Atomic Bombings
08-07-2014, 10:19 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,982
The reason it's worse than other types of war/bombings is that the effects are lasting. There is radiation, all kinds of medical problems for those not directly killed and it's affects generations to come. It's not like 5 years after the war houses would spontaneously combust because of the fire-bombings back during the war, yet leukemia, cancers, and other effects persisted for many years. Then there is the extent of the damage. It's one thing to be able to run from a fire (although many could not), or be part of a building block bombed where some people survive and many are killed. The center of the "a-bomb" is much more "total annihilation". Wiping out a city that quickly with no way to run, warn others, etc, was just not something that was even imagined before it happened. I wonder about the people who can't understand why the Japanese feel so deeply about this, the reasons seem pretty obvious to me. Yes, fire-bombing was "bad" for the other side, but it wasn't anywhere near as instant or long-lasting. It's not just about what has the highest body count.
All that said, using the atomic bomb was the right thing to do back then. The japanese and their fighting spirit were famous for their tenacity and attacking even in suicide situations. The island campaign had shown this time and time again, and the allies were about to set food on the mainland. It was going to be bloody to say the least, or at least there was good reason to think it was going to be. Hindsight is always 2020 and maybe certain generals or government leaders were getting ready to overthrow the emperor's rule or surrender, but that couldn't be taken into account and bet on.
All that said, using the atomic bomb was the right thing to do back then. The japanese and their fighting spirit were famous for their tenacity and attacking even in suicide situations. The island campaign had shown this time and time again, and the allies were about to set food on the mainland. It was going to be bloody to say the least, or at least there was good reason to think it was going to be. Hindsight is always 2020 and maybe certain generals or government leaders were getting ready to overthrow the emperor's rule or surrender, but that couldn't be taken into account and bet on.
08-08-2014, 06:34 AM
#22
Libertarian Resistance
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 757 FO
Posts: 1,057
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
Winged Wheeler:
As to my opinions of the bombings:
--There is nothing qualitatively different about being killed by a conventional weapon vs a nuclear/atomic weapon.
I'd agree, though obviously the use of WMDs has seen been made into its own category. Being killed by NBC agents has certainly taken on a different viewpoint.
--Bombing population centers like Dresden, Tokyo, or Hiroshima is of very limited military value.
I wish had the time (or inclination) to dredge up all ofmy books from Command and Staff, but there are certainly aspects of these types of bombings that were viewed as legtimate t argets for strategic purposes (on both sides of the war front) during WWII.
Here are some easier to find references:
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki"]
--Thus, using the A-bombs on a more strictly military target would have been the way I would have gone.
Agreed. YMMV - but those constitute military targets in my book. Maybe you underestimate the importance of industrial capabilities in war time?
As to my opinions of the bombings:
--There is nothing qualitatively different about being killed by a conventional weapon vs a nuclear/atomic weapon.
I'd agree, though obviously the use of WMDs has seen been made into its own category. Being killed by NBC agents has certainly taken on a different viewpoint.
--Bombing population centers like Dresden, Tokyo, or Hiroshima is of very limited military value.
I wish had the time (or inclination) to dredge up all ofmy books from Command and Staff, but there are certainly aspects of these types of bombings that were viewed as legtimate t argets for strategic purposes (on both sides of the war front) during WWII.
Here are some easier to find references:
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki"]
--Thus, using the A-bombs on a more strictly military target would have been the way I would have gone.
Agreed. YMMV - but those constitute military targets in my book. Maybe you underestimate the importance of industrial capabilities in war time?
I understand the logic of targeting facilities and people in a war against a state with a modern industrial economy--it was taught ad nauseum at the Zoo. According to that logic both of these cities qualified as legitimate military targets. I accept that but, I remain unconvinced that there weren't other, more essential, military assets that could have been targeted.
I recognize that people of good conscience are certain that I am wrong and that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the right targets. I accept that. That bell can't be un-rung.
WW
08-08-2014, 06:40 AM
#23
Libertarian Resistance
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 757 FO
Posts: 1,057
This thread has gone from what I'd intended (discussion of the change in leading conservative thoughts on a-bombs) to what it has become. Strong, set opinions inevitable lead to bad CRM. I cede the floor.
WW
WW
08-08-2014, 06:54 AM
#24
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Posts: 248
Hiroshima was the 2nd Army HQ, the command and communications center for southern Japan, a storage depot and assembly point for troops. Nagasaki was a large seaport, an important producer of ships, ordnance, and military equipment. Mitsubishi had a plant in Nagasaki that made aircraft motors. Nagasaki also hosted a torpedo factory and was a site for Kamikazes trained in operating explosive-laden boats designed to ram enemy landing craft.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen for their military capabilities and because their terrain maximized the effect of detonating the bombs; they were not chosen for the purpose of incinerating civilians and/or wiping out entire cities.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were good military targets.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen for their military capabilities and because their terrain maximized the effect of detonating the bombs; they were not chosen for the purpose of incinerating civilians and/or wiping out entire cities.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were good military targets.
08-08-2014, 09:15 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Posts: 211
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
The reason it's worse than other types of war/bombings is that the effects are lasting. There is radiation, all kinds of medical problems for those not directly killed and it's affects generations to come. It's not like 5 years after the war houses would spontaneously combust because of the fire-bombings back during the war, yet leukemia, cancers, and other effects persisted for many years. Then there is the extent of the damage. It's one thing to be able to run from a fire (although many could not), or be part of a building block bombed where some people survive and many are killed. The center of the "a-bomb" is much more "total annihilation". Wiping out a city that quickly with no way to run, warn others, etc, was just not something that was even imagined before it happened. I wonder about the people who can't understand why the Japanese feel so deeply about this, the reasons seem pretty obvious to me. Yes, fire-bombing was "bad" for the other side, but it wasn't anywhere near as instant or long-lasting. It's not just about what has the highest body count.
All that said, using the atomic bomb was the right thing to do back then. The japanese and their fighting spirit were famous for their tenacity and attacking even in suicide situations. The island campaign had shown this time and time again, and the allies were about to set food on the mainland. It was going to be bloody to say the least, or at least there was good reason to think it was going to be. Hindsight is always 2020 and maybe certain generals or government leaders were getting ready to overthrow the emperor's rule or surrender, but that couldn't be taken into account and bet on.
All that said, using the atomic bomb was the right thing to do back then. The japanese and their fighting spirit were famous for their tenacity and attacking even in suicide situations. The island campaign had shown this time and time again, and the allies were about to set food on the mainland. It was going to be bloody to say the least, or at least there was good reason to think it was going to be. Hindsight is always 2020 and maybe certain generals or government leaders were getting ready to overthrow the emperor's rule or surrender, but that couldn't be taken into account and bet on.
I also would say that we did warn them. However they did not take us seriously. I don't have the time now to go and find a direct source (correct me if i'm wrong) but in one of my Japanese history classes I remember being told that the U.S. warned Japan that we had weapons of mass destruction and that we would use them if they refused to surrender.
08-08-2014, 09:40 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 121
Originally Posted by Winged Wheeler
This thread has gone from what I'd intended (discussion of the change in leading conservative thoughts on a-bombs) to what it has become.
WW
WW
supporting the bombing.
This is just another left wing attempt to make people rethink their support for a strong US nuclear force.
08-08-2014, 09:46 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 121
In a just and sane world, August would be "USA Appreciation Month" in Japan. Not only did our resolve to end the war quickly save thousands upon thousands of Japanese, our post war efforts rebuilt Japan and their economy, placed them under our security blanket, and planted them firmly in the top 3 manufacturing counties in the world.
08-08-2014, 09:53 AM
#28
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Posts: 248
Originally Posted by Spur
In a just and sane world, August would be "USA Appreciation Month" in Japan. Not only did our resolve to end the war quickly save thousands upon thousands of Japanese, our post war efforts rebuilt Japan and their economy, placed them under our security blanket, and planted them firmly in the top 3 manufacturing counties in the world.
08-08-2014, 10:28 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Position: On the hotel shuttle
Posts: 5,812
There's a graph out there of which analyzes war casualties throughout history. The growth was exponential up to the bombings, after that a precipitous drop off and a stable rate since. They've saved countless millions of lives.
08-08-2014, 05:56 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by Winged Wheeler
USMCFLYR:
I understand the logic of targeting facilities and people in a war against a state with a modern industrial economy--it was taught ad nauseum at the Zoo. According to that logic both of these cities qualified as legitimate military targets. I accept that but, I remain unconvinced that there weren't other, more essential, military assets that could have been targeted.
I recognize that people of good conscience are certain that I am wrong and that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the right targets. I accept that. That bell can't be un-rung.
WW
I understand the logic of targeting facilities and people in a war against a state with a modern industrial economy--it was taught ad nauseum at the Zoo. According to that logic both of these cities qualified as legitimate military targets. I accept that but, I remain unconvinced that there weren't other, more essential, military assets that could have been targeted.
I recognize that people of good conscience are certain that I am wrong and that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the right targets. I accept that. That bell can't be un-rung.
WW
Maybe next time you can be on the target selection committee!
