The Atomic Bomb

[lbt/cty_lover]

I am reading the book Hiroshima, by John Hersey, and it got me thinking about the atomic bomb. Was it a good decision, to cause so much destruction and death? Would the mass invasion have done any better?

[Kor]

If they had not there would have been far more loss of life and folks with different permanent injuries and wounds.  Also if the U.S.A. had not used it, the Germans or Japanese would have if they had discovered how to do so.  The Germans were doing research into the atomic bomb, but were on the wrong track to where they thought it would be much harder then it was since I heard, no idea if it is true, since they ignored what certain physicists said we all know the ww2 era German Nazi's feelings towards Jewish so naturally they'd ignore what Jewish physicists said.  Though, of course, the U.S.A. would not ignore them.

[The Chronicler]

I guessing you're referring to Albert Einstein, right?

Here's my thoughts: From what I've heard, there were estimates, even well before the day of the planned mass invasion, that one million American soldiers would have died in combat before Japan would finally surrender. President Truman later claimed that he had done what he believed was the right choice.

Also, I believe that if those bombs hadn't been dropped, the world would likely never know the true devastation that nuclear weapons could cause, and the cold war that followed might have even ended in a much worse way that it actually did.

[lbt/cty_lover]

If you read Hiroshima, it portrays the struggles of the victims of the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. It made me think about this because of the way John Hersey described the victims. The massive burns and other injuries that they suffered made me think about the other plan that the United States was planning, the mass invasion of Japan. I wondered if that would have been better, at least ethically. I mean, civilians would die, but they wouldn't live and suffer the tortures of the atomic bomb.

As for the true devastation of the bomb, what if Einstein never discovered that matter was only condensed energy? Then we wouldn't have designed such an inhumane weapon. I just find that the atomic bomb is probably the most unethical, immoral weapon ever devised by man.

[f-22 "raptor" ace]

there were estimates, even well before the day of the planned mass invasion, that one million American soldiers would have died in combat before Japan would finally surrender.

I believe it was the right decsion. If we had invaded japan they would have just brought out all their secret weapons. Also the number of Kamikaze attacks would be more than any in the war. Here is a wikipedia link to what have been the plan if the allies had invaded japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall. Japan would have had a little more than 10,000 kamikaze plane to attack the expected invasion fleet plus a number of boats,subs,etc.

[Serris]

If I do recall, the Japanese trained civilans to repel foreign invaders and instilled in them the belief that there was no more honorable way to die than in the service of Japan and the emperor.

Also, the Japanese soldiers at that time fought with fanatical devotion and refused to surrender and/or killed themselves rather than be taken prisoner.

http://students.umf.maine.edu/~talbotca/page6.html

[landbeforetimelover]

We should not blame the inventor for the terrible weapon.  The blame should go upon us as a species for allowing its usage.  Although I think there was really no other choice, if we were more advanced as a species people like Hitler and Hirohito (Emperor of Japan during WW2) would have never existed.  There might have been more death if we hadn't used it or there might have been less.  There's no way to know for certain what would have happened had we not used it.  Although I believe that the majority of the world is good and want nothing more than to exist in peace, sadly it's usually the power-hungry narcissists that want nothing but power and are willing to do anything in order to get/retain it are the only ones who seem to go into the political area.  Was using the atomic bomb the ideal answer to the problem?  Well no, but I believe it was one of the only choices that could be made except for a mass invasion that we *might possibly succeed in if we weren't blown to bits trying to get there.  Besides, I strongly believe that if we hadn't used it, the Germans would have invented it as well and used it on us.  Not only did it serve as a warning to Japan that we were powerful, but it also told Hitler that we meant business.  Not even someone like him would want to start a nuclear war between Germany and the U.S.  It could only end with mutual annihilation.  As Abe Lincoln said, "the only good thing about war is its ending".  In a war there are very little choices.  I'm sure the choice to use the atomic bomb was not taken lightly and that it was only done because it was believed that it using it would cause the least amount of death on both sides.

[Petrie.]

I agree with Kor's reasoning.  Somebody would've done it eventually.

[f-22 "raptor" ace]

Besides, I strongly believe that if we hadn't used it, the Germans would have invented it as well and used it on us.

They were actully extremley close to making one but there were three reasons their nuclear bomb project failed.
1. the Norwiegen resitance. The resitancedid an extremly good job at sabotasing the Heavy water facility when the German nuclear bomb project was being work on not once but twice. However they Germans tried moving the project to Germany Allied intel gaid word of this so they told the resitance to destroy the ferry that the equitment was being carried on and the resitance succeded but there were also civillians on the ferry too. The resitance wanted to warn the cvilians but were refused permission  by the British by the fear of the Germans finding out on the plan.

2. funding. Since both Albert Speer and the Head of the German nuclear bomb project both beleived the war would be over before it could be perfected so funds were never placed on the scale of the Manhattan Project.

3. Aircraft. The Luftwaffe did not have a heavy bomber during the war so even if they were able to make a nuclear bomb they would have no way of taking it to london or the east coast. However The Germans were researching several new weapons including Stealth technology However unlike most of the secert aircraft the stealth aircraft named the HO-229 or the HO-9 actully flew.
This plane was made a a fighter. The Germans were working on a bomber version
If the Germans were able to perfect a nuclear weapons the line drawing of the plane above would have deleivered it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpQid9dxDRU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuZkiDOahcg The Youtube links give a sense to If the Germans succed in making a nuclear bomb and creating the aircraft to deliver it. Fortunantly WWII ended while the Horten-18 was still under design.

[Coyote_A]

Also if the U.S.A. had not used it, the Germans or Japanese would have if they had discovered how to do so.

Kor, by the time USA have dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, Germany have already capitulated, and Japan was losing. My opinion is that, the usage of atomic weapon was not an effort to end the war quickly, but a demonstration of power for other possible enemy. If you get my meanings.

[StarfallRaptor]

There is another point to be made here.  The Japanese government was going to surrender after the first bomb had been dropped.  However, poor communication and stubborn generals prevented this from happening.  That strikes me as somewhat...foolish...

[F-14 Ace]

If you read Hiroshima, it portrays the struggles of the victims of the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. It made me think about this because of the way John Hersey described the victims. The massive burns and other injuries that they suffered made me think about the other plan that the United States was planning, the mass invasion of Japan. I wondered if that would have been better, at least ethically. I mean, civilians would die, but they wouldn't live and suffer the tortures of the atomic bomb.

As for the true devastation of the bomb, what if Einstein never discovered that matter was only condensed energy? Then we wouldn't have designed such an inhumane weapon. I just find that the atomic bomb is probably the most unethical, immoral weapon ever devised by man.

I hate nukes but the way I see it, we're stuck withthem now.  Some of the nukes today make the atomic bombs dropped on Japan look like firecrackers.  Besides that, putting an international ban on them would not stop psychos like Kim Jong Il and that idiot in Iran from making them.

[The Great Valley Guardian]

I'm going to quote a favorite movie of mine:

'We aren't going to make it....humans I mean?' 'It is in your nature to destroy yourselves.'"

And I personally think the Terminator is right...I mean if we can create such devastating weapons like the Atom bomb...then I truly do fear for us as a species. I also agree with F-14 and Starfall with creating that kind of power being foolish and having a ban on them isn't stopping others from getting them as well.  <_<

[Malte279]

Some things have been said that I must disagree with and some things to which I agree completely.

My opinion is that, the usage of atomic weapon was not an effort to end the war quickly, but a demonstration of power for other possible enemy. If you get my meanings.

Andrey is rising a very important point here. It is quite likely that the atomic bombs were just as much (or possibly more) of a demonstration of power towards the Soviet Union as they were to beat the already defeated Japan into final submission.
It is questionable whether the most important argument for the use of the nuclear bomb, namely achieving a Japanese surrender without the need for "Operation Downfall" (the allied invasion of Japan which was to consist of two major landings codenamed "Operation Olympic" and "Operation Comet") to be launched, can really be upheld. One thing that is often overlooked is that Japan's ability to offer resistance was pretty much crushed in August 1945 and it is absolutely certain that by the time that the nuclear bombs were dropped there was no longer the tiniest chance of any of the Axis powers (Japan being the only one left) to develop any kind of nuclear weapon to threaten the allies. Allied bombers had laid havoc to most Japanese towns which proved even more inflammable than many towns in Germany. More than 100 000 (more that is than as an immediate result of the bombs of Hiroshima) people died in just one bombing raid at Tokyo. We tend to think of the Japanese as a "different" kind of humans who would have fought to the death of the last one of them without any regard for their own lives. We are still strongly under the impression of Japanese propaganda photos showing their citizens training to repel an invasion with bamboo spears and most of us are thoroughly convinced that the kamikaze pilots (many of whom were NO volunteers) stood for the fighting spirit of all of Japan.
However, the Japanese are the same humans as we are and many of them knew that the war was lost which brought many of them to the conclusion that the unconditional surrender should be considered. There was of course an influential clique of war hawks around people like the prime minister Hideki Tōjō and war minister Seishirō Itagaki who had a very vital interest in prolonging the war (both were tried for crimes of war and hanged in 1948), but the movement against the continuation of the war was growing ever stronger already simply because the war couldn't possibly be continued anymore. Much of Japans industry was destroyed, the supply with goods from territories still held by Japan was impossible (with the US and the Royal Navy in total control of the sea), fuel was running out and food too grow sparse. The example of the German "Volkssturm" had shown that citizens with bamboo spears or even bazookas could not repel a military invasion and though we may cling to the belief in Japanese believing in their own invincibility we are offending the intelligence of most Japanese if indeed we assume that they really believed in their ability to withstand an invasion.
I'm quite sure that with a little more patience and a little more effort the Japanese surrender could have been achieved without invasion and without the nuclear bombs. Human lives are a very weak argument in times of war though and the wish for a demonstration of power to the Soviet Union (perhaps to prevent a continuation of the war in Europe with Stalin rather than Hitler as the enemy) must not be underestimated.
After the dropping of the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima no sufficient time was given to the Japanese government to react before the next bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. I cannot help but feel that the wish to test that second kind of nuclear bomb before it was "too late" (before the war was over that is) did play an important role in the rapid succession of the two nuclear strikes. On behalf of those who made the decisions one must mention that there was no real knowledge of the late effects of the bombs. As late as in the 1950 soldiers were positioned close to the ground zeros of nuclear testing because of lacking awareness of (or the cynical wish to "test") the damage done by the radiation. Without those long-term effects (of which people died decades after the end of the war) the effect of a nuclear bomb would be no more horrible than that of carpet bombing such as those that had been launched against Tokyo and most other towns in Japan.

There is something more I must ask with regard to the argument that the bomb had to be used because if it hadn't been the US somebody else would have used it. I already mentioned that Japan had no longer the possibility to develop any nuclear weapon (and they had been less into nuclear research than Germany), so the argument probably holds only for developing but not for the using of the nuclear bomb. But what I am wondering about is whether you think that because others might use it the bomb should be used today. If tomorrow Ahmadinejad announced that he had the nuclear weapon, would that be a cause for you to use the same on Iran? Should Saddam Hussein's "WMDs" been a cause to use WMDs on him? In short, does the evil of another justify the own evil?

[Petrie.]

But what I am wondering about is whether you think that because others might use it the bomb should be used today. If tomorrow Ahmadinejad announced that he had the nuclear weapon, would that be a cause for you to use the same on Iran? Should Saddam Hussein's "WMDs" been a cause to use WMDs on him? In short, does the evil of another justify the own evil?

So you'd wait for him to cherry pick targets?  Some people just can't be reasoned with no matter how much time you give them "to talk" or "wait out a little longer".  I don't believe he's a trustworthy guy, simple as that.  Saddam had used warfare once...who's to say he wouldn't do it again, only with much stronger weapons this time around?  You don't know.  Is it worth waiting for a huge catastrophe to act?

[Malte279]

So you'd wait for him to cherry pick targets?

I did not say that, nor did I suggest any course of action I would take. I was just asking you about yours.
So if you know a potential enemy has weapons of mass destruction, you would want to be the one to use them first?

[Petrie.]

Dog eat dog, Malte.

[lbt/cty_lover]

I have to say that Kor is right on this one. It would have been used eventually. But Einstein wouldn't have discovered the true form of matter, which is condensed energy. Excuse my physics, but that is what the atomic bomb is based upon: matter being condesed energy. If Einstein didn't discover it, someone else would have and then used it to their advantage.

[Malte279]

Dog eat dog, Malte.

Whatever the idiom may say I have never seen one dog eat another. In any case this is not a discussion about something as trivial as dog food. The question is not so much whether or not it was right to develop that bomb (I agree with those who say that someone would have developed it in any case) but more about whether or not it was right to use it in the situation of August 1945.
In retrospect it is easy to say that had it not been for that "demonstration to the world" in Hiroshima and Nagasaki the next war might have become a lot hotter and the nuclear bomb might have seen its debut under much more dramatic circumstances than that of an epilogue in a war already won. In 1945 they did not have that retrospective view and if we focus on the question whether or not it was military necessary to use the bomb to prevent many more deaths in an invasion, I'm quite sure that this military necessary was no longer given in August 1945. At the very least the bomb on Nagasaki was more of a nuclear test under the most realistic conditions rather than something that was justified by any necessity at that time.

[lbt/cty_lover]

In the case of the nuclear bomb at the time, it was the right decision, but its power was actually underestimated. Einstein believed that an atomic bomb would be perfect for destruction of harbors. He never had the idea that it would destroy a city. But, then again, we (the U.S.) didn't know the destructive abilities of the atomic bomb until the bomb hit Hiroshima. By destructive, I mean on the biological level. We never did tests on real humans (thankfully). Hiroshima can be justified by saying that the United States didn't know the true capabilities of the atomic bomb. Nagasaki has the exact same justification, since it was only three days after Hiroshima. If we were to drop a nuclear weapon on a city today, the only justification would be for national security, because now we know the true devastation that is the nuclear bomb.

Also, a nuclear weapon is only 3% efficient. In other words, what happened at Hiroshima was only 3% of what would have happened if the bomb was more efficient. If the bomb was 100% efficient, it could have killed all of Hiroshima's residents, plus probably about 50% of all of Japan's population. Possibly even China and Russia would feel the effects of the blast, and there would even be a HUGE crater where the bomb was dropped with a decent radius.