Was America justified in dropping the atomic bomb on Japan?

I can't say I've heard of the soil being turned over in Hiroshima/Nagasaki but I may be wrong. This is, however, currently being done in Fukushima and has been done at various former weapons test sites and commercial facilities. It all comes down to distribution patterns (i.e. concentrations, penetration depth), isotopes and what the ground is used for.

 

I like that the US test in the US...as it should be...(And I know there have been some pacific testing)
Britain tested their early weapons in...bloody Australia! Maralinga...Don't get me started on the French...ggrrr

 

Radiation levels vary at the Trinity site. They are between 73 μR/h to 429 μR/h, with 9.1 μR/h being roughly typical background radiation. This was measured in 1996, after most of the Trinitite had been removed, and clean fill had been brought in.

 

I hate this game, I really do.

And the summer is just starting, by the beginning of August we will see the usual eruption of posts asking the same questions or bleating of accusations of uninformed, imaginary war crimes.

My father was LCDR and assistant operations officer on the staff of TF-38 off the coast of the Japan at the time, he wrote home in a serial letter.

The entry dated 7 August 1945:
"Guess you have been reading about 'the bomb' as everyone else has. It has been quite an interesting and depressing topic for me. All I can say, I can't think of any other people who I would prefer to posses it and no better target upon which it should be used. Just the same, it can be quite a problem for the future. Then again, with the right control it may insure the future. All the same, it's dangerous and I just have my doubts whether we are ready to control such power. Such worries did not trouble the man who invented gunpowder."

On the installment for the 8th, he continued:
"Lots of news has been coming in about the big bomb, but not much to rely on as to the Jap reaction. They are too unpredictable to depend on even when bopped this hard. Press notice seems to give this bomb quite a bopping factor. Hope it never has to be used again.”

On the 10th:
“Things have been doing pretty well the last day or so and tonight’s news makes it look as though this war is about in its last hours. The news about the Russians coming into the fight seemed insignificant beside the news about the bomb and then both of them seem insignificant in the light of the news of a possible surrender. It’s too close to see just what effect that is going to have on our immediate movements, but, gosh, it is something and the possibilities leave me excited.”

But the war went on. On the 11th:
“Busy day as usual. Seems to be much expectation in the air but not much change of plans at this point.”

On the 13th:
“Looks as though I were dreaming just dreams the other night because we are back in business as usual without a let-up. Today was a pretty active one if you noticed. If these people want to fight, we are just the ones to oblige them. To coin a term I might say they will be obliged by experts.”

Bottom line . . .

Yes, the bombs, both of them were necessary, absolutely.

No, they were not to impress the Soviets. The purpose the bombs were to slap the Japanese leadership hard enough that they would pay attention and realize that to continue would mean eventual destruction of their entire country and people. The first one came close, but failed. The second got their attention.

 

All the same, it's dangerous and I just have my doubts whether we are ready to control such power. Such worries did not trouble the man who invented gunpowder."

Makes me think of Nobel...

Cant tell you how good it is to hear that kind of correspondence...The no BS version.

 

​Well..............That's what they get for sinking the Titanic

 

I say no, but honest people can disagree. Never been comfortable with targeting civilians. But, war is hell.

 

Not to mention the slaughter of civilians (including women and children), many of them bayonetted, as the US troops were pushing them out of Manila. And Manila was supposed to be an open city.

 

The endemic brutality of the Japanese army in China was already evidenced to the world by 1936, revealing the character of the beast. With images and boasting of misdeeds, that they now try to deny.

Further, considering the Japanese use of chemical and biological weapons (plague, anthrax, botulism) in at least 11 instances in China (not "just" research on human subjects, but actual use), does anyone believe such a regime would've abstained from using atomic weapons had they themselves acquired them first?

If you are willing to rape and slaughter thousands of innocent civilians with bayonets and swords, in a post-battle massacre, (to say nothing of the Japanese willingness to terror-bomb cities in the 1930's) you don't get to complain about the deaths of your civilians when they get incinerated.

 

And for the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor.

 

Considering the date written and how little most knew about atomic physics, that was a highly perceptive response. Perhaps the LCDR should have made flag rank

 

Forget it, he's rolling

 

It's not every day that Opana see something "new" with regards to PH. I suspect he enjoyed it (at least if he hasn't seen it before).

 

I would love to find the transcripts of the Blutarski / Kelso Commission's findings. I think that most of them were destroyed when the Nixon library burned down in 74

 

Well ... or, perhaps more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan.