link to this story? Never heard it before.

I like how small government ikes here has a problem with almost all forms of governance, but doesn't question one of the most destructive acts our government has done.

1) We already had the Japanese military defeated and contained. It wasn't like anybody was at risk outside a narrowing area.
2) Conventional bombings were doing their jobs and probably would have ended the war all the same as an A-Bomb. The timeframe would be different of course. But the whole #NeverSurrender stuff is LOL. Think Hitler and the Iraqi propaganda minister uttered the same things and Germany and Iraq surrendered.
3) It wasn't some mystery as to what radiation does or how powerful the bombs were. Scientist and the government already knew exactly what Little Boy would do the Japanese people.

This kind of reminds me of Patriotism gone awry. It's not like us anti-nuke dudes are saying "**** the USA!", we are just saying, "things like that weren't necessary and the alternatives may have be more humane."

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

Again, tens of millions in China/Korea/SE Asia were still under Japanese occupation. Japan's occupation of these areas was not exactly peaceful.
I mean, sure, eventually, after how many millions of Japanese and others had been killed or starved? I think you're underestimating how delusional/crazy the Japanese military leadership and the emperor's inner circle were.

And?

So why did Japan not surrender immediately after Potsdam? Or earlier based on your assertion that they were defeated and contained?

This is the "anti-nuke" but "pro-conventional" weapon argument. It doesn't work.

But Japan had not yet surrendered. If they did (and they should have of course) then no nukes would have been used. You are trying to use logic to explain a completely illogical Japanese leadership that cared little for anybody but themselves.

That wasn't an assertion. The Japanese had been pushed back to their island and couldn't fight as aggressors. A good chunk of their fleet was in the bottom of the Pacific.

As far as the Japanese surrendering thing goes...

Link

The Japanese were ready to throw in the towel. We just wanted the towel thrown in under our own terms.

I prefer the voice of guys like Nimitz over people flying the flag that nuking people as collateral damage is ever an OK thing to do.

Someone who opposes all use of nuclear bombs on civilian populations does not want to make an argument that allows people to say that Hiroshima was OK but Nagasaki was not. If the argument for bombing Hiroshima is stronger than the argument for bombing Nagasaki and it seems unlikely that anyone could ever believe Nagasaki was OK but Hiroshima was not, then it makes sense to attack the stronger argument and focus on why not even Hiroshima was an acceptable use of nuclear weapons.

Thanks, seems like good evidence against torture.

Little Boy was a uranium based nuke. Fatman was plutonium based nuke. Clearly one of the reasons Fatman was dropped on Nagasaki was to assess its destructive capability. Not the only reason but a reason

There's a fair chance it was the only reason.

There was simply no reason to demand unconditional surrender. Let their sun god stay in power as a figurehead and neither an atomic bomb nor an invasion of the island would have been necessary.

Another possible way to look at is if they had bombed both cities on the same day there probably would not have been an issue about Nagasaki at all. So maybe a three day delay shouldn't mean anything and Nagasaki's bombing is just as justified as Hiroshima's.

let ikes keep posting, only in Sklansky threads tho

So you're arguing that there was no reason to eliminate a government that murdered millions and enslaved millions more?


The hottest of takes is yours my friend

Bombing 2 cities at the same time is ludicrous. Why deny them a chance to surrender after losing 1 city?

No "dud" was possible.

The bomb detonated over Hiroshima was a gun-type fission weapon using uranium. It did not have to undergo a wholesale test, the scientist knew it would work; specific components of the triggering mechanism(s) were tested separately. The Fat Man Bomb was an implosion type nuclear device that had already been tested (The trinity test in New Mexico) on July 16, 1945. Thus, the scientists already knew to a reasonable degree the destructive potential of the Fat Man bomb and conveyed this information to the political decision makers. Some scientists wanted a more public demonstration of the weapon; this was overruled by the military and political leaders. But in a certain sense a demonstration of the bomb had already taken place, albeit in suppose secrecy. The soviets had well placed spies in Los Alamos and Stalin knew of the Trinity test before the Potsdam conference. The Japanese did not, as far as I know, know that the US had such a weapon until the drop on Hiroshima.

As for the targets, they were choose from a list, and each bomb drop had a secondary target in case of bad weather or other conditions that would disqualify the primary target. I think the secretary of war and President Truman had final say as to the targets. Also the Los Alamos team had only the two bombs (Fat Man and Little Boy) in August, 1945. No other bombs were available and I think it would have taken at least a month to produce more, perhaps longer perhaps less. The arduous task was in production of the fissile material needed, whether Pu-239 or U-235. So in essence the US shot its wad with the two bombs in quick succession.

It is useful to have the practical facts in place in order to have a meaningful discussion.

As to the ethics or uses of the nuclear devices on the Japanese cities to end the war in the Pacific Theater that has been discussed so many other times on 2+2 in the past that I have no wish to go over it again. Let others hash out the ethics, whether doves or hawks, all in hindsight.

By the way - The book by Richard Rhodes mention in the OP is an excellent read and any with an interest in the development of the atomic bombs used in WWII and the Manhattan project should purchase it and give it a good read.

+1 to Rhodes' book being great. For more background on the events from the Japanese perspective I recommend Bix's biography of Hirohito (which won the Pulitzer for non-fiction a few years after Rhodes did).

Indeed. The point was in fact that the US military and political leaders thought the one bomb would be enough.

It took two, to get the unconditional surrender. Still, even after two bombs some military leaders in Japan did not want to surrender. There was a boggled attempt at a coup before the Emperor made his announcement by radio to the Japanese people of the intent to surrender. The announcement was recorded and an attempt was made to destroy the disks I believe.

By the same logic they could have bombed just one half of Hiroshima one day and the other half 3 days later. Bombing all of Hiroshima on one day would also be ludicrous by that reasoning wouldn't it?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Given only two bombs and then a months delay did anyone do any work on optimal strategy to get the surrender? Close together better than 2 weeks apart?

Sounds like a proto-rand type of thing.

There were that many killed during the fire bombing of Tokyo alone plus 1 million left homeless. Not to mention all the other cities that were fire bombed to stop the war.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...mbing-of-tokyo

Bombs were dropped Aug. 6th and 9th. Japanese announced intent to surrender Aug 15th and formally surrendered Sept 2nd.

Meanwhile, Soviets invaded Manchuria on Aug 9th and there was heavy fighting with the Japanese all the way up until Sept 2nd. Perhaps as many as 95000 soldiers were killed. I can't find an estimate on civilians.

The war would have ended w/o the bombs and theoretically could have ended with less civilian destruction, but that's not the way WWII was fought. More people on both sides would have died with an invasion or conventional bombing and the Japanese were still fighting even after both bombs.

This is just a point in hindsight, but the times we were close to total nuclear war during the cold war might have resulted in nuclear war if it weren't for the use of the bomb in WWII.

Things are brought up in proportion to the controversy, or level of disagreement. At the same time, there are many inconvenient truths, so sometimes we prefer to not look for them.

For example, some cop shootings are questionable as to the culpability of the cop. Some are completely cold blooded murders where the cop walked, and even the cop coworkers won't back him up. Like in the case of John Geer. Most people have never heard of that story. The dude was in custody with his arms up, standing still, in his own home, and surrounded by cops some of which with weapons drawn. With no present danger, the cop fires a shot to kill. Many are in disbelief thinking there is more to the story because it sounds so insane. That really is a neutral retelling of the story.

I'm saying that it's wrong to murder 100k innocent people.