ApolloHoax.net

Off Topic => General Discussion => Topic started by: DD Brock on August 06, 2015, 01:58:47 AM

Title: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: DD Brock on August 06, 2015, 01:58:47 AM
A new low, even for the likes of Jarrah White. Apparently Hiroshima and Nagasaki are now terrorist acts, at least to the Blunder.



Somebody needs to beat some sense into this guy. If I could afford the plane ticket, I'd seriously consider volunteering.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: carpediem on August 06, 2015, 03:57:43 AM
He's a weeaboo, what do you expect?
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: gillianren on August 06, 2015, 04:23:52 AM
I don't know; he's got a bit of an argument there.  They were horrific weapons used against civilian targets, after all.  I know all the military justifications for the bombings, and I'm not saying they were wrong.  But I'm not saying they were right, either, and I think an argument could be made.  Just by someone who knows more history than Jarrah White does.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: raven on August 06, 2015, 05:26:52 AM
Yeah, it's the one argument JW has made I could see someone agreeing with. Beyond ending the war quickly, which according to some is debatable, one  good that came of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being bombed is that it showed just how horrifying a nuclear weapon is. If nukes had been developed but not used then, I think they could easily been used once the Cold War started happening, quite possibly triggering World War 3.
I'm curious, just what does JW claim it have to do with Apollo? The hoary old 'They did this eeevil thing, therefore they must have also done this eeevil thing I claim', like when CT bring up Von Braun's work in World War 2 Germany?
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: Zakalwe on August 06, 2015, 05:42:33 AM
I'm curious, just what does JW claim it have to do with Apollo? The hoary old 'They did this eeevil thing, therefore they must have also done this eeevil thing I claim', like when CT bring up Von Braun's work in World War 2 Germany?

I think that he's letting some of his core "values" slip. He comes across as being anti-American, therefore anything America does or did is tainted by that view. Apollo seems to be a lightening rod for these people, but it extends into lots of other areas.

On an aside, it does make me wonder why this type of crank magnetism seems to afflict the more right-wing people. The tea-baggers, the Obama birth twoofers, the 911 conspiracy theorists, in the main, appear to hold right-wing views. Given that they also claim to be super-patriotic I can't understand why they claim that things like Apollo didn't happen??? Maybe (especially in the more extreme holders of right-wing views) their disdain of anyone that isn't a WASP makes them question the right of a black man to be President which leads to the birth-twoofer thing. Once you are on that roller-coaster then you have to start to question everything else otherwise the whole thing becomes too conflicted. Then again, maybe it's just because they are nuts?  :o
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: Peter B on August 06, 2015, 12:52:43 PM
On an aside, it does make me wonder why this type of crank magnetism seems to afflict the more right-wing people.

Not to me it doesn't. I've seen plenty of such people with left-wing politics.

Quote
The tea-baggers, the Obama birth twoofers, the 911 conspiracy theorists, in the main, appear to hold right-wing views.

The first two, yes. But not 9/11 truthers - these people to me almost exclusively present left-wing attitudes, with all the attendant issues: dislike of George W Bush, links between the Bush family and various oil interests, the background and politics of Bush appointees such as Cheney and Rumsfeld. In my experience these people found it hard to believe I could dislike President Bush's politics and also believe he and his cabinet had nothing to do with 9/11.

Quote
Given that they also claim to be super-patriotic I can't understand why they claim that things like Apollo didn't happen???

Again I don't see Apollo HBs as right-wing. Instead they present as left-wingers, many showing admiration for the space achievements of the Soviets and a dislike of Nixon and the American employment of "Nazis" like von Braun. Having said that, there are nuances in their views. Some admire Kennedy while others despise him. Same for Johnson.

Quote
Maybe (especially in the more extreme holders of right-wing views) their disdain of anyone that isn't a WASP makes them question the right of a black man to be President which leads to the birth-twoofer thing. Once you are on that roller-coaster then you have to start to question everything else otherwise the whole thing becomes too conflicted. Then again, maybe it's just because they are nuts?  :o

And there are other left-wing conspiracy theory views, such as anti-vaccinationism (yes, some right-wing anti-vaccinationists but not as many and more likely to be concentrated in their dislike of Gardasil) and opposition to GM food.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: gillianren on August 06, 2015, 01:00:05 PM
There are lots of right-wing anti-vaxxers.  There's a Catholic blogger who says he "isn't sure" my friend Chris whose son got measles even exists.  Of course, the lengthy and dull YouTube video making the same point seems to be left-wing.  The right-wing and left-wing anti-vaxxers are one of a handful of generic anti-government beliefs that get to the same place from different directions.  I know right-wing anti-GMO people, and for them, it's some religious thing I don't understand.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: DD Brock on August 06, 2015, 11:15:28 PM
I don't know; he's got a bit of an argument there.  They were horrific weapons used against civilian targets, after all.  I know all the military justifications for the bombings, and I'm not saying they were wrong.  But I'm not saying they were right, either, and I think an argument could be made.  Just by someone who knows more history than Jarrah White does.

I have to respectfully disagree. We were at war, a war brought to OUR shores by way of a sneak attack. You do not fight a war by easing up on the enemy when they are down, you use every means at your disposal to end the conflict once and for all. You sort out the details when it's done.  That is why war is to be avoided when possible. We were long past that in 1945.

It's simple mathematics. We either sent in the Army and the Marines in a full scale, bloody invasion against an enemy we had every reason to believe would defend with the lives of their children, or we take a chance that two highly destructive weapons the likes of which have never been seen scare the enemy badly enough to persuade them to capitulate. Two bombs, or the lives of countless American soldiers. No contest to my mind, even with the unfortunate loss of innocent Japanese civilians.

Terrible? Absolutely! In retrospect, it may have even been overkill. However, consider the Japanese didn't surrender until after the second bomb was dropped. Not the first. Wartime commanders and decision makers do not have the luxury of retrospect, either.

Terrorism? Sorry, but no. That is putting a modern, agenda driven spin on a truly horrible wartime decision that simply had to be made, and smacks of armchair quarterbacking of the worst sort.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: Grashtel on August 07, 2015, 12:33:09 AM
Plus with the scale of conventional bombing being used the damage produced was comparable to the effects of the nuclear bombs other than the radiation, and that wasn't well understood at the time
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: DD Brock on August 07, 2015, 12:57:24 AM
Plus with the scale of conventional bombing being used the damage produced was comparable to the effects of the nuclear bombs other than the radiation, and that wasn't well understood at the time

Agreed. The firebombing did tremendous damage to much of Japan and killed a hell of a lot of people. If the use of the atom bomb is to be considered terrorism, then the entire strategic bombing campaign would have to be considered terrorism as well. How many people died in the firestorm in Dresden?

Terrible, certainly, but not terrorism.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: Tedward on August 07, 2015, 04:06:16 AM
I think he is playing the "anti US card" to up his ratings and bolster his position. He is playing politics with no sense of history.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: ka9q on August 07, 2015, 04:29:11 AM
Historians and others will be debating the necessity of the atomic bombings until the end of time.

I can't really judge the military details, but I did find it interesting that Eisenhower didn't think the bombings were necessary.

This interesting fact also occurred to me. The definition of "weapons of mass destruction" usually has three elements: chemical, biological and nuclear. Three of the major belligerents in WW2 were working on them: the US specialized on nuclear, the Germans on chemical (they had discovered nerve gases in the 1930s) and the Japanese on biological (conducting some well-known and horrific tests).

But of the three, only the US actually used its weapon in war; the other two intentionally held back.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: Peter B on August 07, 2015, 08:11:45 AM
Perhaps we might continue this part of the discussion in another thread.

LunarOrbit, would it be possible to extract the posts discussing the atomic bombings and start a new thread with them?
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: bknight on August 07, 2015, 08:23:11 AM
Historians and others will be debating the necessity of the atomic bombings until the end of time.

I can't really judge the military details, but I did find it interesting that Eisenhower didn't think the bombings were necessary.

This interesting fact also occurred to me. The definition of "weapons of mass destruction" usually has three elements: chemical, biological and nuclear. Three of the major belligerents in WW2 were working on them: the US specialized on nuclear, the Germans on chemical (they had discovered nerve gases in the 1930s) and the Japanese on biological (conducting some well-known and horrific tests).

But of the three, only the US actually used its weapon in war; the other two intentionally held back.
Agreed that the debate will continue forever. 
Lets take a look at the military viewpoint for a minute.  Most if not all the commanders deemed the war was won by the time the atomic bombs were dropped n Aug 1945(Man that is 70 years ago!).  However war records speak differently.  From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War#Okinawa The US had 75K casualties, the Japanese had 94% death fighting "to the last man".  And this was after an intense aerial bombing campaign.  So the mainland invasion scheduled for Oct-Nov 1945, would likely have involved similar casualties.
Secondly and perhaps more importantly, bombing never has won a war/battle.  Ground troops were a necessity to final victory.  Look at the air war over Britain/Germany/Japan that failed to bring the conflict to conclusion.  An invasion would have been required.
Thirdly many historians military and civilian have noted that the Japanese did not have the ability to wage further war from lack of resources.  There is truth to that statement, but that includes an air/sea battle worthiness, not a defensive land operation.
Fourthly the Japanese military conducted operations from the Bushido code, namely never surrender because that is a cowards way out.  Look at how the POW's from the early battles were treated by the Japanese, those individuals were below life as they had not fought and died.

A land invasion would have been required and resulted in large numbers of Allied casualties.  Dropping atomic weapons whether in a questionable morale aspect was necessary to stop the war earlier.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: grmcdorman on August 07, 2015, 09:07:55 AM
Don't forget that even after the second bomb was dropped, the Japanese nearly didn't surrender. It took personal intervention by the Emperor - an unprecedented action - and even then there was an attempted coup with the aim of continuing to fight.

I have to agree with those who say that it was the right decision, especially in the context of what the US knew at the time.

There is a lengthy discussion of bombing in general, and towards the end the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, at ISF: Bombing civilians in WWII / Morality of War (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=293416).
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: bknight on August 07, 2015, 10:09:02 AM
Don't forget that even after the second bomb was dropped, the Japanese nearly didn't surrender. It took personal intervention by the Emperor - an unprecedented action - and even then there was an attempted coup with the aim of continuing to fight.

I have to agree with those who say that it was the right decision, especially in the context of what the US knew at the time.
...
That is true, and although I wasn't alive then, I suspect the planners may have believed that atomic weapons were a trump card.  If it failed they could undertake the invasion.  Those plans were in existence and planning was ongoing right up until the surrender.  BTW, the allies backed down on Emperor Hirohito demands, which turned the argument towards surrender.  The military still believed in Bushido, but they were faced with the Emperors wishes.  That was a losing internal battle IMO.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: Tedward on August 07, 2015, 01:18:26 PM
Actually his challenge reminds me of what he should do. Go find someone qualified on a subject and ask them about the guff he spouts. Rather than wade in all sheepish asking about wood.


Ohhh I shouldn't matron.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: Obviousman on August 07, 2015, 05:40:05 PM
On an aside, it does make me wonder why this type of crank magnetism seems to afflict the more right-wing people.

That's interesting; I would have said the opposite!

Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: Obviousman on August 07, 2015, 05:43:33 PM
A land invasion would have been required and resulted in large numbers of Allied casualties.  Dropping atomic weapons whether in a questionable morale aspect was necessary to stop the war earlier.

I agree totally.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: Abaddon on August 08, 2015, 07:03:02 AM
A land invasion would have been required and resulted in large numbers of Allied casualties.  Dropping atomic weapons whether in a questionable morale aspect was necessary to stop the war earlier.
Yep. That is one of those hard calls. I certainly wouldn't want to have been making it.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: Chew on August 08, 2015, 09:58:07 AM
We learned after the war that the Japanese POW camp commanders had been ordered to kill all the Allied POWs (100,000+ men) if the Japanese home islands were invaded. In retrospect dropping the bombs prevented that massacre. There is also the fact that a quarter of a million people in the Japanese-occupied countries were being killed by the Japanese every month. Blockading Japan and "waiting them out" would have led to a lot more deaths at the hands of the Japanese.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: mako88sb on August 08, 2015, 05:44:24 PM
We learned after the war that the Japanese POW camp commanders had been ordered to kill all the Allied POWs (100,000+ men) if the Japanese home islands were invaded. In retrospect dropping the bombs prevented that massacre. There is also the fact that a quarter of a million people in the Japanese-occupied countries were being killed by the Japanese every month. Blockading Japan and "waiting them out" would have led to a lot more deaths at the hands of the Japanese.

Agreed. I must admit to flip flopping on this issue over the years but ultimately, the dropping of the bombs saved lives, not just American but Japanese as well. You just need to see how they fought on Iwo Jima & Okinawa to understand what was in store for anybody invading Japan. It really boggles the mind when you consider that the USA had adopted a "Europe first" strategy after Pearl Harbor. Can you imagine how the Pacific war would of went had it got top priority?
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: bknight on August 09, 2015, 07:22:49 AM

Agreed. I must admit to flip flopping on this issue over the years but ultimately, the dropping of the bombs saved lives, not just American but Japanese as well. You just need to see how they fought on Iwo Jima & Okinawa to understand what was in store for anybody invading Japan. It really boggles the mind when you consider that the USA had adopted a "Europe first" strategy after Pearl Harbor. Can you imagine how the Pacific war would of went had it got top priority?
While I can't disagree with your assessment of how the Pacific theater would have been effected, I do agree with the Europe first policy.  Whether or not the US should have entered the war earlier was directly a result of the isolationist mood here.  When we finally did enter the war England was the LAST country to be standing so to speak.  Had England succumbed to an invasion, the war perhaps would have been longer and more drawn out, same result though.  So the "political" direction was Europe first, while supplying the Pacific with enough resources to prevent further Japanese advances.  Of course this had the negative aspect of letting them prepare their defenses.  Additionally the German/Italian armies were larger than the Japanese, but would ultimately be faced with much larger forces once Germany attacked Russia.   Hitler in essence did what a more concentrated effort in the Pacific required, splitting your forces in two. 
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: Glom on August 09, 2015, 10:27:00 AM
"terrorism" is a word that gets thrown about a lot for emotive purposes.

It's probably the modern equivalent of "piracy". Back in the day, one nation's pirates were another nation's privateers. It all depends on how much you want to demonise.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: Glom on August 09, 2015, 10:34:00 AM

Agreed. I must admit to flip flopping on this issue over the years but ultimately, the dropping of the bombs saved lives, not just American but Japanese as well. You just need to see how they fought on Iwo Jima & Okinawa to understand what was in store for anybody invading Japan. It really boggles the mind when you consider that the USA had adopted a "Europe first" strategy after Pearl Harbor. Can you imagine how the Pacific war would of went had it got top priority?
While I can't disagree with your assessment of how the Pacific theater would have been effected, I do agree with the Europe first policy.  Whether or not the US should have entered the war earlier was directly a result of the isolationist mood here.  When we finally did enter the war England was the LAST country to be standing so to speak.  Had England succumbed to an invasion, the war perhaps would have been longer and more drawn out, same result though.  So the "political" direction was Europe first, while supplying the Pacific with enough resources to prevent further Japanese advances.  Of course this had the negative aspect of letting them prepare their defenses.  Additionally the German/Italian armies were larger than the Japanese, but would ultimately be faced with much larger forces once Germany attacked Russia.   Hitler in essence did what a more concentrated effort in the Pacific required, splitting your forces in two.
The UK wasn't the only one. The Commonwealth were along for the ride too and since the Statute of Westminster, the dominions were sovereign in terms of foreign policy. So Canada and Australia and the others joined the war at the beginning with their own declaration of war on the Axis. This is unlike in the first world war, when these dominions were at war automatically as part of the British Empire.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: bknight on August 09, 2015, 10:40:52 AM
The UK wasn't the only one. The Commonwealth were along for the ride too and since the Statute of Westminster, the dominions were sovereign in terms of foreign policy. So Canada and Australia and the others joined the war at the beginning with their own declaration of war on the Axis. This is unlike in the first world war, when these dominions were at war automatically as part of the British Empire.
That's true however, I was referring to the European nations at that time.  I guess I should have stated that more clearly.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: DD Brock on August 09, 2015, 11:01:05 AM
"terrorism" is a word that gets thrown about a lot for emotive purposes.

It's probably the modern equivalent of "piracy". Back in the day, one nation's pirates were another nation's privateers. It all depends on how much you want to demonise.

I believe you hit the nail right on the head, there.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: Chew on August 09, 2015, 01:01:20 PM
The US commitment to "Europe First" didn't really work out that way for most of the war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_first
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: bknight on August 09, 2015, 01:19:25 PM
The US commitment to "Europe First" didn't really work out that way for most of the war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_first

Good read thanks for linking it.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: ka9q on August 09, 2015, 07:16:40 PM
"terrorism" is a word that gets thrown about a lot for emotive purposes.
It certainly is. And it's been hard to nail down a precise definition.

The most common one seems to be the threat or actual use of violence by private actors to influence or coerce public opinion or government policy.

The restriction to private actors means it's impossible for sovereign governments to commit terrorism. This is just as well because it's exactly what they (including we) do with their militaries on a regular basis.

In other words, terrorism is simply warfare conducted by private actors instead of governments.

Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: Tedward on August 10, 2015, 04:20:27 AM
Reading a few memoirs of soldiers that fought across the Pacific is certainly a definite for people wanting to understand this and the Antipodean comedian could much to better his education in looking at this. He could also look up what happened on something closer to his abode, the Kokoda Trail.

Of the examples that are many in these and many more events in this history, what I have got from it, the Japanese soldiers fought to the last in general and in a way to maximise damage to the attackers. Changes in tactics from full frontal Samurai charges changed to luring in the attackers then getting nasty even when they knew they would not survive.

The Europeans fought until a position was untenable then surrendered or retreated, in general (and in no way intended to belittle anyone from any side here and yes there were other actions) Although it got very personal on the Eastern front but that was for other reasons.

Looking at the casualty figures and numbers of prisoners should be obvious for the fellow with a penchant for youtube diatribe.

If I have anything wrong then point it out, still learning (from books not internet).

Been holding off a few more books on the subject for a while due to the nature of them
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: gillianren on August 10, 2015, 12:54:38 PM
The thing is, a lot of my reading suggests that the Japanese government was pretty well on the verge of collapse even before the bombings.  Yes, the generals attempted a coup rather than surrender, even after the official decision was made, but evidence strongly suggests that, if the offer had been made before the bombing to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor (which was part of the final peace but not permitted by the terms issued before the bombing), the Japanese government would most likely have agreed to surrender before the bombs were dropped.  What's more, there is a strong suggestion that the US government knew that.  It's also certainly true that the targets chosen were civilian targets.  Deliberately so.  They were looking for a target that hadn't really been bombed yet, which left out all the truly military targets.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: Tedward on August 10, 2015, 01:08:14 PM
I suppose there are a few views. My understanding is they wanted to hold out for a treaty they wanted. That is holding as much as they could, reclaiming gains etc. They saw themselves as the rightful ruler of the Pacific and far east, and not in a benign way. Atrocities are many and well documented.

Another thing they wanted was to force a landing from the allies if it came to it and that would bog the allies down and get them to the table, again after their version of a treaty. Another fear is the longer it went on, the greater the world would see Japan as the oppressed and try to force the US into a treaty they did not want. Also Stalin started a land grab, and Churchill knew what threat he was.

Sitting here many years down the line, I can only imagine the commanders had a tough choice, the one they made is history. Given what they knew then, it was a big bomb, a means to an end.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: bknight on August 10, 2015, 01:32:25 PM
The thing is, a lot of my reading suggests that the Japanese government was pretty well on the verge of collapse even before the bombings.  Yes, the generals attempted a coup rather than surrender, even after the official decision was made, but evidence strongly suggests that, if the offer had been made before the bombing to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor (which was part of the final peace but not permitted by the terms issued before the bombing), the Japanese government would most likely have agreed to surrender before the bombs were dropped.

I would tend to agree with this, the main hang-up during negotiations was the Emperor.  It is speculation though because it didn't happen that way.

Quote
It's also certainly true that the targets chosen were civilian targets.  Deliberately so.  They were looking for a target that hadn't really been bombed yet, which left out all the truly military targets.
You are correct here, but the implications are murky.  The targets selected had no previous bombing so that the scientist/military brass could evaluate precisely what damage had been done by the bomb.  Since as you note, there were no military targets available that had the undamaged nature, other targets were chosen.  But they were chosen not because they were civilian but that was all that was left.

Quote
What's more, there is a strong suggestion that the US government knew that.
Your readings should have included the US had materials to build three weapons.  One was used in the initial test, the other two were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  This is pure speculation on my part, but it seems reasonable to me that once you are out the ultimate bomb and no word comes form the Japanese, what to do? Truman "promised" a reign of bombs like of which had never happened before(words to that effect), but no bombs existed and to build more would take months.  So what is Truman likely to do?  Delete the part concerning the Emperor and see if that would allow a graceful surrender.  Truman knew the casualty rates in the recent operations and I can't believe he would have wanted the continuation of the war if a quicker end was available.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: Chew on August 10, 2015, 02:23:50 PM
You are correct here, but the implications are murky.  The targets selected had no previous bombing so that the scientist/military brass could evaluate precisely what damage had been done by the bomb.

That is not entirely accurate. Nagasaki had been bombed previously several times. It was not on the list of cities to be spared because it was never designated as a primary target for a nuke. It was nuked because it had been the secondary target. Kokura had been the primary target on that day but Kokura was obscured by clouds and smoke from a nearby bombed city and the crew had orders to drop the bomb visually. (Incidentally, Kokura had been the secondary target for the first bomb.)


Quote
Your readings should have included the US had materials to build three weapons.  One was used in the initial test, the other two were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

That is entirely not accurate. The next bomb would have been ready to drop by August 17, and three bombs per month would have been ready for September, October, and November, with production ramping up after that, and by mid-1946 up to a dozen bombs could have been produced each month.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: bknight on August 10, 2015, 02:44:02 PM
You are correct here, but the implications are murky.  The targets selected had no previous bombing so that the scientist/military brass could evaluate precisely what damage had been done by the bomb.

That is not entirely accurate. Nagasaki had been bombed previously several times. It was not on the list of cities to be spared because it was never designated as a primary target for a nuke. It was nuked because it had been the secondary target. Kokura had been the primary target on that day but Kokura was obscured by clouds and smoke from a nearby bombed city and the crew had orders to drop the bomb visually. (Incidentally, Kokura had been the secondary target for the first bomb.)
Yes you are quite correct, it was a secondary target, but not the primary.  It was chosen by the cloud cover obscuring the target area. 

Quote
Your readings should have included the US had materials to build three weapons.  One was used in the initial test, the other two were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

That is entirely not accurate. The next bomb would have been ready to drop by August 17, and three bombs per month would have been ready for September, October, and November, with production ramping up after that, and by mid-1946 up to a dozen bombs could have been produced each month.

I have read that, but I had one of the physicist for the project as a teacher(don't ask, I can't remember his name 50 yrs. ago) He indicated that they were months away from completion of another weapon.  And then you have to add the month travel time to the Pacific theater.  Subsequent they maybe could have produced the amount you quoted.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: twik on August 10, 2015, 02:57:52 PM
The thing is, a lot of my reading suggests that the Japanese government was pretty well on the verge of collapse even before the bombings.  Yes, the generals attempted a coup rather than surrender, even after the official decision was made, but evidence strongly suggests that, if the offer had been made before the bombing to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor (which was part of the final peace but not permitted by the terms issued before the bombing), the Japanese government would most likely have agreed to surrender before the bombs were dropped.

I have problems with this line of thinking, which is very much "wise after the fact". Throughout the course of the war (if not human existence), one side has received intelligence about the other side. It's rarely clear or comprehensive, and to say that they "knew" the Japanese were about ready to surrender is hindsight. At the start of the war, people "knew" Hitler was a blowhard who would crumble if shown any real resistance. They "knew" Japan had neither the will nor the strength to attack the U.S.

The most the U.S. could have known about Japan at the time of the bombing was that there was a strong undercurrent that wanted to end the war, one way or another, because they knew it was lost. If things had played out differently, we might now have writers complaining that the U.S. frittered away a chance to end the war quickly, increasing casualties on both sides, because they "knew" that the opposition to the war wasn't strong enough to bring it to a halt.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: Tedward on August 11, 2015, 02:09:12 PM
In holding out to get a better deal, the country would have been dissected and pummelled before invasion. One of those tasked would have been 617, masters of taking apart infrastructure and up until the A bomb, they had dropped the largest ever made to great effect. The country would have been in dire straights come signing on the dotted line.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: mako88sb on August 11, 2015, 03:01:56 PM

Agreed. I must admit to flip flopping on this issue over the years but ultimately, the dropping of the bombs saved lives, not just American but Japanese as well. You just need to see how they fought on Iwo Jima & Okinawa to understand what was in store for anybody invading Japan. It really boggles the mind when you consider that the USA had adopted a "Europe first" strategy after Pearl Harbor. Can you imagine how the Pacific war would of went had it got top priority?
While I can't disagree with your assessment of how the Pacific theater would have been effected, I do agree with the Europe first policy.  Whether or not the US should have entered the war earlier was directly a result of the isolationist mood here.  When we finally did enter the war England was the LAST country to be standing so to speak.  Had England succumbed to an invasion, the war perhaps would have been longer and more drawn out, same result though.  So the "political" direction was Europe first, while supplying the Pacific with enough resources to prevent further Japanese advances.  Of course this had the negative aspect of letting them prepare their defenses.  Additionally the German/Italian armies were larger than the Japanese, but would ultimately be faced with much larger forces once Germany attacked Russia.   Hitler in essence did what a more concentrated effort in the Pacific required, splitting your forces in two.

Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that was the preferred way to go. Anyway, Chew's interesting link does show that the European First strategy wasn't written in stone. I guess the only thing I would add about the article is that it mentions 70% of the ships was in the Pacific. Given the nature of that theater, I would think that should of been expected.

Something else I didn't know about until fairly recently was just how involved the B-29 program was. It ended up costing the equivalent of the Manhattan project. 
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: bknight on August 11, 2015, 03:18:48 PM

Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that was the preferred way to go. Anyway, Chew's interesting link does show that the European First strategy wasn't written in stone. I guess the only thing I would add about the article is that it mentions 70% of the ships was in the Pacific. Given the nature of that theater, I would think that should of been expected.

Something else I didn't know about until fairly recently was just how involved the B-29 program was. It ended up costing the equivalent of the Manhattan project.
Yes it was early failure prone aircraft, that developed operational functions long after the first planes arrived.  The engines were a problem and crews took 2-3 days to replace them.  After a little training and ingenuity this time was drastically reduced.  It went obsolete with the advent of jets, even though it continued service into the Korean conflict.  I can't remember the exact quantities, but the Russian flown MIG-15 shot down 12(?) in one day.  The air force quit flying the B-29's until the F-86 were in operational strength to provide air coverage.  They cost over $.5 M per plane.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: VQ on August 11, 2015, 08:11:03 PM
It's also certainly true that the targets chosen were civilian targets.  Deliberately so.  They were looking for a target that hadn't really been bombed yet, which left out all the truly military targets.

In the cold war era there were/are nuclear missile base targets that allow nuclear strike plans that at least nominally distinguish between "counterforce" (military targets) and "countervalue" (civilians and infrastructure). I am not sure this was really the case in Japan in 1945, particularly given the inherent inaccuracy of aerial bombing and Japanese manufacturing adaptions to the conventional strategic bombing campaign. Seems analogous to the destruction of Royan and Dresden.

Have you read Truman's diary about authorizing the bombings? Do you think he was lying to himself (or perhaps aware that it would one day become public)? My interpretation has always been that he really did not understand how powerful the weapon was.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=1186 (http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=1186)
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: gillianren on August 11, 2015, 10:48:04 PM
I've read a quote (can't remember from whom, but it was someone high up in the process) that Truman was like a small boy on a big toboggan--he could neither stop it nor turn it.  Remember that he didn't even know the Manhattan Project existed until FDR died.  I don't think he knew.  I think the casualty projections he was given were inflated, whether deliberately or otherwise, to make the bombing seem more necessary than it was.  Maybe the people who did that believed them, or maybe they believed that the only option was bombing for other reasons.  But I don't think Truman had a whole lot of choice on a personal level.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: bknight on August 11, 2015, 11:12:26 PM
I've read a quote (can't remember from whom, but it was someone high up in the process) that Truman was like a small boy on a big toboggan--he could neither stop it nor turn it.  Remember that he didn't even know the Manhattan Project existed until FDR died.  I don't think he knew.  I think the casualty projections he was given were inflated, whether deliberately or otherwise, to make the bombing seem more necessary than it was.  Maybe the people who did that believed them, or maybe they believed that the only option was bombing for other reasons.  But I don't think Truman had a whole lot of choice on a personal level.
There may have been an inflated causuaty figure given.  Being an ex army (field artillery,I think like  me) he most likely would have taken the course  of action that would reduce causlties of Allied forces.  However  the decision  must have been a heavy  one for him, or any rational person in the same position.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: raven on August 12, 2015, 02:21:17 AM
It must have seemed like something out of science fiction. It would be like if someone showed up and said, "We have a working Alcubierre drive, sir."
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: BazBear on August 12, 2015, 05:28:10 AM
From what I've read, the biggest problem with the terms offered by Japan wasn't about them keeping their Emperor, it was the fact that they continued to insist on no occupation by the Allies, as well as trying their own war criminals. That wasn't going to happen. The atomic bombings were unfortunate, but so was the whole damned bloody war.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: gillianren on August 12, 2015, 12:05:24 PM
There may have been an inflated causuaty figure given.  Being an ex army (field artillery,I think like  me) he most likely would have taken the course  of action that would reduce causlties of Allied forces.  However  the decision  must have been a heavy  one for him, or any rational person in the same position.

I took a college class on the history of the twentieth century once, and I expressed the opinion that I was glad I hadn't been the one to make the decision.  I never said it was right or wrong, which you'll note I'm still not entirely saying.  I just said I wouldn't have wanted to be the one to make it.  My whole class freaked out, because how dare I suggest that it wasn't the right decision?
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: bknight on August 12, 2015, 12:11:33 PM
There may have been an inflated causuaty figure given.  Being an ex army (field artillery,I think like  me) he most likely would have taken the course  of action that would reduce causlties of Allied forces.  However  the decision  must have been a heavy  one for him, or any rational person in the same position.

I took a college class on the history of the twentieth century once, and I expressed the opinion that I was glad I hadn't been the one to make the decision.  I never said it was right or wrong, which you'll note I'm still not entirely saying.  I just said I wouldn't have wanted to be the one to make it.  My whole class freaked out, because how dare I suggest that it wasn't the right decision?
Then I conclude you are a rational person.  I suspect if they, individually, thought about the decision instead or the right/wrong implications, many would have the same belief.  Saying this I believe as my previous posts have indicated, the bombs were a necessary tactics towards ending the conflict.  It was not the only tipping point just another factor that helped the Emperor decide it was best for countries best option.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: BazBear on August 12, 2015, 03:33:25 PM
I don't think the casualty estimates of an invasion were too high. In fact some of the estimates coming from MacArthur's crony staff boys were ridiculously optimistic. The Japanese had stashed a bunch of Kamikaze aircraft and suicide midget subs etc. just for the projected invasion. In addition they had pretty much figured out the only good invasion points on Kyushu for the initial phase of the invasion, and had moved their troops accordingly. The losses to the Allied naval and land forces during the invasion would have been high, to say the least. And this is before the troops, once lodged ashore, had begun the slog up the island to their objective (about a third of the way up the island). Meanwhile, the strategic bombing campaign would have continued, taking FSM knows how many civilian lives.

And once the objectives of the first phase were achieved, we see it all done again the next year on the Tokyo plain during the second phase (assuming the Emperor hadn't come to his senses as he did in the real timeline).

Nuking them was a tough decision, and one I also am glad I didn't have to make, but I really think it was a no brainer given the situation, when such a weapon was available.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: Al Johnston on August 12, 2015, 07:08:06 PM
On the other hand, the Red Army went through Manchuria in a little over a week...
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: DonQuixote on August 13, 2015, 10:55:01 PM
I took a college class on the history of the twentieth century once, and I expressed the opinion that I was glad I hadn't been the one to make the decision.  I never said it was right or wrong, which you'll note I'm still not entirely saying.  I just said I wouldn't have wanted to be the one to make it.  My whole class freaked out, because how dare I suggest that it wasn't the right decision?

Could you imagine being one of the crew?

"Mr. van Kirk said. "Everyone was counting, 'One thousand one, one thousand two . . . .' " The bomb fell for 43 seconds." - Cpt. Theodore J. (Dutch) van Kirk N.Y. Times Interview (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/06/world/hiroshima-enola-gay-s-crew-recalls-the-flight-into-a-new-era.html)

Bringing the discussion back around to the quite estimable Mr. White, does anyone regard him as a burgeoning "professional troll" testing the waters or is the general consensus that he truly believes what he posts? Quite frankly, I'm considering starting a thread on the topic of "pro trolls" once I've delved about deeper into the nebulous and ofttimes self-contradictory world of the conspiracy theorist.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: smartcooky on August 14, 2015, 12:46:08 AM
I don't think the casualty estimates of an invasion were too high. In fact some of the estimates coming from MacArthur's crony staff boys were ridiculously optimistic. The Japanese had stashed a bunch of Kamikaze aircraft and suicide midget subs etc. just for the projected invasion. In addition they had pretty much figured out the only good invasion points on Kyushu for the initial phase of the invasion, and had moved their troops accordingly. The losses to the Allied naval and land forces during the invasion would have been high, to say the least. And this is before the troops, once lodged ashore, had begun the slog up the island to their objective (about a third of the way up the island). Meanwhile, the strategic bombing campaign would have continued, taking FSM knows how many civilian lives.

And once the objectives of the first phase were achieved, we see it all done again the next year on the Tokyo plain during the second phase (assuming the Emperor hadn't come to his senses as he did in the real timeline).

Nuking them was a tough decision, and one I also am glad I didn't have to make, but I really think it was a no brainer given the situation, when such a weapon was available.

Thing that people seem to not understand is the enormous magnitude of the task.

The D-Day invasions were landings into France, an occupied country. German soldiers were the only enemy to be fought, the local inhabitants were not fighting on the German side. Also, the allies pulled off a number of cunning deceptions...Operations Fortitude, Graffham, Ironside, Zeppelin, Copperhead and Mincemeat in the lead up to D-Day, and Operations Taxable, Glimmer and Big Drum on the Day of the invasion. These operations fooled the Germans into believing the targets of the invasion were elsewhere or happening at different times than the real invasion. They were able to get away with these deceptions largely because of the short trip across the English channel under cover of darkness. Then, there was mainland Britain not far away for supplies and materiel.

It was a very different situation in Japan. Deceptions would have been much more difficult to pull off, as the Japanese would see them coming for miles. Also, the Japanese public believed that Emperor Shōwa  was a descendant of Amaterasu the sun goddess, devine, and a living god, and therefore, all powerful. The landing armies would have been fighting not only the IJA, but the entire population (72 million in 1945) armed with anything they could find to use as a weapon. Establishing a beachhead after landing would have been a monumental task that could very easily have gone terribly wrong, and nowhere to go if it failed. Casualty numbers could have been horrendous.

As others have said, bombing Hiroshima was probably the right decision (I'm not sure that Nagasaki was necessary) but I would not want that decision making responsibility to fall on me. I think if you asked any of the Allied soldiers whose job it would have been to invade Japan, if it was the right decision, you will pretty much get a resounding "yes"!
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: Zakalwe on August 14, 2015, 03:30:12 AM
Its a good point to compare it to the Normandy landings. Estimates are somewhere in the region of 4,400 Allied deaths on D-Day alone. In total, 450,000 Allied and German soldiers died in the Battle of Normandy. The memory of that would have been fresh in the decision-maker's minds. It's very probably that the death toll would have been higher in a Japanese invasion.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: raven on August 14, 2015, 04:03:58 AM
On the other hand,  Japan was in much more dire straights  logistically when the invasion would have happened, at least from my understanding. On the gripping hand, facing an army that was basically the entirely population armed with *something*, even if only spears and ceramic grenades (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_4_grenade), yeah .  . .
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: smartcooky on August 14, 2015, 04:43:49 AM
Some time ago I was in a WW2 discussion on JREF and the subject of the invasion of Japan came up.  I found a report about "Operation Downfall", the planned invasion of Japan

"Operation Downfall" was planned to begin in May 1945, and if everything went according to plan, it would all be over eleven months later in April of 1946.

It took me a day or two to read and fully understand it, but once I did, Hiroshima became a no-brainer for me.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur%20Reports/MacArthur%20V1/ch13.htm

Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: bknight on August 14, 2015, 08:13:44 AM
Its a good point to compare it to the Normandy landings. Estimates are somewhere in the region of 4,400 Allied deaths on D-Day alone. In total, 450,000 Allied and German soldiers died in the Battle of Normandy. The memory of that would have been fresh in the decision-maker's minds. It's very probably that the death toll would have been higher in a Japanese invasion.
I believe the figure of 450 K died should be casualties.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: Zakalwe on August 14, 2015, 08:38:32 AM
Its a good point to compare it to the Normandy landings. Estimates are somewhere in the region of 4,400 Allied deaths on D-Day alone. In total, 450,000 Allied and German soldiers died in the Battle of Normandy. The memory of that would have been fresh in the decision-maker's minds. It's very probably that the death toll would have been higher in a Japanese invasion.
I believe the figure of 450 K died should be casualties.

My apologies. You are correct, thanks for the correction. Killed, MIA, or wounded.

Nevertheless, the scale and cost of such an invasion, in terms of planning, material and lives (http://d-dayrevisited.co.uk/d-day/cost-of-battle.html) would have weighed heavily on the minds of those making the decision to drop the bomb.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: bknight on August 14, 2015, 09:03:40 AM
In reading the book that smartcookie linked, form page 397:
Quote
In reply to a query from General Marshall requesting his opinion on the problem, General MacArthur pictured the future strategy in the Western Pacific as presenting three principal courses of action. First, the Allies could encircle Japan by further Allied expansion to the westward, at the same time deploying maximum air power preparatory to attacks on either Kyushu or Honshu in succession, or on Honshu only. A second course would be to isolate Japan completely by seizing bases to the west and endeavoring to bomb her into submission without actually landing in force on the Homeland beaches. The third course open was to attack Kyushu directly and install air forces to cover a decisive assault against the principal island of Honshu.5

My bolding in the paragraph.
Again this "bombing into submission" was the flawed thinking of many military brass.  It never worked, an invasion would have necessary. 

My speculation but it seems that the Allied plan was short on troops, but this was probably required since the plan was to use the forward troop concentrations, European reinforcements would not be available for some time.  I admired MacArthur but his estimations were traditionally low of opposing forces.  This may have been a psychological ploy to hide the true nature from his command.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: raven on August 14, 2015, 03:29:13 PM
From what I've read, the invasion plan would have involved dropping of the bombs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Nuclear_weapons) on enemy defensive positions, with Allied troops entering those areas shortly after. Imagine what a cluster-FUBAR SNAFU that would have been! :o
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: bknight on August 14, 2015, 03:34:48 PM
From what I've read, the invasion plan would have involved dropping of the bombs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Nuclear_weapons) on enemy defensive positions, with Allied troops entering those areas shortly after. Imagine what a cluster-FUBAR SNAFU that would have been! :o
Yes especially with the very inaccurate targeting rate of the B-29's.  That is one of the reasons, Curtis LeMay changed from the very inefficient high level bombing, to the low level and more accurate incendiary bombing
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: raven on August 14, 2015, 04:52:52 PM
At least they never released the bat bombs, which was an actual thing and not something out of a Silver Age Batman comic.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: ka9q on August 14, 2015, 06:21:06 PM
At least they never released the bat bombs, which was an actual thing and not something out of a Silver Age Batman comic.
Wow, I'd never heard of this weapon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: bknight on August 14, 2015, 06:35:03 PM
At least they never released the bat bombs, which was an actual thing and not something out of a Silver Age Batman comic.
Wow, I'd never heard of this weapon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb
Just like the Navy training dolphins to attach mines to vessels.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: Allan F on August 14, 2015, 07:24:33 PM
And the russians training dogs to hide under enemy tanks - and blow them up with explosives strapped to their bodies. Didn't go well - the dogs ran away and blew up everywhere else.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: bknight on August 14, 2015, 07:49:30 PM
And the russians training dogs to hide under enemy tanks - and blow them up with explosives strapped to their bodies. Didn't go well - the dogs ran away and blew up everywhere else.

Smart Laika. :)
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: raven on August 14, 2015, 08:17:54 PM
I think the bat bomb might have worked a little better, as it didn't depend on training but on the bats' natural instinct to roost.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: bknight on August 14, 2015, 08:32:13 PM
I think the bat bomb might have worked a little better, as it didn't depend on training but on the bats' natural instinct to roost.
Being an animal lover it just wrong feeling.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: VQ on August 14, 2015, 09:49:20 PM
From what I've read, the invasion plan would have involved dropping of the bombs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Nuclear_weapons) on enemy defensive positions, with Allied troops entering those areas shortly after. Imagine what a cluster-FUBAR SNAFU that would have been! :o

Air bursts don't leave much local radiation, do they?
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: Allan F on August 14, 2015, 11:40:31 PM
Neutron activation would make it an extremely hot zone. Also, every part of the bombs fuel would be everywhere including the daughter products of the fission reaction.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: bknight on August 15, 2015, 12:13:54 AM
The radiation effects on Hiroshima are interesting. 
Quote
By the time spring of 1946 arrived, the citizens of Hiroshima were surprised to find the landscape dotted with the blooming red petals of the oleander. The oleander flower, called the kyochikuto in Japanese, dispelled worries that the destroyed city had lost all its fertility and inspired the population with hope that Hiroshima would soon recover from the tragic bombing.
Now the official flower of Hiroshima, the oleander offers a beautiful symbol for the city as a whole; while some feared that the city and its population were irreparably destroyed—permanently cut off from normality by the effects of radiation—many would be surprised to learn of the limited long term health effects the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 have had.

The worst aspects aside from those killed immediately after the explosion were the radiation associated ailments including leukemia two years after, cancers about 10 years after and deformities of those unborn during the attack.
Seventy years after the bombing the back ground radiation has returned to normal.

http://k1project.org/explore-health/hiroshima-and-nagasaki-the-long-term-health-effects
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: VQ on August 15, 2015, 02:26:52 AM
Neutron activation would make it an extremely hot zone. Also, every part of the bombs fuel would be everywhere including the daughter products of the fission reaction.
Both neutron activation and fallout are definitely less (locally) severe with airbursts, because they are so much more dispersed.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: BazBear on August 15, 2015, 03:13:47 AM
On the other hand, the Red Army went through Manchuria in a little over a week...
The "third bomb" indeed.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: BazBear on August 15, 2015, 03:31:16 AM
Its a good point to compare it to the Normandy landings. Estimates are somewhere in the region of 4,400 Allied deaths on D-Day alone. In total, 450,000 Allied and German soldiers died in the Battle of Normandy. The memory of that would have been fresh in the decision-maker's minds. It's very probably that the death toll would have been higher in a Japanese invasion.
Indeed. As ugly as the Normandy invasion was, Iwo Jima and Okinawa were human for human, far uglier. Which leaves me with a loss of coherent things to add. Those unfamiliar with those invasions would do well to at least read the Wikipediia articles. You'll at least get the gist and can do the math.

ETA- not directed at you, Zakalwe , other than the good point to start from
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: DonQuixote on August 15, 2015, 08:25:47 AM
At least they never released the bat bombs, which was an actual thing and not something out of a Silver Age Batman comic.
Wow, I'd never heard of this weapon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb

I remember when I first heard about the bat bomb. I imagined a crazy alternate reality where it had been used in lieu of nuclear weaponry as part of the most elaborate PSYOP in human history, wherein the U.S. led the rest of the world to believe that we'd employed some form of evil magic on the target cities, which in turn convinced the Soviets to shift their focus from developing a nuclear arsenal of their own and to instead devote their resources to finding the Russian equivalent of a Harry Potter.

Silly, I know, but it's just how my poor brain works.  :P
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: DonQuixote on August 15, 2015, 10:34:31 AM
Something else that runs counter to the claim of the bombings being of a "terrorist" nature are the leaflet sorties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Leaflets)(see also here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_leaflet_propaganda#World_War_II)) that had been in effect over the entire course of the bombing campaign leading up to Hiroshima.

(below figures all derived from the same source)

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Events_on_the_ground
Some 70,000–80,000 people, of whom 20,000 were soldiers, or around 30% of the population of Hiroshima, were killed by the blast and resultant firestorm,[135][136] and another 70,000 injured.[137]

That gives Hiroshima a population of roughly 250,000 at the time of the bombing, significantly(approximately 29.4%) lower than the census information listed for Hiroshima as of 2/22/1944. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Imperial_Japan) In fact, it's even lower than the wartime population stated in this portion, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Hiroshima_during_World_War_II)

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Hiroshima_during_World_War_II
The population of Hiroshima had reached a peak of over 381,000 earlier in the war but prior to the atomic bombing, the population had steadily decreased because of a systematic evacuation ordered by the Japanese government. At the time of the attack, the population was approximately 340,000–350,000.[112]

which appears to be explained by the aforementioned civilian evacuations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evacuations_of_civilians_in_Japan_during_World_War_II) the Japanese government undertook throughout the bombing campaign, and is in reasonable agreement with the 30% drop derived earlier in my post.

Following Little Boy's aerial detonation over Hiroshima, on August 6th 1944 the U.S. dropped more leaflets (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-leaflets/) warning that, barring a surrender, the bombings would continue and that the citizenry should evacuate their cities.

In my opinion, it would be disingenuous to discount the leaflet campaigns having at least been a factor in the population outflow of a hitherto unscathed target such as Hiroshima, and I further claim that in the aftermath of the devastation wrought by Little Boy, they would have been taken even more seriously by the people of Nagasaki.

Terrorists don't telegraph their punches like this.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: ka9q on August 16, 2015, 02:48:36 PM
The destruction at Hiroshima was so thorough that accurate word didn't really get to the rest of the country for some time. It could be argued that the Nagasaki bombing was unnecessary or at least too soon after the Hiroshima bombing (3 days later) for the leadership of the country to take some sort of action.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: bknight on August 16, 2015, 03:10:01 PM
In a wiki report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
Quote
The Tokyo control operator of the Japan Broadcasting Corporation noticed that the Hiroshima station had gone off the air. He tried to re-establish his program by using another telephone line, but it too had failed.[156] About 20 minutes later the Tokyo railroad telegraph center realized that the main line telegraph had stopped working just north of Hiroshima. From some small railway stops within 16 km (10 mi) of the city came unofficial and confused reports of a terrible explosion in Hiroshima. All these reports were transmitted to the headquarters of the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff.[157]

Military bases repeatedly tried to call the Army Control Station in Hiroshima. The complete silence from that city puzzled the General Staff; they knew that no large enemy raid had occurred and that no sizable store of explosives was in Hiroshima at that time. A young officer was instructed to fly immediately to Hiroshima, to land, survey the damage, and return to Tokyo with reliable information for the staff. It was felt that nothing serious had taken place and that the explosion was just a rumor.[157]
The staff officer went to the airport and took off for the southwest. After flying for about three hours, while still nearly 160 km (100 mi) from Hiroshima, he and his pilot saw a great cloud of smoke from the bomb. After circling the city in order to survey the damage they landed south of the city, where the staff officer, after reporting to Tokyo, began to organize relief measures. Tokyo's first indication that the city had been destroyed by a new type of bomb came from President Truman's announcement of the strike, sixteen hours later[157].

So it seems more than likely the news was radioed to the military within 3-6 hours depending on how long it took them to send the aviator.
Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 10:10:17 AM
Apologies to resurrect what appears to be a finished thread, but I have been away for 4 weeks. While I have followed on Tapatalk, replying to topics on my Sony Xperia was slightly difficult.

Paul Ham has written an excellent book called Hiroshima Nagasaki, and Jarrah would be advised to read it before producing his usual 'Yours, angry and annoyed, JW' tabloid style rant/video. Ham actually offers an argument that the bombs should not be dropped, but at no point eludes to their use being a terrorist act. In fact Ham examines both sides of the argument and explores the careful decision process that was undertaken before the decision to drop the bombs was made.

Jarrah produces the following strawman to attack: Those killed in 9-11 was far less than those in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The US calls 9-11 a terrorist attack, so the A-bombs should be called terrorist attacks.

Jarrah attacks this strawman by pleading a special case for the A-bombs based on the radiation they produce. I understand that A-bombs are dreadful weapons, but when Jarrah sets them apart from the rest of WW2 he discounts a very clear difference between 9-11 and August 1945 - The US had declared war on Japan following the attack on Pearl Harbour.

The A-bombings themselves were part of a wider strategic plan to bring Japan to its knees, Jarrah does not seem to grasp this point. By mid-1945, before the A-bombs were dropped, Curtis LeMay had informed the President that his bombers could lay waste to 60 Japanese cities using conventional explosives before the end of the year. The US had a stark choice to make, having seen the destruction of German cities they wanted to avoid the same in Japan. Mainly because it would be more difficult to rebuild the country from nothing, but also the public and political perception that innocent civilians were being massacred by the aerial bombing campaign. The A-bombs may have been the lesser of two evils, and this consideration was part of the decision making process. Hardly a rash act of terrorism.

The use of casualties to define Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a terrorist attack is flawed given the narrative of World War 2. As others have pointed out, we could examine many events and claim terrorism based on a casualty metric. The Japanese atrocities in China, the German blitz, the actions of the SS on the Eastern Front, the US/UK bombing of German cities. To be brutally honest it was an horrific war and the inhumanity was unprecedented on the scale witnessed. The A-bombs in the context of total war casualties were insignificant, the A-bombs were significant in the dawn of global change that they ushered in, and this is where Jarrah does not understand history.

As others have raised, was Tokyo a terrorist attack, given that it killed many more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The US certainly knew that given its wooden buildings it would burn easily, and opted for incendiary bombs to raze Tokyo to the ground. Jarrah needs to read about the Tokyo bombings, along with Dresden, he would then realise that the pain and suffering meted out during those conventional bombing raids compares to that of the A-bombs. The A-bombs are not a special case of human suffering in the the context of WW2.

Further, the US had already begun dropping leaflets on Japanese cities to warn civilians to evacuate. So to claim that the US were atomic-terrorists is woefully incorrect. Jarrah also seems to ignore this fact to make his special plea.

He claims he gets angry and offended at the excuses made for the use of the A-bombs. There is certainly debate surrounding the use of the bombs, but to suggest that this amounts to excuses is wrong. The historical analysis for their use is complex and far reaching, and there are many commentaries that account for the post-war strategic position between the US and USSR. Most commentaries agree on the reasons for their use, but the bone of contention is whether the Japanese were ready to surrender. The main reasons offered for their use:

(a) To force the Japanese into a surrender and reduce US casualties with a homeland invasion.
(b) To demonstrate the existence of the A-bomb to the Soviets and provide a future bargaining chip in post war agreements.
(c) To end the war early and prevent the Soviets entering the Pacific War.
(d) To examine the effects of A-bombs the populous of a city.
(e) To test effectiveness of the bomb for military operations.

Based on the evidence I have read (a), (b) and (c) were the main reasons given for the bombings. I agree, there is a bone of contention that Japan might have been suing for peace, but even near the end of the war some Japanese leaders wanted conditions that were more favourable to them, and some militarists did not want to surrender at all. Jarrah might wish to read about the Bushido and how this cultural reference point transcended Japanese decision making and their war conduct. Maybe then he would realise his notion that the Japanese had retreated ready for surrender is flawed at many levels.

At this point I want to address Jarrah's claim that the Japanese had retreated back to the homeland and were ready to surrender. Really??? So, he wants to rewrite history. There was no retreat. Even the most precursory examination of World War 2 shows his lack of understanding on this point. How he has reached a conclusion of retreat has perplexed me, and I have been checking my own understanding to make sure that I have not missed a fine detail. I have not. The Japanese were defeated across the Pacific in a series of bloody battles, the most famous being Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The Japanese clung on to these islands because they were strategically important in the defence of the homeland. Once captured, they reduced the US Lines of Communication and allowed basing for an attack on the homeland. There was no retreat, and the Japanese were preparing a militia army to defend against an invasion that would have cost the US 500 000 - 1 000 000 casualties and brought more pain and suffering to Japanese civilians.

So questions to Jarrah, you would rather have seen the continued suffering of the Japanese people at the hands of an altruistic government and military rather than the speedy curtailing of the war? You would rather have seen the thousands of men and women in POW camps experience continued torture, starvation and worked to death rather than the speedy curtailing of the war? You would rather war raged in China, and the continued cost to its civilian populace rather than the speedy curtailing of the war? You would have preferred the continued destruction of Japanese cities by conventional means rather than the speedy curtailing of the war? You would rather have seen the death of more US military serviceman/women with pain and anguish brought upon their families rather than the speedy curtailing of the war? You would rather have run the risk that without the use of the bomb its use in the future would have been inevitable, a use which would have been catastrophic to the population of this world? Do you actually understand the wider strategic implications of WW2 and the fallout between the Soviet Union and USA, and maybe the use of the bomb was a means to an end? While I agree that the bomb was a terrible weapon, maybe the world would have been a worse place without its use? People are not making excuses for its use, most people abhor its use, but it may well have been the lesser of two evils, and the decision to drop it was considered very carefully. We will never know the answer to 'what if the bomb was not dropped on Japan?' While a terrible sacrifice for the peoples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it may have been worth paying. Yes, there is that debate, but it certainly was not a terrorist act when the correct context is considered and a proper historical analysis is applied. So, Jarrah can be offended and angry all he wants, but that's all it will ever be given he has no grasp of history, and by this I mean his ability to analyse historical events rather than churn out some Googled facts.

I would also like to add that the US, having learned from the Versailles Treaty, entered Japan and brought peace and prosperity to that nation with its program of reconciliation and regeneration. The US did not enter as conquerors, but showed considerable humility to the starving Japanese. People that were starving while their leaders who had brought Bushido fanaticism across the Pacific and Indo-China dined in comfort, vying for surrender terms to save face. Jarrah might wish to examine the oppression of the Japanese by their own leaders, and then maybe he'd see the true 'terrorists.' Were the US acting like terrorists during the post-war fallout, were they acting imperialistically like their Soviet counterparts, or were they trying to ensure a stable Pacific? The US actions post-war were about as far removed from terrorism as anyone can possibly imagine, the US wanted to end the war and restore peace to the world.

Finally, I almost choked when I heard Jarrah claim he got angry and offended by A-bomb apologists, yet in his comment section on the video he has allowed a few users to spew Holohoax nonsense. I don't see his rants about offence and anger over his subscribers making light of an event that brought terror and suffering to millions of people. He might also like to examine his friendship with Ralph Rene, a known Holocaust denier, anti-semite and racist (I have the proof). I for one would not allow myself to be friends with such people, so to sit there claiming offence and anger over apologies for the A-bombs while simultaneously allowing those that deny the suffering brought upon the people of Europe during the holocaust stinks of double standards. I suggest Jarrah applies his moral compass fairly and consistently, and he can begin by denouncing Ralph Rene (since Jarrah is keen on laying down the gauntlet) and his offensive views regarding the human extermination that took place during the holocaust.

As for Jarrah's challenge, if he wants to pay my expenses to Japan, I would go to Nagasaki and Hiroshima and present my thesis that the atomic bombs, while awful, may have been a necessary price to pay. That debate exists, but Jarrah chooses to take it out of context and apply emotive terms for his own means. Of course, I would rather go and discuss how the US, UK and Japan live in harmony now, and while a dark time for all nations, looking forward to the future and learning from the past offers a better future for the world. My point being is there is no need to revise history and point the finger so accusingly at one awful event amongst many. There has been much reconciliation for the dark days of 1939-45, and maybe Jarrah needs to take his blinkers off and see the forgiveness and acts of humility that have taken part between those that were there. It is rather predictable that he chooses to rage against something that he did not experience and clearly does not understand to support his anti-US wanabee agenda. Maybe he would actually find the real answers for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Tokyo, London, Coventry by discovering the true acts of humanism and forgiveness that have taken place since those awful days. Maybe the loss of the generation has given us hope for the future, and while terrible and an enormous sacrifice, the A-bombs have given us peace and stability. We will not truly know the answer to this, but Jarrah has shown once again that he has no understanding of the subject matter at the broader level.

Over to you Mr White :)

Title: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 10:30:28 AM
Apologies to resurrect what appears to be a finished thread, but I have been away for 4 weeks. While I have followed on Tapatalk, replying to topics on my Sony Xperia was slightly difficult.
Quote
Not at all when you present a valid and justifiable argument on either side of the question.
Quote

Paul Ham has written an excellent book called Hiroshima Nagasaki, and Jarrah would be advised to read it before producing his usual 'Yours, angry and annoyed, JW' tabloid style rant/video. Ham actually offers an argument that the bombs should not be dropped, but at no point eludes to their use being a terrorist act. In fact Ham examines both sides of the argument and explores the careful decision process that was undertaken before the decision to drop the bombs was made.

Jarrah produces the following strawman to attack: Those killed in 9-11 was far less than those in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The US calls 9-11 a terrorist attack, so the A-bombs should be called terrorist attacks.

Jarrah attacks this strawman by pleading a special case for the A-bombs based on the radiation they produce. I understand that A-bombs are dreadful weapons, but when Jarrah sets them apart from the rest of WW2 he discounts a very clear difference between 9-11 and August 1945 - The US had declared war on Japan following the attack on Pearl Harbour.
There are many aspects of life that Jarrah does not understand.
Quote

The A-bombings themselves were part of a wider strategic plan to bring Japan to its knees, Jarrah does not seem to grasp this point. By mid-1945, before the A-bombs were dropped, Curtis LeMay had informed the President that his bombers could lay waste to 60 Japanese cities using conventional explosives before the end of the year. The US had a stark choice to make, having seen the destruction of German cities they wanted to avoid the same in Japan. Mainly because they it would be more difficult to rebuild the country from nothing, but also the public and political perception that innocent civilians were being massacred by the aerial bombing campaign. The A-bombs may have been the lesser of two evils, and this consideration was part of the decision making process. Hardly a rash act of terrorism.

The use of casualties to define Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a terrorist attack is flawed given the narrative of World War 2. As others have pointed out, we could examine many events and claim terrorism based on a casualty metric. The Japanese atrocities in China, the German blitz, the actions of the SS on the Eastern Front, the US/UK bombing of German cities. To be brutally honest it was an horrific war and the inhumanity was unprecedented on the scale witnessed. The A-bombs in the context of total war casualties were insignificant, the A-bombs were significant in the dawn of global change that they ushered in, and this is where Jarrah does not understand history.

As others have raised, was Tokyo a terrorist attack, given that it killed many more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The US certainly knew that given its wooden buildings it would burn easily, and opted for incendiary bombs to raze Tokyo to the ground. Jarrah needs to read about the Tokyo bombings, along with Dresden, he would then realise that the pain and suffering meted out during those conventional bombing raids compares to that of the A-bombs. The A-bombs are not a special case of human suffering in the the context of WW2.

Further, the US had already begun dropping leaflets on Japanese cities to warn civilians to evacuate. So to claim that the US were atomic-terrorists is woefully incorrect. Jarrah also seems to ignore this fact to make his special plea.

He claims he gets angry and offended at the excuses made for the use of the A-bombs. There is certainly debate surrounding the use of the bombs, but to suggest that this amounts to excuses is wrong. The historical analysis for their use is complex and far reaching, and there are many commentaries that account for the post-war strategic position between the US and USSR. Most commentaries agree on the reasons for their use, but the bone of contention is whether the Japanese were ready to surrender. The main reasons offered,for their use:

(a) To force the Japanese into a surrender and reduce US casualties with a homeland invasion.
(b) To demonstrate the existence of the A-bomb to the Soviets and provide a future bargaining chip in post war agreements.
(c) To end the war early and prevent the Soviets entering the Pacific War.
(d) To examine the effects of A-bombs the populous of a city.
(e) To test effectiveness of the bomb for military operations.

Based on the evidence I have read (a), (b) and (c) were the main reasons given for the bombings. I agree, there is a bone of contention that Japan might have been suing for peace, but even then some Japanese leaders wanted conditions that were more favourable to them, some of the militarists did not want to surrender at all. Jarrah might wish to read about the code of the Bushido and how this cultural reference point transcended Japanese decision making and their war conduct. Maybe then he would realise his notion that the Japanese had retreated ready for surrender is flawed at many levels.

I must lay into Jarrah's claim that the Japanese had retreated back to the homeland and were ready to surrender. Really??? So, he wants to rewrite history. There was no retreat. Even the most precursory examination of World War 2 shows is lack of understanding. How he has reached a conclusion of retreat has perplexed me, and I have been checking my own understanding to make sure that I have not missed a fine detail. I have not. The Japanese were defeated across the Pacific in a series of bloody battles, the most famous being Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The Japanese clung on to these islands because they were strategically important in the defence of the homeland. Once captured, they reduced the US Lines of Communication and allowed basing for an attack on the homeland. There was no retreat, and the Japanese were preparing a militia army to defend against an invasion that would have cost the US UP TO 1 000 000 casualties and brought more pain and suffering to the Japanese civilians.

So questions to Jarrah, you would rather have seen the continued suffering of the Japanese people at the hands of an altruistic government and military rather than the speedy curtailing of the war? You would rather have seen the thousands of men and women in POW camps experience continued torture, starvation and worked to death rather than the speedy curtailing of the war? You would rather war raged in China, and the continued cost to the civilian populace rather than the speedy curtailing of the war? You would have preferred the continued destruction of Japanese cities by conventional means rather than the speedy curtailing of the war? Would you rather have seen the death of more US military serviceman/women with pain and anguish brought upon their families rather than the speedy curtailing of the war? You would rather have run the risk that without the use of the bomb its use in the future would have been inevitable, a use which would have been catastrophic to the population of this world? Do you actually understand the wider strategic implications of WW2 and the fallout between the Soviet Union and USA, and maybe the use of the bomb was a means to an end? While I agree that the bomb was a terrible weapon, maybe the world would have been a worse place without its use? People are not making excuses for its use, most people abhor its use, but it may well have been the lesser of two evils, and the decision to drop it was considered very carefully. We will never know the answer to 'what if it was not dropped on Japan?' and while a terrible sacrifice for the peoples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it may have been worth paying. Yes, there is that debate, but it certainly was not a terrorist act when the correct context is considered and a proper historical analysis is applied. So, Jarrah can be offended and angry all he wants, but that's all it will ever be given he has no grasp of history, and by this I mean his ability to analyse historical events rather than churn out some Googled facts.

I would also like to add that the US, having learned from the Versailles Treaty, entered Japan and brought peace and prosperity to that nation with its program of reconciliation and regeneration. The US did not enter as conquerors, but showed considerable humility to the starving Japanese. People that were starving while their leaders who had brought Bushido fanaticism across the Pacific and Indo-China dined in comfort, trying for surrender terms so they could save face. You might wish to examine the oppression of the Japanese by their own leaders Jarrah, and then maybe you'd being to see the true 'terrorists.' Were the US acting like terrorists during the post-war fallout, were they acting imperialistically like their Soviet counterparts, or were they trying to ensure a stable Pacific? The US actions post-war were about as far removed from terrorism as you can possibly imagine, the US wanted to end the war for and restore peace to the world.

Finally, I almost choked when I heard Jarrah claim he got angry and offended by A-bomb apologists, yet in his comment section on the video he has allowed a few users to spew Holohoax nonsense. I don't see his rants about offence and anger over his subscribers making light of an event that brought terror and suffering to millions of people. He might also like to examine his friendship with Ralph Rene, a known Holocaust denier, anti-semite and racist (I have the proof). I for one would not allow myself to be friends with such people, so to sit there claiming offence and anger over apologies for the A-bombs while simultaneously allowing those that deny the suffering brought upon the people of Europe during the holocaust stinks of double standards. I suggest Jarrah applies his moral compass fairly and consistently, and he can begin by denouncing Ralph Rene (since Jarrah is keen on laying down the gauntlet) and his offensive views regarding the human extermination that took place during the holocaust.
Nothing I have read about Rene leads me to believe he was an angry old crippled man that for lack of better statement "needed to show the establishment that he (Rene) had valid view points on many topics. Rather like boosting ones ego.

As for Jarrah's challenge, if he wants to pay my expenses to Japan, I would go to Nagasaki and Hiroshima and present my thesis that the atomic bombs, while awful, may have been a necessary price to pay. That debate exists, but Jarrah chooses to take it out of context and apply emotive terms for his own means. Of course, I would rather go and discuss how the US, UK and Japan live in harmony now, and while a dark time for all nations, looking forward to the future and learning from the past offers a better future for the world. My point being is there is no need to revise history and point the finger so accusingly at one awful event amongst many. There has been much reconciliation for the dark days of 1939-45, and maybe Jarrah needs to take his blinkers off and see the forgiveness and acts of humility that have taken part between those that were there. It is rather predictable that he chooses to rage against something that he did not experience and clearly does not understand to support his anti-US agenda.

Over to you Mr White :)
Very nice dissertation, but Jarrah probably won't view or see the realization that thought the A-bobs were  horrific they were a necessary part to the end of conflict in the Pacific War.  He seems to be on a un-American tread mill, unwilling to get off or at least slow down.  I don't know the video(s) he presented and I won't look at them as I think he has too much exposure.  After viewing his series on the Apollo 1 fire, I find he usually takes links out of context to support his view point.  That series rather disgusted me and will prevent any further support of his presentations.