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

LuckyDuck

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
3,493
Reaction score
669
Points
195
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 military, knowing how tough the battling was on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, didn't want to shed thousands more troops on mainland Japan, so Truman gave the greenlight to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while the US could have delayed an actual invasion of mainland Japan for several days, it did mean more fighting in the meantime. The first detonation was definitely warranted, although, if I were the president at the time, I would have insisted that they drop the first bomb on the largest military command that was still functioning and wait. Then, if after two weeks, no word of surrender came, I'd have given the word to drop it on Tokyo to get their attention.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
121,049
Reaction score
10,823
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
No many Americans and thats all that counted at the time

we had already taken okinawa and were transporting soldiers from europe to the pacific

the invasion would have caused more deaths, American and japanese, than the atomic bombs killed
Again, the Atomic bombs didn't make Japan surrender, Russia's entry into the war did.
 

Mac-7

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
3,106
Points
290
No many Americans and thats all that counted at the time

we had already taken okinawa and were transporting soldiers from europe to the pacific

the invasion would have caused more deaths, American and japanese, than the atomic bombs killed
Again, the Atomic bombs didn't make Japan surrender, Russia's entry into the war did.
you are mistaken

it was the bomb that finally shocked hirohito enough to overrule his military government that want to fight to thevdeath
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
121,049
Reaction score
10,823
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
you are mistaken

it was the bomb that finally shocked hirohito enough to overrule his military government that want to fight to thevdeath
No, it really wasn't. We had already bombed the snot out of Tokyo, killing far more people than we had killed at Hiroshima.

What changed his mind was that with the USSR entering the war, they didn't want "North Japan" like "East Germany". They heard the stories how the Russians were raping the shit out of the German women, and they really didn't want the Russians doing that to THEIR women.
 

Mac-7

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
3,106
Points
290
you are mistaken

it was the bomb that finally shocked hirohito enough to overrule his military government that want to fight to thevdeath
No, it really wasn't. We had already bombed the snot out of Tokyo, killing far more people than we had killed at Hiroshima.

What changed his mind was that with the USSR entering the war, they didn't want "North Japan" like "East Germany". They heard the stories how the Russians were raping the shit out of the German women, and they really didn't want the Russians doing that to THEIR women.
Thats revisionist history
 

Mac-7

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
3,106
Points
290
Thats revisionist history
No, revisionist history is what you've probably been hearing all of your life... how the US was the key player in WWII when we were more of a bit player. Most of the heavy lifting was done by Russians, Chinese and Indians.
A bit player?

without the US germany would have ruled europe
 

Mac-7

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
3,106
Points
290
A bit player?

without the US germany would have ruled europe
Not necessarily. Probably the war would have dragged on longer, but the Germans had already been stymied by the time we got into it. The Russians did most of the fighting against the Germans.
Only because we sent them massive amounts food and weapons of war

and what would have happened if the war lasted longer?

V1, V2 rockets, jet aircraft and who knows what else

Britain would have been helpless
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
121,049
Reaction score
10,823
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Only because we sent them massive amounts food and weapons of war

and what would have happened if the war lasted longer?

V1, V2 rockets, jet aircraft and who knows what else

Britain would have been helpless
V1 and V2's didn't change the basic problem Germany had. No Navy to do an invasion.

Once the British established effective convoys, Germany couldn't starve them out with U-boats, either.
 

Mac-7

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
3,106
Points
290
Only because we sent them massive amounts food and weapons of war

and what would have happened if the war lasted longer?

V1, V2 rockets, jet aircraft and who knows what else

Britain would have been helpless
V1 and V2's didn't change the basic problem Germany had. No Navy to do an invasion.

Once the British established effective convoys, Germany couldn't starve them out with U-boats, either.
Without America all britian could do is prolong the inevitable
 

Mac-7

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
3,106
Points
290
Without America all britian could do is prolong the inevitable
Nope. Germany had given up on invading Britain by 1940. All they wanted to do at that point was secure the rest of Europe so he could go to war with Russia.
Quite true for 1940

that does not mean germany would never have invaded England

churchill might easily have become head of a government in exile someday if the US were not actively at war with germany
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
121,049
Reaction score
10,823
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Quite true for 1940

that does not mean germany would never have invaded England

churchill might easily have become head of a government in exile someday if the US were not actively at war with germany
or he might have just finally sued for peace when the war dragged on with no resolution... Point remains. No navy, Germany couldn't invade England. The time that the UK was most vulnerable was Summer of 1940, when they had to abandon all that equipment in France. By 1941, war production had ramped up there was no way an invasion could have happened.
 

Mac-7

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
3,106
Points
290
Quite true for 1940

that does not mean germany would never have invaded England

churchill might easily have become head of a government in exile someday if the US were not actively at war with germany
or he might have just finally sued for peace when the war dragged on with no resolution... Point remains. No navy, Germany couldn't invade England. The time that the UK was most vulnerable was Summer of 1940, when they had to abandon all that equipment in France. By 1941, war production had ramped up there was no way an invasion could have happened.
Really?

The V2s had no problem reaching England in 1945
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
60,653
Reaction score
7,650
Points
1,830
We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top