The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

Discussion in 'History' started by mikegriffith1, Aug 10, 2019.

  1. mikegriffith1
    Offline

    mikegriffith1 Mike Griffith

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,496
    Thanks Received:
    1,424
    Trophy Points:
    350
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +5,844
    Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

    On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .

    On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki: ​

    "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)
    The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

    Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    185,788
    Thanks Received:
    27,216
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Ratings:
    +96,153
    I agree
    There was no need to attack a second city so soon. Japan should have been told we have dozens of more bombs and were prepared to use them.

    While Hiroshima could be justified (did we need to demonstrate on such a populated target?). Nagasaki was not necessary
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. sparky
    Offline

    sparky Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    11,320
    Thanks Received:
    1,122
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    paradise
    Ratings:
    +5,206
    Truman was the only real advocate. Stimson (sec of war) , along with the majority of top generals saw no need, nor any ending utilizing the bomb.

    The real negotiation card was the Russians , Manchuria , the underlying economic inevitability , least of all the public execution of the emperor , which would have been (at the time) akin to crucifying Christ in our culture.

    ~S~
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. candycorn
    Offline

    candycorn Alis volat propriis

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    54,775
    Thanks Received:
    6,216
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +23,367
    Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
     
    • Winner Winner x 9
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  5. JoeB131
    Offline

    JoeB131 Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    110,962
    Thanks Received:
    9,174
    Trophy Points:
    2,055
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +28,395
    Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

    Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

    It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. mudwhistle
    Offline

    mudwhistle Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    86,908
    Thanks Received:
    16,078
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Clarksville, TN...Born in Missoula MT
    Ratings:
    +52,440
    Hey. I've read books on the subject. Nagasaki was deemed necessary to convince the Japanese that we had more than one bomb. At the time, the Japanese military establishment was telling everyone that we only had one bomb and that Hiroshima was just something to remember like "Remember the Alamo". They were still dead-set on continuing the war. The primary reason is they couldn't stomach defeat. Defeat to them means suicide. So we had to drop another one to crush their hopes. The result was the end of a war and the end of the bloodshed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2019
  7. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    185,788
    Thanks Received:
    27,216
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Ratings:
    +96,153
    It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not

    Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
    Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?

    Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. sparky
    Offline

    sparky Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    11,320
    Thanks Received:
    1,122
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    paradise
    Ratings:
    +5,206
    Actually Truman's own cabinet publicly stated the bomb would put us on par with the German genocide at the time, and the dept of defense stifled all Truman's top generals , insisting all comments be vetted first

    Further, the 'it would have saved millions' canard started out far less in #'s, grew due to historic revisionists who supported Truman , as opposed to all his generals

    ~S~
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. sparky
    Offline

    sparky Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    11,320
    Thanks Received:
    1,122
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    paradise
    Ratings:
    +5,206
    nope

    they knew they were done, and were negotiating

    the Russians were a huge part of that

    ~S~
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  10. JoeB131
    Offline

    JoeB131 Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    110,962
    Thanks Received:
    9,174
    Trophy Points:
    2,055
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +28,395
    The Japanese were not dead set on continuing the war, In fact, they were seeking peace negotiations through the Swiss and the Soviets.

    The real game changer was the USSR entering the war. It opened a whole new front and hundreds of battle hardened divisions, with the potential of Japan itself being partitioned like Germany was.

    The other key thing was that the US had dropped it's insistence that Hirohito had to abdicate AFTER the Soviets got into it.

    .
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1

Share This Page