Hiroshima bomb - good or bad?
Discussion
On Saturday it will be 50 years since the first atom bomb was dropped. So was it a good idea or a bad idea? My thoughts are:
1) If the Japanese had one, I think they would have used it on the USA.
2) The fact it took two bombs to end the war shows the determination of the Japanese.
3) Most people agree that the war ended sooner than it would have done, saving many lives.
4) The Japanese picked a fight with the USA, so they started it!
5) Should the bombs have been dropped on two cities, rather than military sites? I honestly don't know. The Dad in me struggles with this element of the decision, but I don't know what options there were at the time.
1) If the Japanese had one, I think they would have used it on the USA.
2) The fact it took two bombs to end the war shows the determination of the Japanese.
3) Most people agree that the war ended sooner than it would have done, saving many lives.
4) The Japanese picked a fight with the USA, so they started it!
5) Should the bombs have been dropped on two cities, rather than military sites? I honestly don't know. The Dad in me struggles with this element of the decision, but I don't know what options there were at the time.
timmy30 said:
I think that turning the entire population of a city into peking crispy duck was not a good idea.
Not enough pancakes.
Probably ended the war earlier thus saving more people on both side than was killed by the bomb. Sacrafice the few for the sake of the many.
If you start a fight you cant complain when you get a bloody nose
Bad, but sadly necessary. I read in one of the papers a little while back a serialisation of a new book all about the Manhattan Project and the dropping of the bomb and the aftermath; truly horrific, but I don't believe Japan would have surrendered otherwise without the mainland being invaded, which would have led to far greater casualties on both sides.
Totally justified given the situation at the time, to try to unjustify it now is pointless.
The reason the world is the way it is now is as a direct result of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki H bombs. For those that lived thru the cold war of the 60/70/80's when we got very close to nuclear war between the Americans and the Russians on a number of occasions, the 1945 bombs are why it never happened again.
The reason the world is the way it is now is as a direct result of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki H bombs. For those that lived thru the cold war of the 60/70/80's when we got very close to nuclear war between the Americans and the Russians on a number of occasions, the 1945 bombs are why it never happened again.
Japan were done for already and knew it, wouldnt have taken much more fighting to bring it to an end.
From an American POV it was a good deal as any US life saved was worth it.
BUT I believe primarily it was droped as retribution and a scientific test.
And no, people nuking cities is never a good thing.
From an American POV it was a good deal as any US life saved was worth it.
BUT I believe primarily it was droped as retribution and a scientific test.
And no, people nuking cities is never a good thing.
Playing devils advocate here but would we have wiped out Berlin and Munich with A-bombs? And if we had wouldn't it be seen today as a war crime? Is there an extent to which the US felt that as they were a bunch of non European 'yellow guys' it wouldn't be seen as negatively by the US public?
timmy30 said:
But if they'd dropped the things on a couple of military bases wouldn't they have sh*t themselves and surrendered anyway?
I always have this horrible suspicion that they wanted to see what would happen if you dropped one on a city, a sort of horrid experiment.
That's a given. They picked targets that hadn't been touched by previous air raids in order to a) show the japanese the weapons power and b) to have a base line to take measurments from.
There must also have been an element of putting the wind up the Russians as well. The largest communist state in the world was, at the time consolidating half of europe...
srebbe64 said:They almost had. I saw a documentary on the History Channel about how the Germans sent over most of their fissile material and plans to Japan in a submarine in the closing days of the war. The plan being for Japan to finish the construction of a nuclear device and drop it on the USA. The submarine was intercepted and, somewhat ironically, the fissile material sent to the Manhattan Project where some of it probably ended up in the bombs that the Americans dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
1) If the Japanese had one, I think they would have used it on the USA.
>> Edited by JonRB on Wednesday 3rd August 10:28
The destructive power of the atom bombs dropped on Japan were far less powerful than modern day nuclear missiles.
I imagine at the time they were regarded as more powerful versions of conventional explosives and large scale bombing of enemy cities was already being practised by all the major combatants.
Let us not forget that far more were killed in the bombing campaign against Germany.
I imagine at the time they were regarded as more powerful versions of conventional explosives and large scale bombing of enemy cities was already being practised by all the major combatants.
Let us not forget that far more were killed in the bombing campaign against Germany.
I used to have an old black and white VHS of the nuke testing the Americans carried out. It was quite mad to see the mushrooms erupting in front of military men standing around, only a few miles away in the desert. They roasted pigs and all sorts in the name of testing. I seem to recall they also blew up some ships at sea.
timmy30 said:German fascism was seen as a rather more undiluted evil than the Japanese nationalism. When the atom bomb was being built the target was assumed to be Nazi Germany. Ultimate force against ultimate evil; that was the moral justification. But the war in Europe ended before the bomb was ready to be deployed.
Playing devils advocate here but would we have wiped out Berlin and Munich with A-bombs? And if we had wouldn't it be seen today as a war crime? Is there an extent to which the US felt that as they were a bunch of non European 'yellow guys' it wouldn't be seen as negatively by the US public?
While it was the first bomb to be dropped on the enemy, remember that the Trinity test was the first bomb to be set off.
The reason it took two bombs to stop the japs is because the gvt denied Hiroshima had happened - and it was not until nagaskai was obliterated that they finally capitulated.
The US reckoned that they would lose a million men if they invaded the Japanese mainland - not an option.
The reason it took two bombs to stop the japs is because the gvt denied Hiroshima had happened - and it was not until nagaskai was obliterated that they finally capitulated.
The US reckoned that they would lose a million men if they invaded the Japanese mainland - not an option.
hell, how many bombs have actually been set off. This cant be doing the earth good www.astrosurf.org/lombry/quantique-bombes-atomiques-pic.htm
Great pics though
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff