The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
ended the Second World War. Don't take my word for it:
hear it from the lips of the one person capable of making
that decision.

Recorded in 2009.

On 6 and 9 August 1945, the United States detonated two atomic bombs
over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively.

The aerial bombings together killed between 129,000 and 226,000 people,
most of whom were civilians, and remain the only use of nuclear weapons
in an armed conflict.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

So the imperial united states are the only ones to use a bomb like that in anger...imperialism (enter imperial march song)

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

So the imperial united states are the only ones to use a bomb like that in anger...imperialism (enter imperial march song)

Anger?  Not exactly. 

Did the US join the war in Europe and the Pacific out of anger, or was it due to an act of war by Japan during a time when the US was misled into believing diplomatic talks were ongoing?

The bombs were created in part because Germany had the technology to achieve nuclear weapons, too.  The decision to use the bombs against Japan came after the Japanese made it clear they preferred extinction to defeat.  They intended to fight until every last Japanese soldier was dead -- and to take as many of ours with them in the process.

Japan could have surrendered after Hiroshima.  Why didn't they?  Because they were still not convinced they would lose.  It took another 6 days after the Nagasaki bomb before the country's leaders decided they must surrender.

This is a 2A forum where we always talk about using a weapon until the threat is stopped.  I see no difference in the decision to use nukes against Japan -- not out of anger, but in a rational hope that use of force will save the lives of those facing the threat..

A genxer at work told me that the bombing was propaganda about ending the war, I asked if he wasn't listening to propaganda. He doesn't know people who had live through that war. I've had several Uncles who served in WWII and my Grandfather who had to pull bodies out of the waters at Pearl Harbor and put them into body bags.

Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk

Anger?  Not exactly. 

Did the US join the war in Europe and the Pacific out of anger, or was it due to an act of war by Japan during a time when the US was misled into believing diplomatic talks were ongoing?

The bombs were created in part because Germany had the technology to achieve nuclear weapons, too.  The decision to use the bombs against Japan came after the Japanese made it clear they preferred extinction to defeat.  They intended to fight until every last Japanese soldier was dead -- and to take as many of ours with them in the process.

Japan could have surrendered after Hiroshima.  Why didn't they?  Because they were still not convinced they would lose.  It took another 6 days after the Nagasaki bomb before the country's leaders decided they must surrender.

This is a 2A forum where we always talk about using a weapon until the threat is stopped.  I see no difference in the decision to use nukes against Japan -- not out of anger, but in a rational hope that use of force will save the lives of those facing the threat..

The post was a joke to use the word imperial.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

The post was a joke to use the word imperial.

I picked up on the Imperial repetitions, but you also used the phrase "only ones to use a bomb like that in anger".

That's a talking point anti-American/Liberal/Socialist/Leftist types parrot all the time.  it's meant to paint the decision to use the bombs as an emotional one.

#DontPushMyButtons

 

General Dwight Eisenhower, in his memoirs, recalled a visit from Secretary of War Henry Stimson in late July 1945: “I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face.’” Eisenhower reiterated the point years later in a Newsweek interview in 1963, saying that “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

I'm not taking a position on this. Just want to point out there are different perspectives and the debate remains open. Also Ike was the guy who tried to warn us about the Military Industrial (Congressional) Complex which has now bankrupted our nation and diminished our status in the world.

https://apjjf.org/2021/20/Kuzmarov-Peace.html

I'm not taking a position on this. Just want to point out there are different perspectives and the debate remains open. Also Ike was the guy who tried to warn us about the Military Industrial (Congressional) Complex which has now bankrupted our nation and diminished our status in the world.

https://apjjf.org/2021/20/Kuzmarov-Peace.html

If you didn't get to watch the whole Bill Whittle video, I'd suggest picking it up about time mark 12:40.

In a nutshell, the Japanese Emperor himself said the reason he decided to surrender was because:

The enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon, and the power to
destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage...

Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse
and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total
extinction of human civilization...

This is the reason why we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of
the Joint Declaration of the Powers.

I'm not a genius, but when Ike or anyone else states Japan was ready to surrender, and the bombings were unnecessary, I tend to put more trust in the words of the Japanese Emperor himself.  He said flat out the bombs were the reason for surrender.  Not the massive fire bombing that leveled some areas by 50%, not the casualties on both sides, and not for any other reason. 

The Japanese culture values honor, and there is no honor in surrender.  Historically, defeated warriors often committed Seppuku or hara-kiri to atone for their failure and to prevent falling into the hands of their enemies.  Death before dishonor.

I do like that there were US leaders who had moral objections to the use of the bombs, but to say "they were about to surrender anyway" without any evidence to support that opinion tends to not ring 100% true to me.

JMHO

I posted this topic because,
1 -- it's during the anniversary of the bombings
2 -- it's a valid topic for a self-defense forum, given the rationale of killing thousands to save even more lives, and
3 -- I wanted to explore the different facets of the decision to use weapons of mass destruction, whether they be nuclear, biological, chemical or technological.

Asking if it was necessary is an unsolvable riddle.  since we did bomb Japan with nukes, there is no way to prove or disprove what Japan would have done that week, next month, or 3 years later.  We do know, however, it brought a swift and complete end to the war.

I find it fascinating that there was a reported attempt to kidnap the Emperor on his way to the radio station to announce surrender, perpetrated by high-ranking military members who objected to surrender.  If they had succeeded, the war would have drug on, and more would have died.

When the Soviets declared war on Japan the Japanese leadership knew it was over and were looking for a way to save face, so it's not surprising the Emperor jumped on that, but according to Eisenhower there were other diplomatic alternatives available that didn't involve testing WMDs on a civilian population.

Most likely the whole point of busting out the nukes was to send a message to the Soviets and kick off the Cold War

When the Soviets declared war on Japan the Japanese leadership knew it was over and were looking for a way to save face, so it's not surprising the Emperor jumped on that, but according to Eisenhower there were other diplomatic alternatives available that didn't involve testing WMDs on a civilian population.

Most likely the whole point of busting out the nukes was to send a message to the Soviets and kick off the Cold War

i don't agree that was the "whole point," but I do think being the first to have nukes was a major objective.

Think about if Japan had nukes before the US.  They would not have hesitated to use it and make us surrender.  Also, if we had yet to produce a working nuke -- as well as a viable delivery mechanism -- Japan would have had no deterrent against using nukes against us or anyone else.

We wanted to show the world we had the biggest stick on the playground, so everyone better play nice!

Think about if Japan had nukes before the US.  They would not have hesitated to use it and make us surrender.  Also, if we had yet to produce a working nuke -- as well as a viable delivery mechanism -- Japan would have had no deterrent against using nukes against us or anyone else.

I thought about this and wondered how effective the Japs would be since at the time, they would have no means to strike the US mainland or Hawaii.  They would have to use the nuke in an area controlled by the US, but near enough to strike by bomber or boat without being shot down/sunk.  At the end of the war, we dominated the air and sea.  But then again, they thought kamikaze was a good and noble idea. So maybe as the Missouri came into port, they set off a nuke.

But this would change if the invented one years before we had. So say in 43 or prior, when they did have better air/sea capabilities. 

But this is a huge what if as the Japs weren't as technologically advanced compared to the germans.  Man in the High Castle got this part of the alternate reality correct. Also I found out the main song is Edelweiss and it's a kids song. As I'm on Spotify listening to lullaby music for our daughter, the song came up. Even Mrs. CMO said "hey, isn't this the song from that show?"

I thought about this and wondered how effective the Japs would be since at the time, they would have no means to strike the US mainland or Hawaii.  They would have to use the nuke in an area controlled by the US, but near enough to strike by bomber or boat without being shot down/sunk.  At the end of the war, we dominated the air and sea.  But then again, they thought kamikaze was a good and noble idea. So maybe as the Missouri came into port, they set off a nuke.

But this would change if the invented one years before we had. So say in 43 or prior, when they did have better air/sea capabilities. 

But this is a huge what if as the Japs weren't as technologically advanced compared to the germans.  Man in the High Castle got this part of the alternate reality correct. Also I found out the main song is Edelweiss and it's a kids song. As I'm on Spotify listening to lullaby music for our daughter, the song came up. Even Mrs. CMO said "hey, isn't this the song from that show?"

You sure about that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Ellwood

if they had been able to figure out how to manufacture weapons grade nuclear material, how to induce fission, and all the other problems associated with a nuclear reaction, i'm sure they would have been able to deliver it, either in a Kamikaze sub driver targeting a CA Naval Port or a carrier-launched bomber -- just like we did and what they did at Pearl.

our atomic bombs were delivered by a carrier-launched bomber?

You sure about that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Ellwood

if they had been able to figure out how to manufacture weapons grade nuclear material, how to induce fission, and all the other problems associated with a nuclear reaction, i'm sure they would have been able to deliver it, either in a Kamikaze sub driver targeting a CA Naval Port or a carrier-launched bomber -- just like we did and what they did at Pearl.

You sure about that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Ellwood

if they had been able to figure out how to manufacture weapons grade nuclear material, how to induce fission, and all the other problems associated with a nuclear reaction, i'm sure they would have been able to deliver it, either in a Kamikaze sub driver targeting a CA Naval Port or a carrier-launched bomber -- just like we did and what they did at Pearl.

Again, by end of war, the Japs lacked the rearources, even for a sub that could carry the weight. Unless u talking abt pre 43?

Our bombs were so heavy that they werent too sure the b29s could take off. So it wouldnt blow in the event of a crash and kill all on the island they werent "armed" until in the air. A specialist (not part of the OG bomber crew) had to go along for the ride. Per History chanel show many years ago.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

our atomic bombs were delivered by a carrier-launched bomber?

I was talking about the Doolittle bombing raids over Japan.  That proved the US had the ability to reach into the Japanese territory with carrier-based bombers.  Of course, those were B-25s.

So, no, the Enola Gay and Bockscar B-29s were not launched from carriers, but the potential capability existed.

Again, by end of war, the Japs lacked the rearources, even for a sub that could carry the weight. Unless u talking abt pre 43?

Our bombs were so heavy that they werent too sure the b29s could take off. So it wouldnt blow in the event of a crash and kill all on the island they werent "armed" until in the air. A specialist (not part of the OG bomber crew) had to go along for the ride. Per History chanel show many years ago.

There were lots of unknowns since an air-dropped nuke had never been performed.  For all anyone knew, it could have been a suicide mission.

Ever wonder why Little Boy was dropped first?  Without getting into all the specs, Little boy had the equivalent power of 15,000 tons of TNT, while Fat Man had an equivalent 21,000 tons.  I think part of the decision was to see if the bomber could survive.  Once we knew dropping from 29K - 31K feet was safe, they were more confident of dropping the larger yield weapon.

The two bombs were different designs and payloads.  Uranium vs. Plutonium, and explosion versus implosion.  This was as much a test of the bombs themselves as it was a strategic move to end the war.  At the time, there had only been 4 bombs produced, and one was detonated as the first successful Manhattan Project test.  Not that many chances to see which designs and configurations were more effective.