it means that strategy will be followed (adopting to events as required). Japan was on the verge of famine and the continued conventional air raids would have exerbated that as well as caused additional loss of life. That's even if there is no invasion. There was also an order that was about to be sent out to execute all POWs I believe. So yeas dropping the bomb saved lives. Again I have seen no convincing arguement to the contrary.

If we drop a bomb in some uninhabited area and say "look what we can do" then when they don't surrender drop a second one in a similar area it does indeed send the message that the command at the least is reluctant to use it on a city and may be unwilling to do so. The message that needed to be sent is that not only can we drop the bomb on a city we will. Hiroshima and Nagasaki left no doubt as to that. It wasn't a matter of the will of our service men it was a matter of the will of our high command and the Japanese interpreatation there of. Certainly there were some that think we shouldn't have stopped at 2 and these weren't just US service men.

Where do you think this took place? The US bombing raids against Japan were directed at military and industrial targets i.e. to some and usually some considerable military advantage. Again leaflets were dropped on cities designated as targets warning the civilians to leave. Why do this if they were the targets.

You simply aren't going to have an atomic age without the atomic bomb. As it was not only was it opened with the 2nd and 3rd bombs being dropped on cities but it opened in such a graphic way that we have yet to see another atomic bomb used in anger. Hitler didn't use gas becasuse it was pretty clear that initating gas warfare would not be to his advanatage. He did however use gas to kill a considerable number of people.

 

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were as indicated above very important military and industrial targets. For instance this page lists ships built at Nagasaki:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ships_built_at_Mitsubishi_Heavy_Industries_Nagasaki_Shipyard_%26_Machinery_Works
While some are post war note that the list does include battleships, aircraft carriers, quite a few cruisers, and destroyers.

 

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=952079&sid=49477fd4afe022b01b6be3c151207f98#p952079

 

To me, when you think about the military significance of both of the cities, dropping the bombs on those cities was justified enough. Not only was Hiroshima the headquarters of the Japanese 2nd Army it was also a key center for shipping and had a large military depot of supplies and their Army Marine headquarters was also located at Ujina Port. Nagasaki also had great military significance. It was a major seaport and had four major companies located there including Mitsubishi Shipyards. Bombing these cities was justified enough based on how important they were militarily.