The Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[Amy SF]

Three days ago (August 6) was the 68th anniversary of the day that the atomic bomb called Little Boy was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, 1945. Today (August 9) it is the 68th anniversary of the day that the atomic bomb called Fat Man was dropped on the Japanese city of Nagasaki. Thousands of people died. Many of the survivors eventually died of radiation poisoning. Pregnant women subsequently had babies with birth defects. The bombs spared no one: Soldiers and civilians alike died. Men, women and children. Tired old people who thought they'd live out their golden years in peace. Toddlers knowing nothing of war and of politics. Babies in their mothers' arms. This was, in my view, two of the blackest days of the 20th century.

It's frustrating to me that the majority of Americans, regardless of age, continue to think that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be morally justified. They all say that it prevented the loss of many American lives, that in wartime, any kind of bombing (of your enemies, not of you and your allies) is morally justified and therefore it's okay to sacrifice the lives of thousands of Japanese people going about their daily lives. When I try to counter this argument, I get openly racist statements. Pearl Harbor. Damn Japs. Bloodthirsty non-Christian non-white savages (sound familiar?). They got what they deserved. Ended the war. Again, preventing the loss of American lives, which seems more important than anything else. When I am told that the Japanese as an entire nation were brainwashed, that even schoolgirls were taught to fight in case the enemy Americans attacked, I am shocked that even with this argument, it is still considered morally justified to murder these schoolgirls simply because they were "the enemy". I know of the racist hatred against the Japanese in the US, and that many Americans considered them subhuman, but they were humans, and we killed them.

And we have learned nothing in the 68 years since.

If we are to make peace and do away with nuclear weapons, we must change attitudes as well as laws.

Although I was born 14 years after the bombs were dropped, even if I was around at the time, I would have cried and shaken my head in dismay. I would like to, now, offer my heartfelt apology for the wholesale murders of thousands of Japanese people. I know the Japanese during the war, and before, cannot be completely blameless, but there exist now several generations of Japanese who have learned to make peace and wish to live in harmony with us and the rest of the world. So I'd like to say, I'm sorry. I'm sorry we murdered thousands of your people. I'd like to extend the hand of peace and hope we can all learn to live together.
​

 

[beancounter]

It's not uncommon for civilians to die during wartime.

How would you have resolved the war?

The U.S. didn't emerge as a superpower until after the war. After the Nazis, I don't think anyone had the desire engage in a war with another agressor. For all they knew at the time, Japan could have been another Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March
"The 128 km (80 mi) march was characterized by wide-ranging physical abuse and murder, and resulted in very high fatalities inflicted upon prisoners and civilians alike by the Japanese Army, and was later judged by an Allied military commission to be a Japanese war crime.[4]"

 

[Blobbenstein]

The bombing of Dresden was just as bad.

 

[Amy SF]

The bombing of Dresden was just as bad.

I agree.

 

[Dedalus]

The bombing of Dresden was just as bad.

...and the one the least people talk about.

 

[Blobbenstein]

It's not uncommon for civilians to die during wartime.

How would you have resolved the war?

The U.S. didn't emerge as a superpower until after the war. After the Nazis, I don't think anyone had the desire engage in a war with another agressor. For all they knew at the time, Japan could have been another Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March
"The 128 km (80 mi) march was characterized by wide-ranging physical abuse and murder, and resulted in very high fatalities inflicted upon prisoners and civilians alike by the Japanese Army, and was later judged by an Allied military commission to be a Japanese war crime.[4]"

What ever the rights and wrongs of the Hiroshima bombing, was it really necessary to drop the second bomb on Nagasaki?
The US wanted to show Japan this new weapon, but it seems to me the Hiroshima one would have been enough for that.

I think the bombings have lead to the politicisation of Whaling, and a way to get back at the West by killing animals that the West seems to care about.

 

[SummerRain]

What ever the rights and wrongs of the Hiroshima bombing, was it really necessary to drop the second bomb on Nagasaki?
The US wanted to show Japan this new weapon, but it seems to me the Hiroshima one would have been enough for that.

From what I understand the two weapons were different physical designs. I have heard speculation (whilst learning about nuclear physics) that the second bomb was dropped because the US wanted to try out both designs. I'm sure there were political reasons too.

 

[ledboots]

In the late 1970s, I had several close friends who had come to the US to college. When I first met Issei, I asked him what part of Japan he was from. He said,"Nagasaki." Tears just started running down my face, hot tears of shame and regret. We just hugged each other and have been friends ever since.

One of those moments your paradigm shifts.

 

[Second Summer]

This was, in my view, two of the blackest days of the 20th century.

So true.

When I am told that the Japanese as an entire nation were brainwashed, that even schoolgirls were taught to fight in case the enemy Americans attacked, I am shocked that even with this argument, it is still considered morally justified to murder these schoolgirls simply because they were "the enemy". I know of the racist hatred against the Japanese in the US, and that many Americans considered them subhuman, but they were humans, and we killed them.

I know, it's a sickening way of thinking. (Eerily similar to e.g. neo-con and Zionist propaganda against Palestinians and other Arabs/Muslims.)

And we have learned nothing in the 68 years since.

It may seem that way sometimes, but do you really think it would be politically feasible to ever drop another atomic bomb/missile on civilians?

If we are to make peace and do away with nuclear weapons, we must change attitudes as well as laws.

It's not uncommon for civilians to die during wartime.

And yet the crimes against Hiroshima and Nagasaki are considered uncommon.

How would you have resolved the war?

A naval blockade of Japan, perhaps? Invite Japanese diplomats to witness a Manhattan Project demo? Propose a quick surrender to the US before the USSR invaded?

 

[beancounter]

And yet the crimes against Hiroshima and Nagasaki are considered uncommon.


A naval blockade of Japan, perhaps? Invite Japanese diplomats to witness a Manhattan Project demo? Propose a quick surrender to the US before the USSR invaded?

Civilians die during war. Uncommon or not, that's just a reality.

A naval blockage would not have been a good idea. The U.S. had already lost a bunch of ships at Pearl Harbor. A blockade would have just make it easier for the Japanese to destroy more ships.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze

I don't think the Japanese would have accepted a demo invite.

Hind sight is 20/20. Much of the world had been devastated by Germany. It's easy to judge from the safety of the future. They did what they felt was necessary at the time to end conflict quickly.

 

[Mischief]

I know, it's a sickening way of thinking. (Eerily similar to e.g. neo-con and Zionist propaganda against Palestinians and other Arabs/Muslims.)

Also eerily similar to the propaganda of many groups, including a number of Middle Eastern countries and certain segments of the left, against Israelis and against Jews generally.

The history of mankind is a history of demonizing and dehumanizing the enemy. Examples can be found in every century and on every continent, probably in every country.

 

[das_nut]

What ever the rights and wrongs of the Hiroshima bombing, was it really necessary to drop the second bomb on Nagasaki?
The US wanted to show Japan this new weapon, but it seems to me the Hiroshima one would have been enough for that.

Hiroshima wasn't enough for Japan to surrender.

Ketsu-go was a horrible plan. And the US saw enough of what Japan's plans were at Saipan and Okinawa. (Saipan's ratio was 1 US soldier killed for every 7 Japanese soldiers.)

Nukes were considered a bigger, better bomb, and I honestly believe the US would have dropped the 3rd core* on Japan ASAP if Nagasaki didn't work. As well as additional cores as soon as they were ready.**

* IIRC, the 3rd core intended for Japan was later known as the "demon core" due to being involved in two criticality accidents before being purposely detonated in an atomic test blast.
** US was gearing up for continued nuking of Japan until the Imperial surrender. Several more cores would have been available and (presumably used) until either the surrender or the 1946 invasion. IIRC, plans involved the US nuking the battlefield and then sending US troops through the results. Considering Okinawa and previous battles, even with what we know today about the dangers of fallout, this could have been the safer route for troops. Of course, what '46 wartime Japan would have looked like is open for debate - Japan was in pretty sorry shape midway through '45.

 

[Second Summer]

Civilians die during war. Uncommon or not, that's just a reality.

We all know that. But to state that it's not uncommon for civilians to die during wartime in a thread about the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki seems to be missing the point that these bombings were war crimes. Unfortunately, the victors seem to dictate what are and are not war crimes (in the legal sense of the term), so recognized war crimes and especially prosecutions were somewhat disproportionate.

A naval blockage would not have been a good idea. The U.S. had already lost a bunch of ships at Pearl Harbor. A blockade would have just make it easier for the Japanese to destroy more ships.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze

The attack on Pearl Harbor was what brought the US into the Pacific war and this happened already in December '41. A lot happened between then and August '45. The US built new ships. Empiral Japan's initial fortune in the war came to an end, and by August '45 they had been generally on the defensive for quite some time. I suppose I don't know how efficient a naval blockade would have been, but we know that Japan was struggling to get enough raw materials and fuel for their war industry by the end of the war. Also, the USSR was starting to take an interest by that time, and did in fact declare war on Japan and occupied and later annexed the Kuril islands just before the war ended. I would think the USSR entry into the Pacific war could have helped the Japanese decide it was time to surrender, if they had been given more time to consider their options.

I don't think the Japanese would have accepted a demo invite.

How do you know?

Hind sight is 20/20. Much of the world had been devastated by Germany. It's easy to judge from the safety of the future. They did what they felt was necessary at the time to end conflict quickly.

Of course, everyone did what they thought was necessary: terror bombing London with V1 and V2 rockets, executing collaborators without trials, massacres against occupied peoples, extermination of Jews and other undesirables. At the end of the day some of these actions were still war crimes and genocides. If we can't judge their actions now, then when is it appropriate to call the proverbial spade by its true name?

 

[Envy]

Not only would a conventional war have killed more allied troops, it would also probably have killed more Japanese soldiers than what died in the bombings.

 

[das_nut]

Would have probably killed more civilians, judging by Okinawa and by the famine that was predicted for the winter of '45-'46.

But I guess people starving to death may be more acceptable to some. Kind of like how people get upset by Hiroshima or Nagasaki but not by the massive civilian deathtoll in the bombing of Tokyo.

 

[Kitties]

I don't think people want to think about it. I've known from much too young an age the horrors that we as humans can inflict on one another.

BTW my mother survived the bombing of Dresden. When I was in high school she told me about a strange event that happened to her that kept her from going home. She said if she had, she would have been in the middle of the city (changing trains, street cars, I don't exactly remember) and would have never survived.

 

[rainforests1]

The Russians entering the war may have been a much bigger factor in ending the war than the atomic bombs were. We'll never know.

How would you have resolved the war?[/quote]
There's been many claims that Japan was trying to surrender long before the bombs were dropped. If that's true, maybe we should have talked with them.

 

[rainforests1]

Much of the world had been devastated by Germany.

The Russians carried out a scorched earth policy that caused a lot of misery to their own citizens. American bombing caused a lot of misery to civilians(the French suffered greatly), the British were starving the people of India, and of course you had things like Operation Keelhaul. The Germans caused a lot of misery, but they had a lot help from others too.

 

[das_nut]

The Russians entering the war may have been a much bigger factor in ending the war than the atomic bombs were. We'll never know.

Maybe. I still haven't heard of a good way for the Soviet Union to put an invasion force on the home islands.

 

[Second Summer]

Not only would a conventional war have killed more allied troops, it would also probably have killed more Japanese soldiers than what died in the bombings.

Would have probably killed more civilians, judging by Okinawa and by the famine that was predicted for the winter of '45-'46.

But I guess people starving to death may be more acceptable to some. Kind of like how people get upset by Hiroshima or Nagasaki but not by the massive civilian deathtoll in the bombing of Tokyo.

Those who made the decision to drop the bombs didn't know that the Japanese governments wouldn't have surrendered anyway without the nukings. They didn't know that two nukes would be sufficient, in fact there were plans to continue nuking, like das_nut mentioned. It seems clear that the number of civilian and enemy casualties were not all that important.

And let's examine the logic that justifies dropping the a-bombs a bit further. If it's okay to commit extreme war crimes to end a war quickly and avoid additional casualties, then surely we would have to accept horrendous war crimes committed by the enemy as well? Of course, only if they are sufficiently extreme and likely to shock their enemy into surrendering. So conventional war that leads to many deaths, as well as smaller war crimes, would still both be morally reprehensible, whereas extreme war crimes would be morally justified. So for example in the Vietnam war the US acted unethically by not nuking Hanoi and the north back to the stone ages right away. In fact, any nation that has the Bomb should be using it in a conflict if it seems likely they can shock the enemy into surrendering quickly.