He is also why the Manhattan Project was started. He feared that Germany would create the bomb, and when he came to the US, he started requesting research to create the A-bomb.CommieChipmunk wrote:
Albert Einstein, who worked on the a-bomb, advised the president at the time not to use it.
Poll
Were the Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Necessary?
| Yes | 70% | 70% - 134 | ||||
| No | 29% | 29% - 57 | ||||
| Total: 191 | ||||||
As horrific as the bombs were, there was a certain necessity to them. Partly because a blockade would have taken too long and would have exposed the men on those ships to too much danger. An invasion would have also been too expensive.
That is the political reasoning to the public. As has been said by others, it was important for the Russians to see that the Americans had it and weren't afraid to use them. For a large part of the cold war, the Russians were always painted as the evil ones who wanted to destroy civilization whereas from their perspective, it was the Americans who had used them before and they would not hesitate to user them again. The Russians were probably more afraid of the Americans than the other way around (I am talking about those in power, not the general public here). Probably a fair amount of rhetoric coming from the Kremlin (Especially Kruschev) was more a bluff in the same way a frilly lizard flares up to try and scare off a predator.
I would also argue that in the long run, the use of those two bombs is what has prevented WW3 up to now as everyone is acutely aware of just how terrible these weapons are.
Was it a horrible decision? Yes. Were the arguments in favor of using them exaggerated? Yes. Was it the right decision in the long run? Yes, as sad as that may be.
@ Commie Chipmunk - Albert did not work on the atomic bomb. He wrote to the president to advise him that the Germans were working on it and that it would be important for the Allies to get there first, but he never worked on the bomb as such. The collaboration between the Brits and the Americans during this time is what has made them such staunch allies since. Britain sent all data they had as well as their scientists to America to help speed up the process, but also just in case Germany was victorious against them and they did not want the information to fall into Nazi hands.
That is the political reasoning to the public. As has been said by others, it was important for the Russians to see that the Americans had it and weren't afraid to use them. For a large part of the cold war, the Russians were always painted as the evil ones who wanted to destroy civilization whereas from their perspective, it was the Americans who had used them before and they would not hesitate to user them again. The Russians were probably more afraid of the Americans than the other way around (I am talking about those in power, not the general public here). Probably a fair amount of rhetoric coming from the Kremlin (Especially Kruschev) was more a bluff in the same way a frilly lizard flares up to try and scare off a predator.
I would also argue that in the long run, the use of those two bombs is what has prevented WW3 up to now as everyone is acutely aware of just how terrible these weapons are.
Was it a horrible decision? Yes. Were the arguments in favor of using them exaggerated? Yes. Was it the right decision in the long run? Yes, as sad as that may be.
@ Commie Chipmunk - Albert did not work on the atomic bomb. He wrote to the president to advise him that the Germans were working on it and that it would be important for the Allies to get there first, but he never worked on the bomb as such. The collaboration between the Brits and the Americans during this time is what has made them such staunch allies since. Britain sent all data they had as well as their scientists to America to help speed up the process, but also just in case Germany was victorious against them and they did not want the information to fall into Nazi hands.
Last edited by TuataraDude (2007-02-01 20:29:20)
Yes, yes it was necesarry. Estimated casualties for the initial landing on Japan were a million. US casualties, for just the first day. Japanese were estimated to be way higher, due to them having instructed every man, woman, and child in the country to try and kill an American, even at the cost of their own life. Kamkiaze pilots into packed landing craft, schoolchildren attacking the soldiers with knives, the lot. And that's only one day, the whole campaign of invasion and occupation would have been terrible.
Far less people died in the nukings. The bombs themselves were extremely low yield, due to being experimental. One bomb, half a city demolished, thousands dead, and even more irradiated and scarred survivors providing a living legacy to why you don't attack America.
Nukes are, and always have been mostly psychological weapons. One bomb can wipe out a city, would YOU want to risk your capital being hit by it? Nukes are, ironically, the cause of the longest period of peace for centuries, particularly in Europe, where everyone tends to get bored and attack the French every couple of decades for some reason or another.
Far less people died in the nukings. The bombs themselves were extremely low yield, due to being experimental. One bomb, half a city demolished, thousands dead, and even more irradiated and scarred survivors providing a living legacy to why you don't attack America.
Nukes are, and always have been mostly psychological weapons. One bomb can wipe out a city, would YOU want to risk your capital being hit by it? Nukes are, ironically, the cause of the longest period of peace for centuries, particularly in Europe, where everyone tends to get bored and attack the French every couple of decades for some reason or another.
should we have dropped those bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? No. We should have dropped both our bombs on Tokyo and then firebombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It would have killed more people. Japan wanted to get nasty, we got nasty. Everyone seems to forget that the Japanese started the war. they thought us weak and unwilling, and they were wrong. If killing 1 million japanese civilians would have saved the life of one marine, I say kill 2 million, just to be sure.
If the Japanese had sucessfully destroyed our entire Pacific naval fleet and air force at Pearl Harbor, would they have backed off because we had no arms or legs? You seem to be giving the Imperial Japanese too much credit as human beings. they were brutal animals, so we often had to act in kind.CommieChipmunk wrote:
Like I said earlier. Even if we had just left them alone, they couldn't have done anything. They didn't have a navy, air force, and hell even if they would have had an army, they're on an island so they couldn't have gone anywhere. It's like shooting someone with no arms or legs in the face several times...
I kinda agree with most of it other than the 1 million figure, which tbh is pure bullshit. That figure was made by politicians and not military commanders, ie the figure was made by people who had not much of an idea of war.bob_6012 wrote:
I believe that it was necessary to drop the bombs. Japan was not going to surrender even if we knew they were defeated, they had too much pride and would have rather died than suffered the humiliation of defeat, the same reason the kamikaze existed, it's part of their Bushido code I believe, death over defeat. If we would have invaded Japan it would have made Normandy look like a picnic, with estimated casualties of over 1 million just on the invasion. You have to realize that it would have been like Iraq is today, only worse, every able citizen would have been armed and would have put up a fight. They even trained people to run little wooden boats laden with explosives into our landing craft in suicide runs. Now I'm not saying that the bombs weren't horrific, because they were, I hope that I never see nuclear warfare in my lifetime, or anyone else's for that matter, but I believe that it was one of the things that helped bring the end of the war to a speedy conclusion, and that's what counts, speed.
I hope everyone is aware the Germany and Japan was working on the bomb as well.dubbs wrote:
He is also why the Manhattan Project was started. He feared that Germany would create the bomb, and when he came to the US, he started requesting research to create the A-bomb.CommieChipmunk wrote:
Albert Einstein, who worked on the a-bomb, advised the president at the time not to use it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_program
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuc … gy_project
From what I have watched and read Germany was extremely close.
Just in case some were unaware.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The Germans were on the wrong track. They would have gotten there eventually, but not before the Allies. Not only because they were on the wrong track, but Norwegian freedom fighters were constantly sabotaging heavy water production and supply and that slowed down the Germans. Eventually they would have realized that the heavy water track was wrong, but because they didn't get enough in a timely fashion, they never had a chance to discover that.Kmarion wrote:
From what I have watched and read Germany was extremely close.
Just in case some were unaware.
If anyone is really interested in this, I cannot recommend strongly enough "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes. It is a heavy read, and the first hand accounts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (about 20 odd pages) is a harrowing read. But it tells the full story from Leo Szilard first thinking of the idea, through to the arms race between the Russians and the Americans and the development of the Hydrogen Bomb. Read it if you have a spare month.
I have watched a few documentaries on it, most of which say the same things you just posted. I was just bringing more into this debate and for consideration. Thanks for the book recommendation. I may pick it up, I have a couple of other books on my plate right now though .TuataraDude wrote:
The Germans were on the wrong track. They would have gotten there eventually, but not before the Allies. Not only because they were on the wrong track, but Norwegian freedom fighters were constantly sabotaging heavy water production and supply and that slowed down the Germans. Eventually they would have realized that the heavy water track was wrong, but because they didn't get enough in a timely fashion, they never had a chance to discover that.Kmarion wrote:
From what I have watched and read Germany was extremely close.
Just in case some were unaware.
If anyone is really interested in this, I cannot recommend strongly enough "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes. It is a heavy read, and the first hand accounts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (about 20 odd pages) is a harrowing read. But it tells the full story from Leo Szilard first thinking of the idea, through to the arms race between the Russians and the Americans and the development of the Hydrogen Bomb. Read it if you have a spare month.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Absolutely necessary. Defeating an enemy that will fight you to the death without any hesitation is a hard thing to do. Even if Japan was technically defeated before we dropped the bombs, they never would have surrendered, and the war would have dragged on even longer... probably provoking the Japanese into the chemical attacks on U.S. soil due to the naval blockade. While I do agree that war is a terrible thing, it's a part of life, and something everyone must accept. Dropping the nuclear bombs was horrible, but at the same time it was very necessary. It saved millions of American lives, scared the Soviet Union into submission, ended the war, and made a bold statement to the rest of the World. Now, whether or not that statement is considered good or bad is a matter of personal opinion and preference.
Wrong as usual.Bubbalo wrote:
And how many slow, painful deaths did it cause.unholypoo wrote:
Fire bombs killed more people and burned down more of Japan's paper houses that both a-bombs did.
The US only dropped the bombs to scare the Soviets. It was an excuse, nothing more.
The Japs just would not surrender. As a esteemed poster said earlier in the thread, many more had died in the firebombs than in the explosions.
They were digging trenches and arming every able bodied citizen with metal; from rifles and tanks to pitchforks.
They told their people the the Americans ate the POW's.
American war planners estimated our casualties at over one million in a ground invasion.
And so we freed them in a holy fire...
By that point German quite simply didn't have the resources to finish it, Hitler at that point was deluded with bombing England with V-2's, he claimed it would win the war.Kmarion wrote:
I hope everyone is aware the Germany and Japan was working on the bomb as well.dubbs wrote:
He is also why the Manhattan Project was started. He feared that Germany would create the bomb, and when he came to the US, he started requesting research to create the A-bomb.CommieChipmunk wrote:
Albert Einstein, who worked on the a-bomb, advised the president at the time not to use it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_program
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuc … gy_project
From what I have watched and read Germany was extremely close.
Just in case some were unaware.
Well, really? I dunno about you, but I'd go for the security and safety of my own family than others. I'd say that was the mentality that the USA had at the time.Kukulcan wrote:
The USA judged their soldiers lifes more important than the civs' ones.... that's not right , what right they had to do this?
As for the nukes, I voted a tentative yes. Japan had a kamikazi attitude didn't they? Even if they were on their knees without arms or legs, they would probably still have tried to bite. But the radiation still disturbs me.
(Off topic) I heard (forgot from where) that the U.S. was planning on nuking Germany first, but they had already surrendered, so they turned to Japan, the next biggest threat. Anyone know if this was true?
I have read extensively on WW2 and have never heard of such a thing.Smithereener wrote:
Well, really? I dunno about you, but I'd go for the security and safety of my own family than others. I'd say that was the mentality that the USA had at the time.Kukulcan wrote:
The USA judged their soldiers lifes more important than the civs' ones.... that's not right , what right they had to do this?
As for the nukes, I voted a tentative yes. Japan had a kamikazi attitude didn't they? Even if they were on their knees without arms or legs, they would probably still have tried to bite. But the radiation still disturbs me.
(Off topic) I heard (forgot from where) that the U.S. was planning on nuking Germany first, but they had already surrendered, so they turned to Japan, the next biggest threat. Anyone know if this was true?
Everyone knows though that Hitler certainly would have used nukes given half a chance.
The story of the SAS troops who took out the German heavy water facility is a great read. Without them, we would likely all be speaking German right now.
Any links? Sounds good to me.ATG wrote:
The story of the SAS troops who took out the German heavy water facility is a great read. Without them, we would likely all be speaking German right now.
I think I heard that whole nuking Germany first off of a friend. It made some sense to me at the time since the Allied Powers believed that Germany/Italy was the bigger threat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_ … r_sabotageSmithereener wrote:
Any links? Sounds good to me.ATG wrote:
The story of the SAS troops who took out the German heavy water facility is a great read. Without them, we would likely all be speaking German right now.
I think I heard that whole nuking Germany first off of a friend. It made some sense to me at the time since the Allied Powers believed that Germany/Italy was the bigger threat.
SAS part may be in doubt, but there you go.
Null vote.
But no.
The invasion would have cost more lives than the nukes, but the allies could have just nuked a little base/island/whatever, and sent a note to Hirohito saying "Look at XXX island, this is what we'll do to you if you don't surrender"
But no.
The invasion would have cost more lives than the nukes, but the allies could have just nuked a little base/island/whatever, and sent a note to Hirohito saying "Look at XXX island, this is what we'll do to you if you don't surrender"
Yea but what if it was a dud... dohPubic wrote:
Null vote.
But no.
The invasion would have cost more lives than the nukes, but the allies could have just nuked a little base/island/whatever, and sent a note to Hirohito saying "Look at XXX island, this is what we'll do to you if you don't surrender"
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Yes as pointed out well by many already. I didn't see a single convincing point by the no crowd.
BTW the no crowd are the same ones that bash everything the USA does...of course I'm generalizing here, maybe their are some that I would expect to vote no that would surprise me.
BTW the no crowd are the same ones that bash everything the USA does...of course I'm generalizing here, maybe their are some that I would expect to vote no that would surprise me.
to the guy who said we should drop two nukes on Tokyo and firebomb the rest....Tokyo had already been firebombed to rubble for weeks, even months, not sure on the exact duration, but probably as soon as the 29s were in range of it, so why waste it on a trashed city? stupid.
and people saying they should have hit a military target with the NUKE, are you aware of any military installation the size of a city that contains no civilians? cuz i sure as hell dont. no matter where you drop it, it'll kill civilians.
and commie, are you suggesting that we shouldve just left them alone, we done enough damage, what would've happened if we did that? the army, air force etc could be rebuilt. do you think they would have just thrown up their hands and said shit, they already beat us. lets go do something else that might be constructive. They didnt surrender, IE they will keep on fighting, and attacking when possible.
all of their "innocent civilians" that "didnt vote in their leader" are you saying that they didnt hate us, and wouldnt fight us if we were on their homeland?
and to all the doubters about the 1 million US casualties if an invasion took place and that the military planners dont know shit about war, GTFO of here. look at wake, iwo, and every other damn island we took. how many god damn jap POW's did we take. THEY FOUGHT TO THE LAST SOLDIER every time. what makes you think if we invaded japan it would be different? what fucking drugs do you people take, i would love to trip like that. everyone saying this crap is so delusional, who starts a war and backs out after getting pushed back? absolutely necessary. Its human nature, better them than us. im not condoning the use of nukes and horrible deaths and all that, but im a firm believer that it was absolutely necessary. please prove me wrong, because if it could have ended in less deaths and anarchy all around, i would love to hear how its possible.
and people saying they should have hit a military target with the NUKE, are you aware of any military installation the size of a city that contains no civilians? cuz i sure as hell dont. no matter where you drop it, it'll kill civilians.
and commie, are you suggesting that we shouldve just left them alone, we done enough damage, what would've happened if we did that? the army, air force etc could be rebuilt. do you think they would have just thrown up their hands and said shit, they already beat us. lets go do something else that might be constructive. They didnt surrender, IE they will keep on fighting, and attacking when possible.
all of their "innocent civilians" that "didnt vote in their leader" are you saying that they didnt hate us, and wouldnt fight us if we were on their homeland?
and to all the doubters about the 1 million US casualties if an invasion took place and that the military planners dont know shit about war, GTFO of here. look at wake, iwo, and every other damn island we took. how many god damn jap POW's did we take. THEY FOUGHT TO THE LAST SOLDIER every time. what makes you think if we invaded japan it would be different? what fucking drugs do you people take, i would love to trip like that. everyone saying this crap is so delusional, who starts a war and backs out after getting pushed back? absolutely necessary. Its human nature, better them than us. im not condoning the use of nukes and horrible deaths and all that, but im a firm believer that it was absolutely necessary. please prove me wrong, because if it could have ended in less deaths and anarchy all around, i would love to hear how its possible.
Bottom line. . .
If either the Germans or the Japanese got the bomb, they would have used it!! no doubt about it. . .
We just happen to get it first, used it, and ended the war. . . .what is so wrong about that?
America is damned if we do and damned if we dont!! Jesus Christ! Those who say the bombs werent for the ultimate benefit of the world ARE CRAZY!!
War is hell, no one here is saying it isnt!! It's (war/death that comes with it) the true shame of humanity, unfortunatly its necessary. . . .
If either the Germans or the Japanese got the bomb, they would have used it!! no doubt about it. . .
We just happen to get it first, used it, and ended the war. . . .what is so wrong about that?
America is damned if we do and damned if we dont!! Jesus Christ! Those who say the bombs werent for the ultimate benefit of the world ARE CRAZY!!
War is hell, no one here is saying it isnt!! It's (war/death that comes with it) the true shame of humanity, unfortunatly its necessary. . . .
So, your saying that if it's okay for the Nazis it's okay for everyone else?
Great, I'm having a barbie this weekend, how would you like your Jew, medium rare or well done?
Great, I'm having a barbie this weekend, how would you like your Jew, medium rare or well done?
and just a small side note, we never once attacked the japanese capitol, not tokyo, but the actual emperor's palace and all that junk. i honestly wonder what wouldve happened if we tried to knock down their hierarchy that way, but i think they still would've fought till the end. has anyone seen the history channel special of the crap that went on at the palace the night that nagasaki was bombed? they had to hide the announcement of surrender in a safe before it was sent out the next morning because so may officers were trying to prevent the emperor from surrendering in the first place. still some of them hadnt had enough nukes. dont quote me on the exact happenings, but it was something to that effect.
seriously, wtf is that supposed to mean. its hard to win a war against fanaticals without using fanatical tactics. should we bomb them with gift baskets and flowers instead? or let them step all over us? eff that, I aint surrendering. its them or us. i dunno bout you, but i like having my shitty life. id rather live with shame and having done crappy things then um, not exist, or be defeated and have a shitty existence.Bubbalo wrote:
So, your saying that if it's okay for the Nazis it's okay for everyone else?
Great, I'm having a barbie this weekend, how would you like your Jew, medium rare or well done?
So, you're telling me that the US was on the verge of defeat when they dropped the nukes?
It would surely have costed more soldiers lives... on both sides. But : isn't soldier job to PROTECT civilians life? The soldier' job is to fight the enemy and protect the civilians , invading the japan would have been in their duties , no more , no less.usmarine2007 wrote:
Invade Japan...good idea. Many more troops on both sides, plus who knows how many civilians dead. great idea kuku.
Saving the two nukes would have saved many civs life.... counting also the ones who are died AFTER the bomb explosion... for the fallout. And counting also which damnation has been , for those sectors, the atomic bomb.
Also if was italy to invade japan i'd have the same ideas
Moreover , the military capacity of japan was at their knees , they were weak , had no food and poor munitions since they lost the major part of their territories. You could have embargoed their islands , so they took nothing from nowhere , as you did with iraq and cuba. They would have been even weaker , then you entered with the army and you won.
The Japanese surely would have fought to death , but japan did not have many soldiers as US since they had problem in drafting in the last period.... they lost all their soldiers in the pacific islands and as kamikazis.
Their resource were poor : they had no chance to resist indeed. They would never have won.
Last edited by Kukulcan (2007-02-02 00:02:06)