The Atomic Bomb

[Malte279]

A while ago I read a very good graphic novel about a boy in Hiroshima. The title was "Barefoot Gen". Just now I discovered that there is a movie version of it on youtube. I cannot say yet if the movie lives up to the novel.

[WeirdRaptor]

In the sole case of Hiroshima, I think they made the right decision. The situation over there was just insane, and there was no way to end quickly. They took it, but only that one time. Since then, I don't think anymore nukes have been dropped in actual practice, which is the way it should be.
Hopefully, such power will never again be used, and that those who would abuse it be stopped in time.

[lbt/cty_lover]

The only reason why Nagasaki was targeted was to make Japan surrender. They wouldn't surrender from the devastation at Hiroshima, and that was enough of a reason for Truman to order the use of a second atomic bomb. Quick fact: Nagasaki was not the intended target. Nagasaki was chosen because the original target was covered in clouds. And a third target was also thought of if Nagasaki wouldn't make Emperor Tōjō and the Minister of War, Seishirō Itagaki, to surrender.

[Malte279]

I don't think that the three days after the dropping of the nuclear bomb were sufficient time to allow the Japanese to really appreciate the situation and surrender. Apart from the wish to test that other type of bomb there is yet another factor which contributed to the hurry in which the second bomb was dropped. On August 8th (following an agreement to declare war on Japan three months after the end of the war in Europe) the Soviet Union had attacked Japan and within a very short time occupied Manchuria. There was an interest not to let the Soviets play any larger role in the defeat of Japan anymore to prevent them from justifying territorial claims for example on the Kuril Islands. The atomic bombs were aimed more at the Soviet Union than at Japan, but the Japanese were on the suffering end. I still maintain that they would have surrendered without an invasion now that practically all resources to fight a war (or to just live) were running low, that conventional bombing attacks were eradicating Japanese towns. It is important just to realize the dimensions of the conventional bombing warfare on Japan.
58% of Yokohama (roughly the size of Cleveland) had been destroyed.
51% of Tokyo (roughly the size of New York) had been destroyed.
99% (get this, the place didn't exist anymore) of Toyama (roughly the size of Chatanooga) had been destroyed.
40% of Nagoya (roughly the size of Los Angeles) had been destroyed.
This list goes on and on. Except for the potential targets for the nuclear bombs (which included some more alternative targets in addition to Nagasaki which was indeed just a "second choice") 67 major towns had been devastated at that time. More than 500 000 people had been killed and more than 5 million were homeless.
I appreciate that these facts can be used to argue both ways. One might argue that the continuation of this horrible kind of warfare might have been hardly "better" than the dropping of the nuclear bomb. But on the other hand it is very unlikely that with the continuation of that warfare an invasion or the dropping of the bomb would have been necessary.

[Petrie.]

Malte, I don't like quoting a Billy Joel song of all things in a serious topic, but, we didn't start the fire and we can't change what Truman decided.  What we have done is more extensive testing and now we know what these things do.  We haven't used them in warfare since.  That's a positive if nothing else.  Its not like Bush wants to use an A-bomb on Iran or anything here.

[Malte279]

we didn't start the fire and we can't change what Truman decided. What we have done is more extensive testing and now we know what these things do.

I never said anything to the contrary and I know that the past cannot (and should not) be changed but rather be something from which lessons can be drawn for the future. This however is impossible if we react to discussions about not so glorious parts of our history in a defensive manner that makes any discussion impossible. Way too many of my fellow countrymen and women react to discussions about the holocaust as if they personally had been accused of having committed it. To some degree the reaction of some to the discussion of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is similar to those reactions of people over here. But if all that we can conclude from history is "It happened! It doesn't matter anymore! Don't blame me! Let's not talk about it!" then why should historical topics be discussed anyway?

We haven't used them in warfare since. That's a positive if nothing else. Its not like Bush wants to use an A-bomb on Iran or anything here.

Had they been used again if it hadn't been for the fact that the use of them would have caused others to use them again?
Under which circumstances would such indiscriminate weapons be used again? And though the nuclear bombs have not been used other indiscriminate weapons such as carpet bombing (more bombs being dropped on Vietnam than were dropped in the whole WW2) were used and it is for good reason that by now the press in the "theaters of war" is very limited in its possibilities to report objectively. We want to fool ourselves into believing that the way "our guys" fight a war is a "clean" one. Until Vietnam people usually didn't start complaining about atrocities committed by the own soldiers until after the war and it appears that many don't want to discuss such matters even long after the end of a war. But it is necessary not to avoid the ugly if there is any serious intention to put an end to it. And if we don't want to put an end to it because "they begun it" (did the people on the last wedding celebration hit by a "smart bomb"? Or did the Afghans whose bodies were disgraced by German soldiers who found the bodies?), can we really claim to be "the good guys"?

[Petrie.]

But if all that we can conclude from history is "It happened! It doesn't matter anymore! Don't blame me! Let's not talk about it!" then why should historical topics be discussed anyway?

Perhaps its because of the way this topic was worded and it became something along the lines of "was it right to use an a-bomb".  Well, you can debate till your blue but this happened well before any of us.  We can't change what was done.  Right or not, its done.  Have we learned from this, yes.  What more is there to discuss?  I think most are on the mindset of that at this time, before we knew what the effects of radiation could do, this was the best call given the circumstances.  I don't pretend to know what secret the info the president could've read to make this call.  We never know everything.

[Malte279]

Have we learned from this, yes. What more is there to discuss?

For example if indeed we did learn or if it was only fear from "the others" using the bomb that kept the bomb from being used.
What was done in the past cannot be undone, but if comparable situations arise (and many say that history repeats itself) what would we do?
History is not a subject where discussions will bring ultimate and final conclusions, but discussion itself, the awareness of historical events, the willingness to deal with these events, and sometimes the wish to do better may contribute to prevent the repetition of events which we don't want to see repeated.
But to achieve this we mustn't avoid talking about the darker chapters of our history as well (which is a lot more difficult than dealing with the glorious half-truths or outright propaganda lies in which history is often served to us in movies and other medias).

[Petrie.]

Well duh, only the psychopaths probably want to see it repeated so I'd say the world has learned something from the "experiment" with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[aabicus (LettuceBacon&Tomato)]

We never know everything.

Since when does that stop us from discussing something? The LBT 14 thread is a good 13 pages long, and we don't know what info Universal's got either.

Seriously, if we knew absolutely everything about some topic, there'd be nothing to discuss.

[Petrie.]

A-bombs apparently aren't my thing to discuss then.

[Malte279]

Well duh, only the psychopaths probably want to see it repeated so I'd say the world has learned something from the "experiment" with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This is very reassuring so long we have the certainty that no psychopath will ever become the leader of any country or president of the United States of America.
I'm quoting Richard Nixon in a talk to Henry Kissinger on escalating the war in Vietnam:

"I'd rather use the nuclear bomb...Does that bother you? I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christ's sake."