'I don't blame them but I hope they mourn the dead' (Hiroshima a-bomb)

The Observer ^ | 7/24/05 | David Smith

[Mad Mammoth]

The Japanese started the War in the Pacific, and America finished it.

Don't mess with the U.S., unless you KNOW you can finish 'us'.

In honor of the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima, I nominate Pyongyang, North Korea and Tabriz, Iran, as sites for true life recreations of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions.

[insert WorldNutDaily's Joe Freakin-Farah doomsaying about "American Hiroshima" and "al Qaeda nukes" ---> *here*]

[Mark17]

Robert K. Wilcox's book "Japan's Secret War" makes a VERY strong case that the Japanese were much farther ahead in the development of an atomic bomb then the Germans.

I saw the History Channel, where they said the Japanese were planning a nuclear attack on the US, on Sept 17, 1945, though I am not sure if it was supposed to be a nuclear explosion, or simply a dirty bomb.

[Yasotay]

I've noticed the History Channel slightly changing their position on that attack. Japan's development of nuclear weapons is still one of the classifed areas of WWII. Wilcox makes a case, that Japan detonated a nuclear device off of what is now North Korea in August 1945.

[Porterville]

Japanese attacked us first- I morn every American killed by punk thugs around the world- and I don't morn the death of those who did nothing to stop them.

[jwh_Denver]

Why do the Japs never recognise that we won their country militarily and had the historical right to keep their land? I think the fact we kicked their as*es still grates on their prideful nerves.

[Mr. Silverback]

I don't see what his own views have to do with it.

A source having an ulterior motive or a bias does not necessarily refute their evidence or conclusions, but it must be considered. Unitarianism is not so much a religion as a socialist peacenik club that meets on Sundays. To take this guy's evidence at face value is every bit as silly as taking a NARAL study of abortion at face value. Part of critical thinking is to evaluate the source's motives and biases, and if you think being part of the blame-America-first religion is not something to consider, then your mind is so open your brains have fallen out.

I am particularly impressed by the fact that the military leaders were skeptical of their use.

Forgive me if I sound harsh here, but only a person woefully ignorant of military history would find it remarkable that a major combat decision like this had its critics among military men. Generals disagree amongst themselves as naturally as the rest of us breathe. And though there are some impressive names on Long's quote list, there are many other impressive names missing. We know how Eisenhower and MacArthur felt, but what about Marshall, Patton, Montgomery, Nimitz, Arnold, Bradley, Fletcher, Halsey, Doolittle, etc. ad nauseum?

We know it's not a good thing for politicians to make military judgments.

Hogwash. If you believe that, you should find some banana republic where the military calls the shots.

Also note that the conservative position at the time was to oppose the bombings. It was not a conservative deed.

The "conservative" position less than a decade before had been to stick our collective heads in the sand while Hitler and Tojo brewed up a war that cost 60 million lives. Also, I fail to see how starving the Japanese people for a few more months would be any more of a "conservative deed" than dropping a bomb on a city.

Even beyond that, there is too much bloodthirsty glee demonstrated by some about the bombings.

Who cares? Really, there could be 100,000 people standing on the Mall in Washington with signs that read "I'm hap-hap-happy that we nuked the Japs" and it wouldn't change one iota whther it was a proper tactical and strategic decision for Harry Truman to make. And though he defended his decision vigorously, Truman wasn't gleeful, and I haven't ever seen glee from anybody involved.

I also never saw glee--about anything--in the eyes of my grandfather, who fought the Japanese hand-to-hand in the Solomons.

Oh, and one last thing: You talk about consensus of history and trusting military leaders. Well then, why did you blow right by the other evidence I cited? I challenge you to go find the Okinawa figures, post them in a reply to me, and then tell me why Harry Truman should have looked at those and thought, "Well, these guys are just about done." You might also explain why a plan involving 9 nuclear detonations was preferable to a plan involving two, or why the people who were ready to kill the emperor to keep the war going would have surrendered if they heard that they got to keep their emperor. You might also explain why Mitsuo Fuchida spent a good deal of his life apologizing to Americans for Pearl Harbor and other atrocities, but never expected an apology for the use of the atomic bomb. And, you might explain what would have kept Curtis LeMay from burning Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the ground a week later, probably with just as many casualties.

[albee]

Having lived under Japanese occupation and watched their brutality against unarmed civillians, my only regret is that we didn't have 10 more atomic bombs in our arsenal so that we could have ended the war several weeks earlier than we did.

[Saigon67]

Between the time Truman was sworn in as President in April of '45 and the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima on 6 August, about four months, the United States suffered over 50% of its total casualties in the Pacific theater

I thought this statement sounded a bit strange. You are WAY off on this. I urge you to review the real statistics where I just did:

www.archives.gov/research_room/arc/wwii/navy_marines_coast_guard_casualties/table_of_contents.html

As for T-Bird45 being a "fool" -- I don't think so.

[DBrow]

Here is a suggested reading list:

"The Making of the Atom Bomb", by Richard Rhodes;
"Dark Sun", also by Rhodes- these two put the development of the bombs in historical perspective.

Also, "The American Atom" ("A documentary history of the nuclear policies from the discovery of fission to the present, 1939-1984") by Robert C. Williams and Phillip L. Cantelon. This book has the policy documents, the letter from the Los Alamos scientists to Truman and to Roosevelt, the Szilard-Einsten letter, letters from Stimson, and so on.

A re-evaluation from today's position is meaningless- there were people then who decided certain things because of what they knew and what they believed, and they acted on those decisions. Revising what was done or thought then is just that, revision of the past to propagandize a political viewpoint.

Szilard and others suspected that there could be a bomb as soon as the neutron was discovered, and knew for a certainty when fission was discovered. Anyone looking at the physics then or now would come to the same conclusion.

[WKUHilltopper]

It's easy to speculate sitting on one's fat butt in a recliner 60 years removed from being in a Higgins boat on the first wave into Tokyo Bay...

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

'The US picked Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Nagasaki was not "picked". Kokura was "picked" and Nagasaki was the secondary target. Actually, there were two other Japanese cities ahead of Kokura and Nagasaki for the 2nd A-bomb. Nagasaki was the 4th on the list. The top two eventually dropped off, and Nagasaki was the secondary target. If it wasn't for some Japanese Zero fighters and bad weather, Kokura would have been hit, not Nagasaki.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Given the choice between believing you and your oft demonstrated inept research prowess and Major General Charles Sweeney, I'll believe Sweeney.