Nagasaki, the truth

[-sam-]

The Manhattan Project started in fear of Germany building the bomb first. Albert Einsteins main contribution to the Atomic Bomb were not his physics but his letter to president
Eisenhower warning him that germany could build an a-bomb. That letter started the manhattan project..
Actually it was never really considered by the US to drop the bomb on Germany because until the end of 1944 they had no working plutonium and Uran enrychment plants
and the first prove that an a-bomb really works was made on 16 July 1945 with Trinity.
At that time the war for germany was nearly lost anyway. Also the development of the B29 was initiated with the
hidden agenda of having a plane that could carry an a-bomb to the japanese homeland.

I think there were several reasons why they finally dropped the bomb the way they did it.

1. To prevent an Invasion of the Japanese Homeland
and Save the life

[Hagar]

Albert Einsteins main contribution to the Atomic Bomb were not his physics but his letter to president
Eisenhower warning him that germany could build an a-bomb. That letter started the manhattan project.

There seems to be some confusion on dates & presidents in this thread. Einstein's letter was written on August 2nd, 1939 to Franklin D Roosevelt who was US President at the time. http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html This was two years before the USA was at war with Japan (December 7th, 1941) or Germany (December 11th, 1941). It was dated 1 month before Germany invaded Poland & the start of WWII in Europe. (3rd September, 1939).



On his death in April 1945 FDR was succeeded by his vice-President Harry S Truman who was in office at the time of the Hiroshima & Nagasaki A-bombs. General Dwight D Eisenhower did not become US President until 1952.

[-sam-]

oh I

[Hagar]

According to this, in his short time as Vice-President Harry S Truman had no briefing on the development of the atomic bomb. What must have been an extremely difficult decision was taken after consultation with his advisers.

During his few weeks as Vice President, Harry S Truman scarcely saw President Roosevelt, and received no briefing on the development of the atomic bomb or the unfolding difficulties with Soviet Russia. Suddenly these and a host of other wartime problems became Truman's to solve when, on April 12, 1945, he became President. He told reporters, "I felt like the moon, the stars, and all the planets had fallen on me."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ht33.html

I think it's almost certain there would have been protests from neighbouring countries in Europe if it had ever been proposed to drop an A-bomb on Germany without Germany using it first.

[-sam-]

I don

[beaky]

I'm with those who feel that a conventional invasion of Japan would have been worse for all concerned, and that Japan's military junta was not prepared to surrender, even after Hiroshima. And while many suffered horribly in the cities struck with A-bombs, the majority, I think, never knew what hit them. The Allies had been fire-bombing Japanese cities for some time... their suffering was tremendous, and yet their government remained stubborn. After Nagasaki, they changed their tune. 'Nuff said. And it was done with no US casualties, (unless you count the crew of the USS Indianapolis and possibly others who were involved in support activities). Destroying an entire city with one aircraft is the stuff of dreams for strategic air commanders; as awful as it is, it beats repeated raids on civilian centers combined with a massive ground invasion, and all the horror that goes with those activities.
However, what still bothers me is that these weapons, although neat and tidy in one sense, are incredibly irresponsible. With the warheads available today, the risk of poisoning friend and foe alike is enormous.
 It was a lucky break that Japan was relatively isolated... imagine the consequences of fallout from even such a relatively small bomb if one had been dropped in Europe!

BTW- fascinating article; thanks for posting that link.

[Bombardier101]

Part one:

Pretty nice bringing this topic up.

There are three good reasons in the US defence.  

1) They never could have imagined that a nuclear bomb was so dangerous. They knew little on radiation. There are pictures of US soldiers experimeting with the test ones fully exposed. This shows how they didn't appreciate what the aftermath of the bombs capabilities were.
2) The Japs did not surrender under Little Boy. They were that determined that it took Fat man to ensure surrender. This shows that when they understood the results they did not give in. Therefore the US were fair to use them.
3) WWII was not soldiers v soldiers. It was all about bombing civilians too (who were just as much part of the war really) and that was the way war was fought. The US did not break the rules and just because the atom bomb obliterated in one big sweep does not mean that it is unjustifed and that a million small incidiary bombs would have been better!

1) Jeez well I thought they would've known how huge the explosion would've been. A history book says they knew they could do alot with it. Well it said something like that....

2)I thought Hiroshima happened not much before Nagasaki.

3)It's a very very horrible thing to say that civilians should've been bombed just cos they were around the war zone. Incendiary bombs would have been better. Think about the enviroment The incendiaries just burn the living cr:Dp out of a city (or whatever it's dropped on, just cities please!), they don't go poisoning everything. Fire's a little good for plant growth, so trees might like the new-look city (but if anything grows there anymore, LOL!!! ).

new-look city

LOL!!!

The good thing about Japan surrendering so quickly after the second atomic bomb explosion is that more weren't used after the invasion of the home islands.

True, yes...

all of this could lead someone to say "now we're even steven"

That whole even steven thing kinda cracks me up. But the real thing was no joke :-/

Its a messy thing, and it would be shallow to say that one could forgive and forget without a hint of retribution when one says it.
Its a bizarre kind of moralistic violence.

Definetly correct.

We can condemn things as acts of vengeance

Well if vengeance is done in the right way it's 99.9% good...

I don't care much for 1st person "shooter" games (and don't comprehend those who lose the distinction between fantasy/reality) but try Combat Flight Simulator -- with the hope that "as real as it gets" is "as real as it will ever be" -- and keep your wars to yourself.

I do hope some of the other games are "as real as they'll ever get". Soldier games where you actually kill others aren't that bad, but I couldn't imagine killing someone in a war like that while seeing the people dyin', (grenades: throw'em, then forget'em, although I wouldn't like to throw grenades at people that were innocent) well with the exception of pulling the lever on the bomb bay of a nuke B-29 or ordering onna those nukes to be let loose on innocent people.

[Bombardier101]

Part two:

I do not see the use of the atomic bomb in WW2 as involving any sense of vengance.

It was a military decision designed to shorten (end) the war.  I doubt that President Wilson leaped with joy about the opportunity to kill a million Japanese.

Would we have used it in Europe if it had been available?  I have no doubt that we would have dropped one on Berlin and I would have no qualms defending President Wilson's decision to do so.

I would, however, have problems with General Ripper's (Dr. Strangelove) advice to bomb Moscow.

(Yeah, um, Truman.)

It would not have shortened the war much more. Why didn't they just bomb Tokyo till it's 100% flat area scenery (scenery developer joke, ha ha) and send in some paratroopers when the bombers had completed the job. Or send in the landing craft (quit the running through the water, though, and they could spare a few lives). But maybe if they let that time go on the Japs could've developed some of their real deadly stuff... hmmmmm...

Well, dropping on one Berlin for one would have again killed many innocent people ('cept for Hitler, but would the nuke penetrate his bunker? He was bent on suicide anywhy, so why bother? If he didn't consider suicide, then he'd end up like Goering at Nuremburg anyway). So that idea is not great either. The way the British bombed German cities wasn't pretty either. I had a relative who had a bomb fall on her house in Hamburg  :'( She lived (just) (although that realy was an accident seeing as the brits could've continued over their target at same heading and they'de be over her house, but they hit the target and they dropped over 10, so they bombing line went over the target and kept on going to her house. Pure accident, but most of Hamburg's civilian bombing wasn't accidental... ). Terrible

[quote]I don

[Felix/FFDS]

Bombardier, while you present some good points, I would dare say that, on the whole, you presented better points on the use of nuclear bombs - in that particular instance.

#1 - firebombing a city.  Firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombs.  The war wasn't shortened by this.

#2 - "Flattening" a city and then landing paratroops.
Bombing a city into rubble doesn't clear it - it just makes a lot more places for the defenders to hide.  Between the bombing and landing paratroops, you move in the soldiers.  Also, unless you quickly follow up effectively, paratroops are going to be dealt with piecemeal.  There may not be many left.

#3 - An invasion would have cost many more lives - military and civilian, than were killed by the two atomic bombs.

Given the information at hand, I probably would have taken the same decision as Truman.  I cannot agree to your premise that "saving the environment" was worth the cost in lives.

Now, consider this.  If the US had not used the atom bombs, the Soviets would have eventually had it anyway (the spy rings were already in place and the information was pouring out), and I submit that they would they used it in, say, Korea.

[H]

The relationship of the original, major Axis powers -- Germany, Soviet Union and Japan -- wasn't made for lasting stability. Nuclear applications were almost inevitable; if things had gone as Hitler intended, he knew he would have to deal with Stalin, anyway (Stalin, too, was an opportunist), giving him more reason to befriend Japan, Russia's historical enemy. If things had gone any differently, any one of them would have employed against the other(s). Japan had every intention of baptizing the U.S. with "dirty bombs" as it was. If the war were extended long enough, they, too, would have had, and used, the bomb.

[-sam-]

4)Doesn't give the US the right to bomb the guts out of people who never did anything bad to them!!!!! (except for possibly some Jap soldiers, they can rot in marmelade for the soldier standards they represent! Ha ha! )

Well it

[Hagar]

The fact is that once something has been invented it's not possible to uninvent it. "Pandora's Box". Many scientists are pacifists like Einstein & their research is intended for peaceful purposes but the military is always looking for bigger & better weapons. Almost every new invention you can think of has been assessed for military applications. (The aeroplane was at first dismissed as of little practical use in war.  WWI proved that wrong.)

Nuclear energy is being promoted by many governments & scientists as the only practical solution to the dwindling fossil fuel resources. Unfortunately, peaceful use of nuclear power also creates the essential weapons grade plutonium necessary for a nuclear bomb as a by-product. This is the conundrum. How can the nations already having this technology morally deny it to anyone else?

[Flt.Lt.Andrew]

I have to say, and I may cop a lot of flak from this, but society accepts the event of those bombs being dropped a lot better than if those bombs were dropped on Germany.

Secondly, I think that it must've taken much moral strength to drop that bomb, and I hope the crew have found peace.

A.

[Hagar]

Secondly, I think that it must've taken much moral strength to drop that bomb, and I hope the crew have found peace.

A.

Ever heard of Group Captain Leonard Cheshire?

GROUP CAPTAIN GEOFFREY LEONARD CHESHIRE VC, DFC, DSO 2bar

Leonard Cheshire was born in Chester, England, on 7th September 1917. He was educated at Stowe School and Merton College, Oxford.

After the outbreak of the Second World War he joined the Royal Air Force. He was posted to 102 Squadron and by August 1942 had been promoted to squadron commander of of 76 Squadron. In March 1943 at the age if twenty-five he became the youngest Group Captain in the RAF.

In November 1943 he was given command of 617 Squadron and over the next few months developed new low-level marking techniques that dramatically increased bombing accuracy.

In 1944 Cheshire was awarded the Victoria Cross after completing a hundred bombing missions on heavily defended targets in Nazi Germany. Cheshire was chosen as the official British observer of the atom bomb dropped on Nagasaki.

He was discharged on medical grounds in January 1946, He founded the Cheshire Foundation homes for the incurably sick. Lord Cheshire died on the 31st July 1992 of Motor Neurone disease.

After the war Cheshire dedicated his life to maintaining world peace and was a member of CND. Cheshire also joined with his wife, Sue Ryder, to establish the Sue Ryder Foundation for the sick and disabled. Leonard Cheshire, who was created Baron Cheshire in 1991, died on 31st July, 1992

http://www.dambusters.org.uk/cheshire.htm

[Bombardier101]

#2 - "Flattening" a city and then landing paratroops.
Bombing a city into rubble doesn't clear it - it just makes a lot more places for the defenders to hide.  Between the bombing and landing paratroops, you move in the soldiers.  Also, unless you quickly follow up effectively, paratroops are going to be dealt with piecemeal.  There may not be many left.

You've got quite a point there. That was the Mona Casino story, wasn't it? Maybe it wouldn't have been good for an invasion. Did the US tell the Japs that they could drop a nuke on Japan anyway? If they did tell them which cities (but provdide the bomber(s) with heavy cover), well I guess it's fair enough and the Japs should have evacuated major cities or got proper air-raid shelters (preferebly the evacuation cos Mitsubishi was making junk that didn't work great at that time.