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

[Mac-7]

That is about as convoluted as you can get. We'll save your life by killing you. LMAO, do you think before you post? Reminds me of what we said about an old recruiting ad--Join the Navy, see the world, meet new people----and kill them.

On every japanese held island the US invaded more japanese than Americens were killed

often by a ratio of 10 to 1

and estimates of US deaths invading Japan were hundreds of thousands

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So Hiroshima city hall (the target) is a port now?

look dumb ass it was the headquarters of an entire ARMY

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Simply NOT TRUE. The headquarters for defense of the Island was there. Further it had a manufacturing source,

LOL talk about ignoring facts Poop boy disagrees with this statement.

 

[Concerned American]

On every japanese held island the US invaded more japanese than Americens were killed

often by a ratio of 10 to 1

and estimates of US deaths invading Japan were hundreds of thousands

Your argument would be valid if this had happened in 42 or 43 or 44, but it happened in 45 after all of those island campaigns were completed and Japan was on its knees. It is well known through any history book that Japan was on the verge of surrender in Aug. of 1945.

 

[Mac-7]

Your argument would be valid if this had happened in 42 or 43 or 44, but it happened in 45 after all of those island campaigns were completed and Japan was on its knees. It is well known through any history book that Japan was on the verge of surrender in Aug. of 1945.

That may what revisionist lib historians choose to believe 75 years later

but someone forgot to tell the japanese

they were willing to fight to the last man, woman and child if Hirohito told them to

and he didnt say otherwise till after the atomic bombs fell

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your argument would be valid if this had happened in 42 or 43 or 44, but it happened in 45 after all of those island campaigns were completed and Japan was on its knees. It is well known through any history book that Japan was on the verge of surrender in Aug. of 1945.

No it is not ALL the Government of Japan ever offered was a ceasefire return to 41 start lines.

 

[Concerned American]

look dumb ass it was the headquarters of an entire ARMY

No sense in getting testy, gunny. Again--the target was not the military base, it was the T-bridge at city hall. That was a civilian target. The point of the matter remains, it was an overkill that gave great insight to the use of the bomb. It doesn't remove the fact that it was unnecessary. As I said in a previous post, second guessing 75 years later does no good for anyone. War sucks, there are winners and losers in any conflict. It sucked to be Japan in Aug. 1945.

 

[Concerned American]

That may what revisionist lib historians choose to believe 75 years later

It is not revisionist, nor lib. It is a fact. Read Hiroshima by John Hershey. He was on the ground in Hiroshima while the ashes were still warm. I think you are taking this way too personally and you are either misinterpreting or not reading my previous posts.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is not revisionist, nor lib. It is a fact. Read Hiroshima by John Hershey. He was on the ground in Hiroshima while the ashes were still warm. I think you are taking this way too personally and you are either misinterpreting or not reading my previous posts.

No one till the 70's started claiming the Japanese were trying to surrender. THE FACT is they never tried ALL they EVER offered was a return to 41 start lines everywhere but China and a cease fire.

 

[Concerned American]

No one till the 70's started claiming the Japanese were trying to surrender.

Hiroshima, John Hershey published 1946.

 

[Mac-7]

It is not revisionist, nor lib. It is a fact. Read Hiroshima by John Hershey. He was on the ground in Hiroshima while the ashes were still warm. I think you are taking this way too personally and you are either misinterpreting or not reading my previous posts.

I should take it personally because my father was part of the invasion force that was spared by the atomic bomb

if he didnt make it I would not be here today

there are always dissenting opinions and Hiroshima is no exception

 

[Concerned American]

I should take it personally because my father was part of the invasion force that was spared by the atomic bomb

if he didnt make it I would not be here today

there are always dissenting opinions and Hiroshima is no exception

My dad was part of the occupation forces in 1950-1952. I was born in Tokyo Army Hospital in Aug. 1951 and I returned 19 years later as a Marine stationed 30 miles south of Hiroshima at MCAS Iwakuni. I think I might have a bit of personal knowledge of the events. When were you there?

 

[Mac-7]

Hiroshima, John Hershey

I looked up summaries of the book and did not find any criticism of the decision

My dad was part of the occupation forces in 1950-1952. I was born in Tokyo Army Hospital in Aug. 1951 and I returned 19 years later as a Marine stationed 30 miles south of Hiroshima at MCAS Iwakuni. I think I might have a bit of personal knowledge of the events. When were you there?

I have never been to japan

but neither were you there in 1945 so you are no authority based on personal experience either

 

[there4eyeM]

Given what was going on at the time of WWII, it is not surprising the bombs were used as they were.
They could have been used otherwise to perhaps greater advantage.
Given how we see things today, it is not surprising that dropping the bombs is criticized.

 

[Concerned American]

I looked up summaries of the book and did not find any criticism of the decision

I have never been to japan

but neither were you there in 1945 so you are no authority based on personal experience either

Summaries are not the whole book. Every historical account of anything has criticisms. As for being there in 1945, I have spent weeks in Hiroshima and done quite a bit of study on the event. Criticisms 75 years later are second guessing. The facts are what they are. Two A bombs were dropped. Was it necessary? Probably not. To blindly insist that Truman was 100% correct in his decision is naive at best. Again war is hell and it sucked to be a Japanese civilian on those days.

 

[Mac-7]

My dad was part of the occupation forces in 1950-1952. I was born in Tokyo Army Hospital in Aug. 1951 and I returned 19 years later as a Marine stationed 30 miles south of Hiroshima at MCAS Iwakuni. I think I might have a bit of personal knowledge of the events. When were you there?

I had a friend in school whose mother was japanese

in every way he was every bit as American as i was or anyone else

or so I thought till one night we were all getting drunk on draft beer at the pizza place and talking history

after awhile he got really serious and said
“You know, we could have won that damn war”

Me and the 3rd drunk looked at each other and said

“I thought we did win!”

 

[Mac-7]

Summaries are not the whole book. Every historical account of anything has criticisms. As for being there in 1945, I have spent weeks in Hiroshima and done quite a bit of study on the event. Criticisms 75 years later are second guessing. The facts are what they are. Two A bombs were dropped. Was it necessary? Probably not. To blindly insist that Truman was 100% correct in his decision is naive at best. Again war is hell and it sucked to be a Japanese civilian on those days.

I didnt say the criticism didnt exist

but I cant comment on what I didnt see

 

[Open Bolt]

They could have been used otherwise to perhaps greater advantage.

It's hard to see how. The Hiroshima bombing was nearly perfect.

Given how we see things today, it is not surprising that dropping the bombs is criticized.

The left should be ashamed of the way they always deny history.

 

[Open Bolt]

There was no strategic reason for dropping either bomb.

That is incorrect. Japan was still refusing to surrender.

The US had the opportunity to test the bomb under real world circumstances

The atomic bombs were already tested at that point. Trinity proved them.

and determine the long term effects on humans.

This was already understood.

Nagasaki was just a continuation of the test.

Nagasaki was because Japan was still refusing to surrender.

The bombs used were of different configurations. "Fat Boy" and "Little Man" One bomb was bulbular while the other was long and narrow.

They didn't have time to recast the uranium in Little Boy into implosion cores.

I would be interested in knowing which one was more effective if anyone has any research that has been made public.

Implosion is far superior.

The world knew that Japanese were defeated and the Diet was in session considering terms of surrender when the first bomb was dropped.

That is incorrect. Japan did not contemplate surrendering until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

Bottom line. It was a weapon that needed to be tested and demonstrated.

The testing was already done.

Demonstration to the world was necessary of course, but the reason why the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan instead of somewhere else was because Japan was still refusing to surrender.

Second guessing 75 years later is useless. War is hell. If you don't want the atrocities of war--quit fighting.

Agreed.

Hiroshima was not a military target.

That is incorrect. Hiroshima was a large military center with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers and was the headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion of Japan.

Ground zero was 60' above Hiroshima city hall, "The T bridge." Pearl Harbor was a military base. However, Pearl Harbor WAS a peace time sneak attack and was reprehensible.

Agreed.

Bombing a civilian population center with an atomic bomb was also reprehensible--War is hell.

That's why we dropped the atomic bombs on military targets.

By that logic, Seattle and SF and San Diego are fair targets, eh?

None of them have the concentration of military forces that Hiroshima did.

Norfolk Virginia is much more comparable to WWII Hiroshima.

So Hiroshima city hall (the target) is a port now?

Hiroshima was Japan's primary military port. The city hall was not the target.

Your argument would be valid if this had happened in 42 or 43 or 44, but it happened in 45 after all of those island campaigns were completed and Japan was on its knees.

Japan was not on their knees and the island campaigns were not completed. There were still two million Japanese soldiers and ten thousand kamikazes waiting for us in Japan.

It is well known through any history book that Japan was on the verge of surrender in Aug. of 1945.

They were free to surrender any time they wanted. Japan chose to wait until we nuked them twice.

They were smart enough to surrender before we nuked them a third time though.

Again--the target was not the military base, it was the T-bridge at city hall. That was a civilian target.

The T-shaped bridge was not the aimpoint because it was the target. It was the aimpoint because it was easily identifiable from the air and was near where they wanted the atomic bomb to explode.

The point of the atomic bomb was not to try to destroy that bridge. The target was the military headquarters and all of the soldiers in the city.

The point of the matter remains, it was an overkill that gave great insight to the use of the bomb.

The point is wrong on both counts. We already understood how to use atomic bombs.

It was hardly overkill. The destruction was quite appropriate.

It doesn't remove the fact that it was unnecessary.

If that is a fact, it is an irrelevant one. Japan was still refusing to surrender, so we had every right to keep attacking them.

As I said in a previous post, second guessing 75 years later does no good for anyone. War sucks, there are winners and losers in any conflict. It sucked to be Japan in Aug. 1945.

Maybe Japan shouldn't have been inflicting a reign of terror on the rest of the world.

Summaries are not the whole book.

From what I recall, all the book did was recount the experiences of atomic bomb survivors.

It is hard to see how that would be relevant to anything.

As for being there in 1945, I have spent weeks in Hiroshima and done quite a bit of study on the event. Criticisms 75 years later are second guessing. The facts are what they are. Two A bombs were dropped. Was it necessary? Probably not. To blindly insist that Truman was 100% correct in his decision is naive at best.

Not given the fact that he was 100% correct.

Without the example of Hiroshima, the US and USSR would not have been deterred from nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Again war is hell and it sucked to be a Japanese civilian on those days.

The soldiers didn't fare well either.

 

[Flash]

On every japanese held island the US invaded more japanese than Americens were killed

often by a ratio of 10 to 1

and estimates of US deaths invading Japan were hundreds of thousands

The problem the Japs had was that they treated their entire Army like the US Marine Corps.

They were taught that every man was rifleman and their mission was to engage the enemy and kill them

That is great but it is not trigger pullers that win extended wars but logistics. For instance, at any one time only about one in three Jap aircraft were operational because they did not have strong spare parts supply lines and mechanics to do the work.

The US beat them with logistics that included developing the atom bombs and effectively deploying them.

The atom bomb technology was war efficiency at its best. Two bombs - Boom, Boom- war over.