[PublicAnimalNo9]

I do agree with you that in some part, dropping the bombs was partly a case of Truman going, "Neener neener neener, look what we have", to Stalin.
But Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial cities and according to doctrine at the time, bombing of industrial targets in cities was acceptable. I don't know for sure if anyone really knew the lingering effects of dropping a nuke or two BUT, sending waves of B-29's over those cities with incendiaries and HE would have destroyed more of the cities and killed more people than the nukes did.
Just look at cities like Dresden and Hamburg. And that was with smaller B-17's and Lancasters.

[bootlegga]

Irrelevant. Bombing industrial cities/civilian targets is not what this is about. This is about dropping a weapon that has scarred future generations, both physically and mentally.

Sorry, but a WMD is NOT a typical bomb and never should have been used.

A blockade and round-the-clock bombing campaign would have forced them to surrender in a few months anyways, without much in the way of Allied casualties. Japanese casualties may or may not have been higher but who knows.

Again, this was all about intimidating Stalin and nothing else.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

So yer saying that everyone that needed to know, knew the extent of the lingering effects of dropping a nuke? They knew that even today people would still be suffering because of it?
I'm not arguing about Truman trying to send a message to Stalin, cuz I agree, but I don't know if that was his only consideration for using it.

[bootlegga]

Despite some scientists theorizing that the atomic bomb could ignite the entire atmosphere, it was still tested. They had demonized the Japanese so much that they were going to get the bomb dropped on them no matter what.

[commanderkai]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Irrelevant. Bombing industrial cities/civilian targets is not what this is about. This is about dropping a weapon that has scarred future generations, both physically and mentally.

Sorry, but a WMD is NOT a typical bomb and never should have been used.

In 1945, the radiation effects of nuclear weapons, like the atomic bombs, was minimal at best. Hell, there was a John Wayne movie made on location of the first bomb tests. He then died of cancer, along with many others there with him.

Anyway. The fact that you can say, 64 years later, that A) the atomic bomb was not a typical bomb, and B) that it should have never been used doesn't really change anything. The fact is, the reasons why both cities were picked was because of their industrial capacity, and their importance as naval ports. Leaving these two cities intact before a ground invasion would have been stupidity.

The idea of nuclear fallout was still rather vague to 40s scientists. Nobody knew the lasting effects, and most people probably thought of it as a superbomb. Not something similar to a chemical weapon attack. Nobody knew it was not a typical bomb until we better understood nuclear science.

$1:

A blockade and round-the-clock bombing campaign would have forced them to surrender in a few months anyways, without much in the way of Allied casualties. Japanese casualties may or may not have been higher but who knows.

And how do you know your theory would have been better? It took the Soviet army to tear Berlin apart to get the Germans to surrender, even when its cities were being bombed round the clock, and cut off from any outside supplies.

Japan was even more fanatical in their war effort, and the fact they were sending off kamikaze attacks upon US shipping because they knew they were losing the war shows they would have not have given up as easily as you pretend they would have.

$1:

Again, this was all about intimidating Stalin and nothing else.

No, it was Japanese stubbornness in thinking they could get anybody to agree to a conditional surrender. That's why there were more plans for more bomb drops. They would have done it over, and over, and over.

[Mustang1]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Those bombs were dropped to intimidate Stalin, nothing more.

And yet history seems to disagree with this - got any facts to support it?

[Proculation]

Anyway, most nukes do not let that much radioactivity. The megatons nukes yes but smaller nukes not that much.

[ASLplease]

there is no need for hiroshima to blow up over this

[bootlegga]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Those bombs were dropped to intimidate Stalin, nothing more.

And yet history seems to disagree with this - got any facts to support it?

I'll admit it's not my personal theory, a professor (of Russian studies) at university pointed this out to me.

After that, I did a little digging and read excerpts from things like Truman's and Stimson's diaries, which appear to prove that Stalin was heavily factored into the dropping of the bomb, both as a way to intimidate him and prevent him from sharing in any 'spoils' of victory in Asia (he had wanted border concessions from China for example).

One of Truman's entries for example says, "the method now to deal with Russia was to keep our mouths shut and let our actions speak as words." To me that is one example of how much Stalin influenced Truman's decision-making.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

[Mustang1]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Those bombs were dropped to intimidate Stalin, nothing more.

And yet history seems to disagree with this - got any facts to support it?

I'll admit it's not my personal theory, a professor (of Russian studies) at university pointed this out to me.

After that, I did a little digging and read excerpts from things like Truman's and Stimson's diaries, which appear to prove that Stalin was heavily factored into the dropping of the bomb, both as a way to intimidate him and prevent him from sharing in any 'spoils' of victory in Asia (he had wanted border concessions from China for example).

One of Truman's entries for example says, "the method now to deal with Russia was to keep our mouths shut and let our actions speak as words." To me that is one example of how much Stalin influenced Truman's decision-making.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

I'd say whomever the Russian studies professor was, he was flat-ass wrong, or engaging in a little revisionism, if he in any way supported the assertion, "Those bombs were dropped to intimidate Stalin, nothing more." To suggest that Japan's surrender was not a primary point - easily played out in primary sources, from Truman to Stimson, to King - ignorers significant primary and secondary sources and is ahistorical analysis. If, by dropping the bomb, you might send a message to Stalin about a post-war world, then i'd see it, but your supposition that it was, "...nothing more" is historically false.

[EyeBrock]

bootlegga bootlegga:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki stopped thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands Allied troops from dying in an assault on mainland Japan.

The Japanese are really throwing stones in glass houses on this one. This was total war, something the Japanese had no problem with inflicting on Nanking, Hong Kong, Singapore and a thousand other cities that were brutalised by them until we stopped them.

And as for getting rid of nukes while democratic stalwarts such as Iran, North Korea and Pakistan have them or are getting them. Not such a good idea.

About as good as getting a bit of paper in Munich in 1938.

Total war is one thing, but using WMDs is a whole other ball of wax. Yes, the Japanese bombed cities and killed plenty of civilians, but nothing they did was on the same scale as those nuke attacks. They would have been justified had the Japanese attacked Los Angeles or Seattle with chemical/biological weapons, but they never did.

An attack on Japan might have killed thousands of Allied soldiers, but that hardly justifies using WMDs on civilian targets. The USN had proposed a naval blockade of Japan which likely would have forced them to capitulate by the end of the year.

Those bombs were dropped to intimidate Stalin, nothing more.

I'm sure there was a political element to this and Stalin would have been in the optics.
Remember though, as these weapons were being developed , the Nazi's also had an atomic program in the works. The Nazi's and Japanese were allies.

I also will have the point that a conventional bombing campaign with the USAAF and Bomber Command could have been an option.
But even with air superiority over Germany, the 8th AF and Bomber Command sustained horrific combat losses.
Bomber Command had the highest casualty rate of any Commonwealth unit in the Second World War.

I see no problem with ending a war on Japan with those two atomic weapons.
Coming from a country where my grandparents suffered during the Blitz as well as V1 attacks on civilians, I'd rather thousands of Japanese have died than thousands of Brits, Aussies and Americans.
The Japanese were the enemy.

Let's not forget that this was a war, total war and let's not forget it was against two very evil blocs that oppressed and murdered millions.

[bootlegga]

commanderkai commanderkai:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Irrelevant. Bombing industrial cities/civilian targets is not what this is about. This is about dropping a weapon that has scarred future generations, both physically and mentally.

Sorry, but a WMD is NOT a typical bomb and never should have been used.

In 1945, the radiation effects of nuclear weapons, like the atomic bombs, was minimal at best. Hell, there was a John Wayne movie made on location of the first bomb tests. He then died of cancer, along with many others there with him.

Anyway. The fact that you can say, 64 years later, that A) the atomic bomb was not a typical bomb, and B) that it should have never been used doesn't really change anything. The fact is, the reasons why both cities were picked was because of their industrial capacity, and their importance as naval ports. Leaving these two cities intact before a ground invasion would have been stupidity.

The idea of nuclear fallout was still rather vague to 40s scientists. Nobody knew the lasting effects, and most people probably thought of it as a superbomb. Not something similar to a chemical weapon attack. Nobody knew it was not a typical bomb until we better understood nuclear science.

It’s easy for you to say that the effects of nuclear weapons are “minimal at best” given that you haven’t experienced it. Studies have shown that people present at both cities have suffered a variety of illnesses directly related to the attacks, such as increased rates of cancer and leukemia.

After the Trinity test, they knew this bomb was different. Yes, they didn’t understand the long term effects of the device (to the point of exploding one with 4000 troops nearby to test the effects on their health), but they knew it was far different from the 2000 lb bombs they dropped from B-17s.

Again, had the Japanese used chemical or biological weapons on cities (US or otherwise), then there would definitely be justification for using the bomb, but they never used either type of weapon on civilian targets in a similar fashion. In this matter, I’m talking about killing thousands of people with a mustard gas strike on Shanghai or something, not the barbaric tests that Unit 731 did on Chinese subjects (which was truly horrible).

commanderkai commanderkai:

$1:

A blockade and round-the-clock bombing campaign would have forced them to surrender in a few months anyways, without much in the way of Allied casualties. Japanese casualties may or may not have been higher but who knows.

And how do you know your theory would have been better? It took the Soviet army to tear Berlin apart to get the Germans to surrender, even when its cities were being bombed round the clock, and cut off from any outside supplies.

Japan was even more fanatical in their war effort, and the fact they were sending off kamikaze attacks upon US shipping because they knew they were losing the war shows they would have not have given up as easily as you pretend they would have.

Because the USAF Strategic Bombing Survey Report tells me so;

“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USS ... tml#jstetw

commanderkai commanderkai:

$1:

Again, this was all about intimidating Stalin and nothing else.

No, it was Japanese stubbornness in thinking they could get anybody to agree to a conditional surrender. That's why there were more plans for more bomb drops. They would have done it over, and over, and over.

Sorry, but you’re wrong. After the second bomb was dropped, Truman ordered a halt to more atomic bombs being dropped.

$1:

On Aug. 10, 1945 (the day after the Nagasaki bomb), having received reports and photographs of the effects of the Hiroshima bomb, Truman ordered a halt to further atomic bombings. Sec. of Commerce Henry Wallace wrote in his diary on Aug. 10th, "Truman said he had given orders to stop atomic bombing. He said the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn't like the idea of killing, as he said, 'all those kids'." (John Blum, ed., The Price of Vision: the Diary of Henry A. Wallace, 1942-1946, pg. 473-474).

[bootlegga]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

I'd say whomever the Russian studies professor was, he was flat-ass wrong, or engaging in a little revisionism, if he in any way supported the assertion, "Those bombs were dropped to intimidate Stalin, nothing more." To suggest that Japan's surrender was not a primary point - easily played out in primary sources, from Truman to Stimson, to King - ignorers significant primary and secondary sources and is ahistorical analysis. If, by dropping the bomb, you might send a message to Stalin about a post-war world, then i'd see it, but your supposition that it was, "...nothing more" is historically false.

No, the "nothing more" was me ad-libbing, not the professor. His stance was more along the lines of what you suggested, 'sending a message to Stalin in the post-war world'.

[EyeBrock]

I think you have a point on that boots.

It's rare military decision that is based purely on a military objective. Politics always plays a part.

[SprCForr]

Yep, especially at that level.

IIRC, blockade was looked at. It was determined to be ineffectual due to time required for effect and Japan's ability to survive at a basic level indefinately. The potential withdrawl of the Kwantung Army back to the homeland before the blockade or an invasion was a real concern to the US too. The militarists were going to let the civil population drop to the required point of self sustainability so the war could be carried on.