Posted on 07/23/2005 5:58:17 PM PDT by T-Bird45
One other item that is rarely brought up is that the USSR declared war against Japan a few days before the surrender. Japan lost 4 small islands that have yet to be returned. I wonder if the Japanese ever considered what would have happened if the USSR had taken over Hokaido?
We bluffed them into thinking we had a third bomb, which we threatened to use if they didnt surrender. Thankfully, they did.
We totally destroyed them. They got what was coming to them. If the civilians had been prudent, they never would have allowed war Lords to run things. All through the '30's the average Japanese lived pretty well on the plunder wrought from the rest of Asia. Pay-back's a b!tch.
We wouldn't have dropped an atomic bomb on Europe.
LOL!! Wow, that would be a great bumper sticker next to a glossy pic of a nuke!
LMAO cause I know right where you're coming from. And so would my former classmates.
But I just hope you will be able to mourn the victims of Hiroshima and have a drop of tear for the victims."
I don't think you have to tell them.
Yes, I agree. It saved many lives.
One thing that makes me ruminate about this issue is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have easily have been Seattle and Oakland if the Japaneese got their hands on the bomb first.
German nuclear research had been the reason for the creation of the Manhattan Project. The driving force behind the scientists’ work was the fear of Nazi Germany possessing a weapon that could allow them to win the war and perhaps conquer the world. Many of these men had left Germany before the war began and knew what could come of a Nazi atomic bomb. Considering the fact that German was the possible nuclear rival, why was it ignored when considering nuclear planning? Even today, no adequate explanation has ever been found as to why the military and civilian leadership did not seriously consider Germany as an atomic target. In 1943, when atomic attacks were first discussed, there was no guarantee that the war in Europe would even be close to being concluded by the time an atomic bomb was ready.
One possible explanation comes out of the May 1943 meeting of Groves, Bush, Conant, and several other military personal. "The point of use of the first bomb was discussed and the general view appeared to be that its best point of use would be on a Japanese fleet concentration in the Harbor of Truk [in the Pacific, north of New Guinea]. General Styer suggested Tokyo but it was pointed out that the bomb should be used where, if it failed to go off, it would land in water of sufficient depth to prevent easy salvage. The Japanese were selected as they would not be so apt to secure knowledge from it as the Germans would be.” (Records of the Manhattan Engineer District, 1943) As can be inferred from Groves’ statement, the fear was the bomb could be a dud and recovered intact by the Germans. Groves and the other planners in the MED did not want to risk providing the Germans with the very thing that the United States feared they were actively working to acquire. Also, this could be looked at as an early form of nuclear deterrence. If Germany did posses an atom bomb before the war ended, the U.S. could not be sure if the Germans would use it. The Germans surely would have calculated the risks of being the first to use such a powerful weapon and how the Allies would respond. If the U.S. had dropped an atomic bomb on Germany and had the Germans possessed one or more of their own, the result could have been the nuclear annihilation of Paris or London. While there are not any known documents, memos, or plans for the use of atom bombs on Germany, speculation has always continued about that possibility.
Would the United States have been more inclined to use atomic weapons in Europe if the Germans had obliterated our Normandy invasion forces with some type of radiological or chemical weapon? If the war had continued on into late 1945 or 1946 with no obvious end in sight, would the United States have used nuclear weapons to bring Germany to its knees? If the purpose of the nuclear attacks on Japan was to save Allied lives and bring the war to a quick end, then it must be assumed that the United States would have used atomic weapons in Europe if the war looked to drag on for several more years. Come late 1945 or 1946, USAAF B-29 Superfortresses or B-32 Dominators carrying atom bombs, could have easily darkened the skies over Germany. Fortunately for Germany, the war ended before such a decision had to be made.
During the development of an exhibit of The Enola Gay at the Smithsonian, there was a "controversy" surrounding the exhibit. It seems the Japanese wanted some information with the exhibit that discussed the people who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The mayor of Tokyo was bitching about it. I basically wrote him and told him the same thing you are saying in this post.
Odd. I was under the impression that until fairly recently, we had several thousand nuclear weapons stockpiled in Europe for use there. Was I mistaken?
I wonder if this Brit would include the fire bombing of Dresden and Hamburg in his pantheon of horrrors and whether the dead should be mourned there as well. Over 40,000 were lost in Dresden. The author makes the distinction because of the weapon used, not for the death toll.
"Can the mass slaughter and irradiation of civilians without warning ever have been justified"
YEP...The Bomb was dropped, the war ended!
Geez???
www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
You mean people like Dwight Eisenhower, William Leahy, Herbert Hoover, Douglas MacArthur, Albert Einstein, and many others who questioned whether it was necessary?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.