Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
The question is....Did we need to kill 150,000 civilians in order to get Japan to surrender ?
with that post, you prove you are very ignorant of the subjectWhatever 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.
it seems (unsurprisingly) that conservatives miss the main point.
it was IMMORAL to nuke a city.
period.
you nuke a military target....like an army or a navy....
NOT a city.
If the point was to get japan to surrender then wouldn't they surrender just as fast if they lost an army to a nuke?
'''or navy''' hahahahhahahahahWhatever 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.
it seems (unsurprisingly) that conservatives miss the main point.
it was IMMORAL to nuke a city.
period.
you nuke a military target....like an army or a navy....
NOT a city.
If the point was to get japan to surrender then wouldn't they surrender just as fast if they lost an army to a nuke?
We had a bombno surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and NagasakiWhy?we've been over this a million times
it was necessary -- plain and simple
What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
......for the millionth time--even after the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??
and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
The question is....Did we need to kill 150,000 civilians in order to get Japan to surrender ?
Irrelevant. In my mind it would have been acceptable to nuke every moderate or larger sized city in Japan as punishment for Pearl Harbor and their atrocities.
what do you not understand?We had a bombno surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and NagasakiWhy?we've been over this a million times
it was necessary -- plain and simple
What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
......for the millionth time--even after the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??
and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
Nobody else did
There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
you prove ignorant of the subject-----they had NO navyThe question is....Did we need to kill 150,000 civilians in order to get Japan to surrender ?
Irrelevant. In my mind it would have been acceptable to nuke every moderate or larger sized city in Japan as punishment for Pearl Harbor and their atrocities.
yes
that is your opinion
because you are a conservative
you have no empathy and you demand total destruction as payback....
you don't care that the people you are slaughtering are really no different than you.
they didn't start the war
they probably didn't want the war
and if they supported it they did so out of patriotic duty the way you would
so if we didn't invade--they would not surrenderWe had a bombno surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and NagasakiWhy?we've been over this a million times
it was necessary -- plain and simple
What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
......for the millionth time--even after the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??
and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
Nobody else did
There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
you must be a conservative.
you missed the actual point completely....
let me explain more:We had a bombno surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and NagasakiWhy?we've been over this a million times
it was necessary -- plain and simple
What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
......for the millionth time--even after the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??
and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
Nobody else did
There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
Irrelevant
The Soviets were not in very good shape militarily. They had lost millions of troops, supplies and logistics were a mess. Turning around and opening a new front was not going to happen overnight.
There were plenty of targetswhat do you not understand?We had a bombno surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and NagasakiWhy?we've been over this a million times
it was necessary -- plain and simple
What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
......for the millionth time--even after the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??
and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
Nobody else did
There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
we destroyed all of their major cities
and they were NOT surrendering
there--in big black letters
also---Germany was NOT surrendering UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
they were NOT surrendering
please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
Yes, and the name is books. I do not post my opinion.Finally...we found an adult from 1945.
The Soviets could have hit Manchuria whether or not we had nuked JapanIrrelevant
The Soviets were not in very good shape militarily. They had lost millions of troops, supplies and logistics were a mess. Turning around and opening a new front was not going to happen overnight.
again, read about the Soviet campaign in Manchuria in August 1945. They made short work of the Kwantung Army.
yes
that is your opinion
because you are a conservative
you have no empathy and you demand total destruction as payback....
you don't care that the people you are slaughtering are really no different than you.
they didn't start the war
they probably didn't want the war
and if they supported it they did so out of patriotic duty the way you would
let me explain more:We had a bombno surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and NagasakiWhy?we've been over this a million times
it was necessary -- plain and simple
What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
......for the millionth time--even after the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??
and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
Nobody else did
There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
....we had already killed hundreds of thousands and destroyed their cities with conventional bombs--and they were not surrendering -----
Their entire population was in Germany and PolandThe Soviets could have hit Manchuria whether or not we had nuked JapanIrrelevant
The Soviets were not in very good shape militarily. They had lost millions of troops, supplies and logistics were a mess. Turning around and opening a new front was not going to happen overnight.
again, read about the Soviet campaign in Manchuria in August 1945. They made short work of the Kwantung Army.
Nope, there were only the effective targets. There was no guarantee the bomb would of worked, anywhere. Had it failed, then what? What if Japan did not believe the documentation. Then a bomb in which we only had two is lost. Another 30 days? While we are winning? In a fight, or war, you never stop until defeat is achieved. Too much can go wrong.There were plenty of targets
We could have chose a military target on a remote island. Completely obliterated it and documented the results. Allow Japan to evaluate what had happened and give them thirty days to unconditionally surrender.
Terms are....next one hits Tokyo
In reaching these conclusions the Interim Committee carefully considered such alternatives as a detailed advance warning or a demonstration in some uninhabited area. Both of these suggestions were discarded as impractical. They were not regarded as likely to be effective in compelling a surrender of Japan, and both of them involved serious risks. Even the New Mexico test would not give final proof that any given bomb was certain to explode when dropped from an airplane. Quite apart from the generally unfamiliar nature of atomic explosives, there was the whole problem of exploding a bomb at a predetermined height in the air by a complicated mechanism which could not be tested in the static test of New Mexico. Nothing would have been more damaging to our effort to obtain surrender than a warningor a demonstration followed by a dud––and this was a real possibility. Furthermore, we had no bombs to waste. It was vital that a sufficient effect be quickly obtained with the few we had
Wow, the myths being rolled out here are unreal. A few points:
* Anyone who thinks Japan's move in China was pure aggression has only read one side of the story.
* Japanese rule in Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria, etc., was mild compared to Chinese Communist rule, Soviet rule, and Nazi rule.
* WEEKS before Hiroshima, we knew--we absolutely knew--from numerous Japanese intercepts and human sources that Japan's civilian leaders, including the emperor, and even many senior military leaders, were willing to surrender if we would just clarify the "unconditional surrender" terms to stipulate that the emperor would not be deposed in such a surrender.
* Instead, Truman seemed intent on doing all he could to help the Japanese hardliners who were opposing surrender, at every single turn.
* Truth be told, we ignored the clear evidence that Japan was willing to surrender weeks earlier on acceptable terms because many folks in our government were determined to test the atomic bomb on live targets in Japan. That is the shameful truth.
