The Atomic bombing of Nagasaki

[AngryOfTuebrook]

History is full of events that look horrible when viewed through modern perspective.

 

 

Never again.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Why where Hiroshima and Nagasaki specifically chosen. Where both places of huge military importance or was it just a way to kill a lot of innocents whilst the real fuckers in charge stay relatively safe. Were they chosen to cause the least amount of human damage but still send a hell of a message.

Nagasaki wasn't even the primary target.  Kokura was covered by cloud and smoke, so the bombers diverted to their secondary target, Nagasaki.  Kokura contained one of Japan's biggest arsenals.  Nagasaki was a heavily-industrialised port.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I'm not being racist or demonising entire peoples by saying that the Japs were horrendous murdering bastards during the war. If it was 1945 and my lad was in the navy and they were thinking of a land invasion of Japan I would thank the lord a bomb ended that possibility.

Comedy gold.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Quite interesting debate on wether Obama should apologise.

 

Personally id say no he shouldn't. I still think it had to be done to save more lives. Especially the allied soldiers who would habe died in an invasion

I think any sincere apology should be understood to include a promise not to do the same again.

 

The USA (along with other fuckwit nations) has a massive nuclear arsenal with the explicit intent of threatening the world that it is prepared to do the same again.

 

I think some carefully-worded expression of regret and remembrance of all victims on both sides would be in order, but I can't see how any US President could really apologise for using nukes.

[Mook]

The first bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

 

[Bjornebye]

Still hate that this ever happened. Fucking cunts. 

[Alan Sex]

Saw the thread and thought they'd dropped another one.

 

Fucking Trump.

[Pureblood]

Fake bump from a sad bad dude.  

[G Richards]

I thought the dropping of the bomb was for two reasons. First, it ended the war sooner and likely saved lives, even if it was horrific. The second main reason was so the Americans could send a message to Russia. By doing that it stopped Russian ambitions, both east and west, and again likely saved many lives.

 

The dropping of the second bomb was more questionable. Russia had their own ideas but were several years behind in the development of their bomb. Because of the expense and technical difficulty, they may have been tempted to think Hiroshima was a one-off, and when the Nagasaki bomb was dropped it confirmed that America had total supremacy with this devastating new weapon, so I think in the end it all helped to bring WW2 to an end and stop Russia.

[Lee909]

The second reason is the main one. The Soviet army had moved east and was camped to the north of the Japanese mainlamd and they had no army to defend against them. From ehat I've read the Japanese asked the Soviets to sort a peace and they were rebuffed.

 

The US wanted a quick decisive end to the war to stop the Soviers getting involved and getting their foot into Japan. The bomb was that option. It needed testing in a combat,it ended the war and it told Stalin if he overstepped the line in Berlin they'd use them.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Is there any evidence that Soviet ambitions in 1945 included the conquest of Western Europe? That Stalin would have kept going westwards until stopped by force (or by the threat of the force demonstrated by mass-murder in Nagasaki)? Was it in the Soviet Union's strategic interests to do that? Isn't it more likely that, even if the USA had no nukes, the Soviets would have kept to the spheres of influence agreed in the immediate post-war settlement (which was only really broken by the eastward expansion of NATO)?

[Lee909]

Possibly,though there was plenty of worry that he would have kept going.

He had all the advantages in 45. More troops,more and bigger tanks and the momentum to keep going. Wether he would is another matter though its well known that both Patton and Churchill where pushing for the US/UK to keep pushing on the Moscow. I think the whole point was to show him not to try and push on his chances. The US had to keep full control of Japan with the Chinese/Soviet axis control vast majority of the Asian mainland and start of collapse of the British Empire. I guess the worry was that Gandhi and Nehru would take control in India and possibly it end up Communist with a Communist China and Russia the chances of the US/Uk keeping any control of Asia and the rubber,oil routes would have been slim.We saw the attempted and succesful advancements of communism through parts of Asia with Korea,Vietnam and some of the British islands like the Malayan emergency. That would have given them a good chance of getting their feet into the Arab states and control the oil there too.

 

Its all guessing though

[Stickman]

Nagasaki 20 minutes after the Atomic bombing

 

 

 

Survivor of the Hiroshima bomb Shigeki Tanaka winning the Boston Marathon in 1951.

Rumours radiation poisoning enhanced his performance although can't be verified

 

[Bjornebye]

Nagasaki 20 minutes after the Atomic bombing

 

 

 

Survivor of the Hiroshima bomb Shigeki Tanaka winning the Boston Marathon in 1951.

Rumours radiation poisoning enhanced his performance although can't be verified

 

 

No doubt the yanks saw that as 'well now we are even you cheating fucks.'

 

They were ready to drop more until the Japanese surrendered. Reading about it is just mental. Just after they dropped on Hiroshima, people in Tokyo were just baffled by the complete loss of radio or any contact from the city. They sent someone there on a plane who saw the big cloud still in the sky and landed to complete devastation. A whole city wiped out completely.  Just like that. 

 

 I cant buy into the argument about the bombs stopping further deaths. These two bombs were some of the most inhumane acts in history. I'm glad america got their arses kicked in Vietnam. 

[chris71]

No doubt the yanks saw that as 'well now we are even you cheating fucks.'

 

They were ready to drop more until the Japanese surrendered. Reading about it is just mental. Just after they dropped on Hiroshima, people in Tokyo were just baffled by the complete loss of radio or any contact from the city. They sent someone there on a plane who saw the big cloud still in the sky and landed to complete devastation. A whole city wiped out completely.  Just like that. 

 

 I cant buy into the argument about the bombs stopping further deaths. These two bombs were some of the most inhumane acts in history. I'm glad america got their arses kicked in Vietnam. 

 

Just surprised they didn't lob a couple there to and Korea. Wasn't it Truman who went close to using them again in Korea?

[Lee909]

No doubt the yanks saw that as 'well now we are even you cheating fucks.'

 

They were ready to drop more until the Japanese surrendered. Reading about it is just mental. Just after they dropped on Hiroshima, people in Tokyo were just baffled by the complete loss of radio or any contact from the city. They sent someone there on a plane who saw the big cloud still in the sky and landed to complete devastation. A whole city wiped out completely. Just like that.

 

I cant buy into the argument about the bombs stopping further deaths. These two bombs were some of the most inhumane acts in history. I'm glad america got their arses kicked in Vietnam.

I dont like there use but it did prevent more deaths. If you are a Allied general in WW2 you've been at war for 4 to 6 years by then. You seen what the Germans dod with the deaths camps you habe seen Nanking. You've been part of the Oslamd hopping campaign and seen its horrors and your men die. Saving your own troops lives is the most important.

 

Its funny that the Hiroshima bomb is the one people say was a step too far when the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo were just as bad and had similar death tolls.

 

It did save lives and importantly allied lives. A naval blockade would habe starved millions to death an invasiom was expected to cost millions of Japanese lives and between 500,000 amd a million allied personnel.

 

Its sick that it came to that but Japan was not surrendering and was months away from Operation Cherry Blossom which would have dropped the black plague onto the US West Coast.

 

Its horrible but the Japanese were worse thsn the Nazis in their war crimes. They attack first,unprovoked and without declaring war.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Just surprised they didn't lob a couple there to and Korea. Wasn't it Truman who went close to using them again in Korea?

James Baker more or less threatened Saddam, face to face, with nukes on the eve of the first Gulf War.

 

(He reportedly told Saddam that if Iraq used chemical weapons against US forces, the response would be "disproportionate".)

[Lee909]

Just surprised they didn't lob a couple there to and Korea. Wasn't it Truman who went close to using them again in Korea?

I think it was McArthur that wanted to use them. His plan was to drop 30-50 of them across the border line if my memory is correct

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I dont like there use but it did prevent more deaths. If you are a Allied general in WW2 you've been at war for 4 to 6 years by then. You seen what the Germans dod with the deaths camps you habe seen Nanking. You've been part of the Oslamd hopping campaign and seen its horrors and your men die. Saving your own troops lives is the most important.

 

Its funny that the Hiroshima bomb is the one people say was a step too far when the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo were just as bad and had similar death tolls.

 

It did save lives and importantly allied lives. A naval blockade would habe starved millions to death an invasiom was expected to cost millions of Japanese lives and between 500,000 amd a million allied personnel.

 

Its sick that it came to that but Japan was not surrendering and was months away from Operation Cherry Blossom which would have dropped the black plague onto the US West Coast.

 

Its horrible but the Japanese were worse thsn the Nazis in their war crimes. They attack first,unprovoked and without declaring war.

I'm not convinced.

 

There's a lot of evidence that Japan was preparing to surrender once the Red Army started racing through Manchuria. I don't believe that the destruction of Nagasaki brought that surrender forward by as much as one day.

[Lee909]

From everything i read they had asked the Soviets to sort out a peace agreement but not a total surrender. The Soviets refused.

 

The true facts will never be known. I don't like them being used but i completely understand it.

[VladimirIlyich]

From everything i read they had asked the Soviets to sort out a peace agreement but not a total surrender. The Soviets refused.

 

The true facts will never be known. I don't like them being used but i completely understand it.

I do agree that the Soviets would have been eager to invade Japan in revenge for their defeat in their earlier war and it would have been savage on the Japanese population too.

[Anubis]

I thought the dropping of the bomb was for two reasons. First, it ended the war sooner and likely saved lives, even if it was horrific. The second main reason was so the Americans could send a message to Russia. By doing that it stopped Russian ambitions, both east and west, and again likely saved many lives.

 

The dropping of the second bomb was more questionable. Russia had their own ideas but were several years behind in the development of their bomb. Because of the expense and technical difficulty, they may have been tempted to think Hiroshima was a one-off, and when the Nagasaki bomb was dropped it confirmed that America had total supremacy with this devastating new weapon, so I think in the end it all helped to bring WW2 to an end and stop Russia.

There's the Catholicism we know and love. The Padre goes Old Testament.

[Alan Sex]

I think we should have used nukes in the Falklands.

 

 

 

*no I don't.

[Lee909]

I do agree that the Soviets would have been eager to invade Japan in revenge for their defeat in their earlier war and it would have been savage on the Japanese population too.

Yep,i think alot of people either dont know or forgot that is why Japanese became a player in the world stage. They beat the Russians in the Sino-Russisn war prior to WW1. A Soviet invasion of the mainland would have been brutal.

[Ne Moe Imya]

I'm not convinced.

 

There's a lot of evidence that Japan was preparing to surrender once the Red Army started racing through Manchuria. I don't believe that the destruction of Nagasaki brought that surrender forward by as much as one day.

Genuinely amazed anyone could think this.

 

The Japanese worldview at this point in history was incredibly stubborn. They had men living in the jungle 15 years after the fighting stopped who refused to surrender because they thought the emperor was a god. And you think they were about to surrender without being forced to just because they were losing the war?

 

Go read up on the battles of Iwo Jina and Okinawa! Both battles were lost very early, yet the Japanese dug in and refused to surrender, many committed suicide in attempts to kill a few Allied soldiers along with them.

 

The battle for the Japanese home islands would have been almost immeasurably brutal. Virtually every historical expert agrees that the loss of life would have been in the millions.

 

You can make a very strong case that the first bomb should have been a "demonstration" on some uninhabited location, or that the Allies should have waited longer for a response to Hiroshima for the emperor to think things through, but I'm not having the "they were about to surrender anyway." That's a load of nonsense.