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

[Open Bolt]

The victors write the history books.

Who wrote "Japan's Longest Day"?

It's easy to find evidence that the Japanese were so desperate for reasonable surrender terms that they went to Stalin.

Japan already had reasonable surrender terms. That's what the Potsdam Proclamation was.

"Give 'em Hell Harry" refused to even send an envoy.

There was nothing for him to send an envoy to,

The hangup in the FDR doctrine of "unconditional surrender" was the Japanese Emperor. The Japanese holdouts wanted to keep the Emperor from being executed but Truman refused to consider it.

That is incorrect. Mr. Truman did consider it.

Ironically the Emperor's life was spared after Truman authorized the incineration of a million Japanese civilians.

That's not really irony. Japan was free to surrender on the same terms before the atomic bombs were dropped.

God help us but the only nuclear attack in history is on the soul of America.

That's something for America to be proud of.

Wouldn't a "cease fire" be good enough to prevent the innocent citizens of two cities from becoming the victims of the horrors of the worst nightmare in the 20th century and beyond?

No. Japan had only two options: surrender or extermination. We'd have been okay with whichever of those two options they chose.

The dirty little secret is that the egg heads who developed the monstrosity were desperate to see how effective it would be on humans and the Japanese were the likely targets and little timid dumb Harry Truman was the ideal guy to sign the order.

Completely untrue. The scientists opposed using the nukes against Japan, and they were not given any opportunity to express their views to the President.

 

[rightwinger]

It would have been necessary had Japan still kept refusing to surrender despite us nuking them.

But in retrospect, we know they didn’t keep refusing after we nuked them

We only gave them three days before we dropped the second bomb.

What if after Hiroshima we told them they had ten days to surrender or we would drop a bomb a week?

 

[elektra]

We only gave them three days before we dropped the second bomb.

What if after Hiroshima we told them they had ten days to surrender or we would drop a bomb a week?

Hundreds of prisoners held by the Japanese would of died each additional day. A japanese submarine would of sunk another Indianapolis killing another 900 sailors. In Burma and across French IndoChina the Japanese would of destroyed more towns.

 

[Rigby5]

Sure they can. And the arguments are hardly labored or embarrassing.

Japan had not surrendered yet. Therefore we had every right to keep attacking them. And Nagasaki was a military target just like Hiroshima.



Japan shouldn't have provoked us into nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



He knew no such thing. The Japanese diplomatic cables provided no such assurances.



The fact that Japan could not even come to agreement on how many terms to ask of us was rather a snag.



Mr. Truman got lots of conflicting advice on that matter.



Mr. Truman also knew about Japan's massive buildup of troops to repel our coming invasion.



Japan still had the ability to mount a withering defense when we invaded.



Not terribly relevant considering that these people did not control the government of Japan.



Not really. Japan had no intention of pursuing any alternatives so long as they had hopes of Soviet mediation.



No, there is nothing true about that. There was no such evidence.

Who wrote "Japan's Longest Day"?



Japan already had reasonable surrender terms. That's what the Potsdam Proclamation was.



There was nothing for him to send an envoy to,



That is incorrect. Mr. Truman did consider it.



That's not really irony. Japan was free to surrender on the same terms before the atomic bombs were dropped.



That's something for America to be proud of.



No. Japan had only two options: surrender or extermination. We'd have been okay with whichever of those two options they chose.



Completely untrue. The scientists opposed using the nukes against Japan, and they were not given any opportunity to express their views to the President.

Wrong,
Japan HAD been trying to surrender for over 6 months, but Truman deliberately pretended to not understand them.
They thought they had made it clear they HAD surrendered.
Neither Nagasaki nor Hiroshima were valid military targets.
There was minimal weapons production, and that was in deep tunnels, so unaffected by the nuclear attacks.
Japan did nothing to provoke anything.
Pearl Harbor was provoked by the illegal economic embargoes by the US.
There were no direct diplomatic cables possible, and the desire to surrender was sent through Russia.
Japan never asked for anything except the security of the Emperor.
A build up of Jap troops was impossible, since there was no new sources, and most troops were stuck on various islands.
Japan had zero defense left because they had no oil, planes, or pilots.
The Japanese feared Soviet invasion, not hope of mediation.

Oppenheimer was against using the nukes but Teller was in favor of testing them on the Japanese.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Wrong,
Japan HAD been trying to surrender for over 6 months, but Truman deliberately pretended to not understand them.
They thought they had made it clear they HAD surrendered.
Neither Nagasaki nor Hiroshima were valid military targets.
There was minimal weapons production, and that was in deep tunnels, so unaffected by the nuclear attacks.
Japan did nothing to provoke anything.
Pearl Harbor was provoked by the illegal economic embargoes by the US.
There were no direct diplomatic cables possible, and the desire to surrender was sent through Russia.
Japan never asked for anything except the security of the Emperor.
A build up of Jap troops was impossible, since there was no new sources, and most troops were stuck on various islands.
Japan had zero defense left because they had no oil, planes, or pilots.
The Japanese feared Soviet invasion, not hope of mediation.

Oppenheimer was against using the nukes but Teller was in favor of testing them on the Japanese.

Why do you hate America?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nonsense.

Look it up. 2 differnt bombs detonated on ground and in the air

 

[Rigby5]

Hundreds of prisoners held by the Japanese would of died each additional day. A japanese submarine would of sunk another Indianapolis killing another 900 sailors. In Burma and across French IndoChina the Japanese would of destroyed more towns.

Wrong.
Prisoners were not being abused.
The Indianapolis was a fluke, and only caused deaths because of secrecy.
Aggression had ended in Burma/IndoChina, over a year before.

 

[Rigby5]

Why do you hate America?

Because the US murders more people than anyone.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Wrong.
Prisoners were not being abused.
The Indianapolis was a fluke, and only caused deaths because of secrecy.
Aggression had ended in Burma/IndoChina, over a year before.

Your relationship with facts appears to be only tangential.

 

[Mushroom]

Of course, 1980 was 41 years ago. But dumb shit here can't even follow the conversation. He thinks the discussion was still about the bombing when it had morphed into "proliferation"

Actually, it was a big freaking deal 40 years ago.

India had nukes, and Pakistan was trying hard to make their own. There had been almost constant fighting between the two since the two nations were founded, and it was a major concern at the time.

And exactly 40 years ago (1982) the world was watching Brazil closely. They had bought enriched uranium from China, and had both a nuclear weapon and a missile program in progress.

Egypt was also being watched closely, as they had a nuclear reactor capable of enriching uranium, that was built by the Soviet Union. And they refused to sign the NPT until 1981.

Then there is Iraq, which in 1981 had their breeder reactor destroyed by Israel. That actually caused Saddam to scale back their nuclear weapon program.

And in 1980-1981 there was rampant speculation that South Africa was making nukes (which they were).

And since the end of the "Two China Policy", Taiwan was trying to develop them for years. This was actually part of talks often in the 1980s, as restoring that policy would ease Taiwan's fears so they would not need nukes.

I can only assume you were not alive then, as I am more than aware of all of these cases. Proliferation was a huge deal in the late 1970's and early 1980s. As a lot of the techniques by then had been leaked, and equipment was now available on the open market that could be used to refine uranium into weapons grade material.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Because the US murders more people than anyone.

That's a false statement. Fail harder.

 

[elektra]

Wrong.
Prisoners were not being abused.
The Indianapolis was a fluke, and only caused deaths because of secrecy.
Aggression had ended in Burma/IndoChina, over a year before.

prisoners were murdered, tortured, and starved, well documented

The indianapolis was targeted and sunk, which had nothing to do with the secrecy. Everything else is speculation in the face of history.

Aggression? The japanese were at war, actively attacking towns, terrorizing the people, to include raping women and children. Thank you for allowing me to clarify that.

All documented.

 

[Mushroom]

Truman wanted to test to see which was more lethal: uranium bomb at ground level (Hiroshima) or plutonium bomb as an air burst (Nagasaki)

Nonsense. We already knew that, the only question was if an implosion plutonium bomb would even work. That was the very reason for the Trinity test.

A uranium gun device was known to work, the science behind that was simple and easily tested. But plutonium was a bit of a wild card, as theoretically it should work but there was no way to be positive until it was actually tested.

Oh, and Hiroshima was also an air burst. It was supposed to go off between 1,800 and 2,000 feet. But we now know from blast data the actual altitude was 600 feet. But it was not, and was never intended to be a "ground level" detonation.

 

[Mushroom]

You don't think anyone noticed the largest bomb test to have ever taken place?

No, they did not. For several reasons.

First, it was in the middle of the New Mexico desert. At a military test range, where large explosions were conducted all the time. Hell, just two months before they conducted the 100 ton test. A detonation of 100 tons of TNT to calibrate their equipment. And not a thing was noticed.

Alamogordo, N.M., July 16 The commanding officer of the Alamogordo Army Air Base made the following statement today: "Several inquiries have been received concerning a heavy explosion which occurred on the Alamogordo Air base reservation this morning. A remotely located ammunition magazine containing a considerable amount of high explosives and pyrotechnics exploded. There was no loss of life or injury to anyone, and the property damage outside of the explosives magazine was negligible. Weather conditions affecting the content of gas shells exploded by the blast may make it desirable for the Army to evacuate temporarily a few civilians from their homes."

Article clipped from Clovis News-Journal

Clipping found in Clovis News-Journal published in Clovis, New Mexico on 7/16/1945.

www.newspapers.com

And in the year or so prior there had been many munitions explosions. One near the Benicia Naval Weapon Station involved over 4,000 tons of high explosives. And also in 1944 was the detonation during resupply mission at New Guinea of the USS Mount Hood, where almost 4,000 tons of high explosives detonated. Where over 50 ships and boats were destroyed or damaged, and almost 500 killed.

Sadly, such accidents were all too common during the war. SO the military saying that they had a bunker explosion, the people would have just shrugged, as that was not all that uncommon.

 

[Mushroom]

But in retrospect, we know they didn’t keep refusing after we nuked them

Actually, they did. Look into the discussion of the War Council. The final decision was not made until the early morning of 14 August, 8 days after the first bomb was dropped.

 

[Mushroom]

Look it up. 2 differnt bombs detonated on ground and in the air

No, two airbursts.

The locations of the canisters relative to data. The historical records 26 of the mission by the Army Air Corps, the operational group formed both incomplete and inconsistent. For example, the burst have been elusive the 509th Composite Group of to deliver the weapons, are the crew members” logs, in particular included. mission in those of the bombardiers, and the debriefing notes are not A crucial fact, the aircraft altitude, is given for the Hiroshima the strike report26 as 30 200 ft, in the historical narrative 26 as 31 600 ft, and in Parsons- loglo as 32 700 ft. Upon discovery of the navigator-s log on the inside covers of Marx-s book,16 many of the inconsistencies were resolved: the true altitude is given there as 31 060 ft, possibly a transposition. Correction of the indicated pressure altitude gives a value of 32 200 ft, in reasonable agreement with Parsons” log or the 31 600 ft. An interview by J. A. Auxier and L. J. Deal with General Sweeney (then Major), who piloted the instrumentation aircraft from which the canisters were dropped, resolved the problem of the aircraft spacing in the formation.* Uncertainties which still remain include the time from “bomb away” or release tone to parachute deployment, the true altitude, and the gage calibrations. A summary of the missions is given in Tables I and II.

https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/publications/LANLHiroshimaNagasakiYields.pdf

 

[gipper]

Sure they can. And the arguments are hardly labored or embarrassing.

Japan had not surrendered yet. Therefore we had every right to keep attacking them. And Nagasaki was a military target just like Hiroshima.



Japan shouldn't have provoked us into nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



He knew no such thing. The Japanese diplomatic cables provided no such assurances.



The fact that Japan could not even come to agreement on how many terms to ask of us was rather a snag.



Mr. Truman got lots of conflicting advice on that matter.



Mr. Truman also knew about Japan's massive buildup of troops to repel our coming invasion.



Japan still had the ability to mount a withering defense when we invaded.



Not terribly relevant considering that these people did not control the government of Japan.



Not really. Japan had no intention of pursuing any alternatives so long as they had hopes of Soviet mediation.



No, there is nothing true about that. There was no such evidence.

Hilarious.

 

[elektra]

Wrong,
Japan HAD been trying to surrender for over 6 months, but Truman deliberately pretended to not understand them.
They thought they had made it clear they HAD surrendered.
Neither Nagasaki nor Hiroshima were valid military targets.
There was minimal weapons production, and that was in deep tunnels, so unaffected by the nuclear attacks.
Japan did nothing to provoke anything.
Pearl Harbor was provoked by the illegal economic embargoes by the US.
There were no direct diplomatic cables possible, and the desire to surrender was sent through Russia.
Japan never asked for anything except the security of the Emperor.
A build up of Jap troops was impossible, since there was no new sources, and most troops were stuck on various islands.
Japan had zero defense left because they had no oil, planes, or pilots.
The Japanese feared Soviet invasion, not hope of mediation.

Oppenheimer was against using the nukes but Teller was in favor of testing them on the Japanese.

yet, here we are, with facts

WW2's Last Dogfight – Meet the Pilots Who Fought a Deadly Air Duel Over Tokyo the Day Japan Surrendered - MilitaryHistoryNow.com

Four Grumman Hellcats from the USS Yorktown were in the air near Tokyo when word of Japan's surrender was announced on Aug. 15, 1945. Moments later, the flight would find itself in a furious dogfight against 20 enemy warplanes.

militaryhistorynow.com

FEW HISTORY BOOKS mention the names Billy Hobbs, Eugene Mandeberg, Howard “Howdy” Harrison and Joseph Sahloff. Yet, these four American naval pilots earned themselves a grim place in the annals of the Second World War: All were shot down in a fierce dogfight that raged over the Japan on Aug. 15, 1945 – mere hours after Emperor Hirohito had announced his country’s unconditional surrender.


My most recent book, Dogfight over Tokyo, tells the story of these four men, the last Americans to die in combat in World War Two.

 

[gipper]

Why do you hate America?

The truth is not hate dumb ass.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, two airbursts.

https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/publications/LANLHiroshimaNagasakiYields.pdf

When I visited West Point decades ago, they had a display case about the atomic bombings and they were uranium and plutonium; the first on the ground, the second in the air. I never forget that BECAUSE it sure looked like we were conducting experiments in lethality.

Maybe the story's changed since then, but what can you trust from a government of lies, Lies and LIES?