Hiroshima Day

[Blue Mist]

It's interesting that you mention Dresden because it brings up an often overlooked part of the story.

The atomic bombs were not the most deadly attacks on Japan, it was the fire bombing of Tokyo, which killed 100,000 civilians in 1 night, wounded a further 125,000 and left 1 million homeless.

It is the single most destructive air raid in history hands down.

As for "needing" to drop the Atomic bombs to end the war, it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. It's hard to believe a country that had seen 400,000 civilians burned to death with indiscriminate Napalm was going to have it's mind changed by the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima which killed far fewer people.

The biggest reason for Japanese surrender was that Operation Starvation was so effective at causing famine in Japan that the US Government was providing hundreds of thousands of tons of wheat to Japan for 7 years post WW2 just to stop them all dying.

And the US military's own review of the war decided that the naval blockade would have ended the war on its own.

So the US didn't think the atomic bombs were necessary or the deliberate napalming of civilians.

But that brings us back to the other argument that the bombs were dropped to show Russia that the US had them, how powerful they were and that they were prepared to use them. It is an argument I can accept but primarily it was a way of ending the war, otherwise why drop the second. Clearly the fire bombing of Tokyo had no effect on the Emperor and government , the first A bomb didn't either so drastic measures were called for.
I fully accept that my viewpoint is skewed because of my hatred for them (then not now)

 

[Vic]

But that brings us back to the other argument that the bombs were dropped to show Russia that the US had them, how powerful they were and that they were prepared to use them. It is an argument I can accept but primarily it was a way of ending the war, otherwise why drop the second. Clearly the fire bombing of Tokyo had no effect on the Emperor and government , the first A bomb didn't either so drastic measures were called for.
I fully accept that my viewpoint is skewed because of my hatred for them (then not now)

3 days after Hiroshima was not much time for the Japanese to work out what had happened. Nagasaki chosen as it was relatively untouched by conventional bombing.

I think the Times headline, "A successful experiment", says a lot.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

But that brings us back to the other argument that the bombs were dropped to show Russia that the US had them, how powerful they were and that they were prepared to use them. It is an argument I can accept but primarily it was a way of ending the war, otherwise why drop the second. Clearly the fire bombing of Tokyo had no effect on the Emperor and government , the first A bomb didn't either so drastic measures were called for.
I fully accept that my viewpoint is skewed because of my hatred for them (then not now)

Hatred 'then' - were you flying the enola gay musty?

 

[Blue Mist]

Hatred 'then' - were you flying the enola gay musty?

Oh you, stop it.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

Baffles my mind that every single one of Britain’s nukes is 8x more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. When will humans finally realise there’s no need for that much suffering.

 

[BrianW]

Baffles my mind that every single one of Britain’s nukes is 8x more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. When will humans finally realise there’s no need for that much suffering.

But we have to have them, or the Russians will invade tomorrow.

 

[Vic]

From another thread... we need more Trident warheads to deter the Taliban

 

[MillionMilesAway]

3 days after Hiroshima was not much time for the Japanese to work out what had happened. Nagasaki chosen as it was relatively untouched by conventional bombing.

I think the Times headline, "A successful experiment", says a lot.

Nagasaki was hit because of bad weather at the primary target Kokura; the bombs had to be dropped visually rather than using radar, and Nagasaki was a secondary target.

The point on not having been conventionally bombed is true though - by design, I think so the effect would be greater.

 

[Blue Mist]

But we have to have them, or the Russians will invade tomorrow.

Or Iran will bomb us, don't forget them, I've heard they have all of Saddams weapons of mass destruction. A guy in the pub told me.

 

[NPBlue]

This thread was not meant to be an historical discussion although it does have merit.

I just asked can anyone justify in the light of Hiroshima this Govt. spending billions on vanity weapons.

I wouldn't call them vanity weapons. I've been around for 64 years now and seen the world change over the years into a much more unstable place than it was, say, 40 years ago. I tend to look on nuclear weapons as a sort of insurance policy. Yes, they cost a lot of money but we don't know who or what is going to emerge in the future, but it's reassuring to me we possess the ultimate deterrent if needs be. We might not like them and want to be rid of them, but if others have them and they are going to continue having them, then so do we.

Two nuclear weapons have been used in anger, at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We know what happened to those cities and the people that lived there.

I had an Uncle that fought against the Japanese in the far east, and he detested them, absolutely hated them, and he couldn't give a stuff about those bombs and the destruction they caused. Jeez, I thought he was going to chin me when I told him I'd bought a Yamaha motorbike in 1975, that's how much anger he still had in him 30 years afterwards.

We live in different times with different attitudes now.

The world saw what happened to those cities in 1945, and has been collectively too scared to use them since then. Japan couldn't respond because they didn't have nuclear weapons to retaliate with, and that, to my mind, is the most valid point for having them.

Mutually assured destruction. Would the USA have nuked those cities if they knew the Japanese could have responded in kind?