Hiroshima bomber dead

This is kind of a difficult question and it is rather easy to judged by people who weren't part of it.

Even back then there were both supporters for the use of the 'gadget' and people against it.
Plans were laid out for the invasion of the Japanese home island but the strategists and generals knew it would cost a lot of lives on both sides.

Some will probably bring up that the Russians were about to join with the invasion but I am sure that someone on this board can tell us why the US preferred to use the bomb instead of waiting for their allies.

(was there fear of the Communist threat then?)

In the end it comes to this.

Was the dropping of the A Bomb necessary or wrong? It happened and you can't change anything about that.

Should nuclear weapons be used again? No

As for this man, I am probably going to be criticized for this but he simply did an assignment, if he had refused the airforce would have found someone else.
 
Chertan, watch the new The War documentary on PBS. It will make the war in the Pacific much more understandable and help you realize why we dropped the atomic bomb. Basically, if we didn't... everyone in japan would either commit suicide or go down guns blazing.

A good example of why this would have been can be seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

Or, on the completely other end of the spectrum... invading their mainland could have always been like Germany's experiences in Stalingrad. Oh boy, that would have been much funner and far more humane than bombs on two cities.

Either way... I guess it's interesting that he died. He played a pretty big role in WW2, despite however easily any other pilot could have taken the job as well.
 
I believe that the estimates of casualties on in Japan if Allies invaded were to be at least 5 million. In Yalta conference it was agreed that Soviet Union would be participating in invasion because Allies knew that the human cost would be too great for them just to bear.
For this reason US government to save lives of its citizens decided to drop the bomb, plus it also was clear demonstration to Soviet Union of American military power.
 
SimpleMinded said:
Chertan, watch the new The War documentary on PBS. It will make the war in the Pacific much more understandable and help you realize why we dropped the atomic bomb.
Click to expand...
Wow, you dropped the atomic bomb? Cool :) .
 
SimpleMinded said:
Chertan, watch the new The War documentary on PBS. It will make the war in the Pacific much more understandable and help you realize why we dropped the atomic bomb. Basically, if we didn't... everyone in japan would either commit suicide or go down guns blazing.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Japanese troops were pretty fanatic, but that's a rather narrow-minded viewpoint.

The militaristic government that was in power was not what you'd call popular, and there were signs of Japan considering surrender before the first bomb was dropped. After the first bomb, it was pretty well certain, the second bomb was just for "good measure" really.

A significant (if not the sole) reason for dropping the bombs on someone was to show off our new toys to Russia.

Then there was the whole "unconditional surrender" bit, a total diplomatic blunder that was stuck to for no reason other than to save face. They knew damn well that Japan would have trouble accepting any surrender that threatened the establishment of their Emperor, and there was no good reason not to allow for terms that would assure the Japanese that their Emperor wouldn't be tried for war crimes and executed or somesuch (especially seeing as how he wasn't actually in charge of the government at all).

Further, the general in charge of the campaign against Japan (can't recall his name) was in fact against the use of nukes. The decision to drop the bombs was much more political than military.

There's a lot of reading you can do, including one especially good book by a guy who did a lot of investigation of government documents that were declassified under the Freedom of Information Act. If anyone's actually interested, I suppose I could search around and see if I can find the book again. The title escapes me at the moment.
 
SimpleMinded said:
Or, on the completely other end of the spectrum... invading their mainland could have always been like Germany's experiences in Stalingrad. Oh boy, that would have been much funner and far more humane than bombs on two cities.
Click to expand...
Um...except soldiers are trained and meant to go into danger, while civilians should be able to expect that nobody's going to just drop a nuke on their city.

Also, let's not forget that prior to the nukes 67 other cities were firebombed for six months. Yes, rules of war were more lax back then. That doesn't make it right to retrospectively justify such actions using logic that works only until the speaker himself experiences something similar to what he has been justifying.
 
It's amusing when this thread and its forebears pop up periodically on this forum. To see the revisionism and justifications we invoke in The Bomb's defense or trashing is refreshing. :eyebrow:

Judging the actions of the Truman administration from current rules of what's 'right' and 'justified' in the West is disingenuous. In the context of the time and scientific understanding of atomics, the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the preferred to the vexing problem of invading a nation where everyone, down to the children, were armed and indoctrinated to resist occupation.

The United States would have had to kill Japan, in the most literal sense, and in the process lose tens to hundreds of thousands more Americans. To my knowledge most American civilians and political leadership at the time much preferred The Bomb solution to the invasion solution.

Furthermore, the use of atomic weapons on Japanese cities represents a unique incident in world history where one power alone had the ability to use these weapons, without fear of retaliation either in kind or in other forms. The homogenous and centrally controlled state of Japan in this period also lent itself to this sort of action, as unlike most other societies what the Emperor commanded, everyone obeyed, facilitating the transition to democracy with a minimum of dissent and partisan activity. That period has past, for better or worse, and with its passing the opportunity to enforce a nation's will so completely on another has also past. Refighting that fight, especially in the context of current opinion or accepted practice, only serves to inflame tensions or as a rhetorical device to trash some other policy or process.
 
It was at the time a necessary evil... something I suppose that had to be done in order to grasp the destruction such a weapon can bring. I didn't like the use of it, but I didn't live in those times and I suppose considering the atrocities the Empire of Japan had committed it was that option or to fight the Japs to the bitter end in which they would probably be on the endangered species list.

A war of extermination isn't one to remember. I know for sure being a soldier now that the prospect may one day landed at my feet and I'd wonder how future generations would judge me. Not that I'd care.
 
Murdoch said:
a nation where everyone, down to the children, were armed and indoctrinated to resist occupation.
Click to expand...
Sounds like stereotyping and overstatement to me. One can find right-wing nationalists in any country if one looks for them.

Sure, I can understand the reasoning behind the Truman administration's decision, yet I cannot state without a doubt that it was correct.
 
fedaykin said:
Murdoch said:
a nation where everyone, down to the children, were armed and indoctrinated to resist occupation.
Click to expand...
Sounds like stereotyping and overstatement to me. One can find right-wing nationalists in any country if one looks for them.
Click to expand...

I too watched the documentary The War like SimpleMinded, and have discussed the subject in history courses. As stated in my original retort the Japanese (not Japs, which is offensive to Japanese, Carib), were uniquely suited towards their single-minded in their pursuit of war. Few other modern nations can claim the level of authoritarian control the Emperor the held; what he said most Japanese did. And those he could not command were taken care of by the security apparatus.

Sure, I can understand the reasoning behind the Truman administration's decision, yet I cannot state without a doubt that it was correct.
Click to expand...
Neither can I, but again it's unfair for you or I to judge what was done as Right or Wrong based on our morals and knowledge base without caveats.
 
Estimates at the time had our numbers of dead troops at 1,000,000 and around 10,000,000 dead japanese if we had invaded the mainland. Don't anybody try to bullshit me into thinking it didn't save lives.
 
was using them right? it had the desired effect.

was using them wrong? history has said it was right at the time.

will there be another time when using them will end up better than not? we dont know.
 
fedaykin said:
Sure, I can understand the reasoning behind the Truman administration's decision, yet I cannot state without a doubt that it was correct.
Click to expand...

Geez, who said you were required to? I haven't seen anyone claiming it wouldn't be an agonizing call to make. Bombing being the "better call" doesn't have to mean anything else than being the lesser of two huge-ass evils, and from what I know it probably was.

- Aggressor nation invades a bucketload of other nations and sets up labour and death camps pretty much all over the place.

- People (non-aggressor) are wilfully killed by the millions in China, the Philippines, Indochina... This goes on throughout the war.

- Aggressor army is beaten but will not admit defeat. Diplomatically they vacillate between hinting at unconditional surrender and promising total war, playing the US and Russia against each other for time and using up their credibility in the process.

- Officially, aggressor politics is that all will fight to the death in the case of an invasion. Projected losses for non-aggressor fighting forces are very high. Conventional bombing already causes massive losses among aggressor people.

- Non-aggressor civilian deaths in slave camps are still running high every day the war drags out.

- A-bombs drop, an assload of people die.

- Several assloads of other people don't die as war immediately ends. Conventional bombing stops. Camps are closed. Oppressed peoples are free. Invasion doesn't happen. Rebuilding can start.

- Former aggressor people under new government because of unconditional surrender shortly go on to simultaneously discover the twin civilization advances of Big Eyes and Small Mouth and begin to take over the world again. When science shows that this is not enough to make people poke their eyes out, cosplay is developed.

This is not the whole picture. Maybe the decision-makers had other reasons to drop bombs and so didn't consider themselves to be in the big vice I have painted here and which I for myself would have felt myself fucking obliged to consider. I submit it is enough to say that dropping the bombs might have seemed to be and might have been the least suboptimal solution. We don't know for sure. No one is expected to know for sure. But if someone claims to know it was the most suboptimal solution to that bizarre scenario, then I have just this to say:

Armchair, meet General. General, Armchair.

Man, we did all this two years ago at the 50th anniversary...

Edit: The majority of this post is not meant as a reply to you specifically, fedaykin. When I started on the list I was basically no longer in reply-to-specific-poster mode. I realized it can come off as a bit harsh if read that way.
 
It was war... and it had to end. So whatever the means it had to end. Lest we forget and repeat the same sins.

Japan had made a gamble and it lost. America and her allies couldn't and wouldn't give so someone had to lose.
 
Kyuu said:
SimpleMinded said:
Chertan, watch the new The War documentary on PBS. It will make the war in the Pacific much more understandable and help you realize why we dropped the atomic bomb. Basically, if we didn't... everyone in japan would either commit suicide or go down guns blazing.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Japanese troops were pretty fanatic, but that's a rather narrow-minded viewpoint.
Click to expand...

You are wrong here. There are plenty of videos of japanese mothers on the outlying island jumping to their deaths as American soldiers approached because they were convinced by their emperor that we were just going to torture and kill every one of them.

The Japanese were heavily brainwashed and very much under control of the government.

Kyuu said:
The militaristic government that was in power was not what you'd call popular, and there were signs of Japan considering surrender before the first bomb was dropped. After the first bomb, it was pretty well certain, the second bomb was just for "good measure" really.
Click to expand...

You are wrong again. There were three specific requirements we had of the japanese. The emperor had to stand down, and their army had to disband. I don't remember the third one.

Anyway, they disagreed to both of these requirements between the first and second bombing.

[/list]
 
To get an idea on how well they followed orders.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/worldwarii/a/soldiersurr.htm

You are absolutely forbidden to die by your own hand. It may take three years, it may take five, but whatever happens, we'll come back for you. Until then, so long as you have one soldier, you are to continue to lead him. You may have to live on coconuts. If that's the case, live on coconuts! Under no circumstances are you [to] give up your life voluntarily.1
Click to expand...

This is the last guy to surrender thoughts, after he understood that the war really was over.

We really lost the war! How could they have been so sloppy?

Suddenly everything went black. A storm raged inside me. I felt like a fool for having been so tense and cautious on the way here. Worse than that, what had I been doing for all these years?

Gradually the storm subsided, and for the first time I really understood: my thirty years as a guerrilla fighter for the Japanese army were abruptly finished. This was the end.

I pulled back the bolt on my rifle and unloaded the bullets. . . .

I eased off the pack that I always carried with me and laid the gun on top of it. Would I really have no more use for this rifle that I had polished and cared for like a baby all these years? Or Kozuka's rifle, which I had hidden in a crevice in the rocks? Had the war really ended thirty years ago? If it had, what had Shimada and Kozuka died for? If what was happening was true, wouldn't it have been better if I had died with them?5
Click to expand...

Man oh man, hard to understand that kind of commitment in todays world :)
 
I wonder, would he be court-martialled if he'd refuse to follow the order?

Regardless of the fact that those two bombs ended the war, it must have been hard for him to live with himself after this.
 
Maybe you're forgetting that back then, men were men, and massive slaughter of civilians was part of being a man.


That said, I agree with Truman's decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top