Simviation Forums

Well on this day in 1945 Hiroshima experienced a nuclear bomb

I remembered it as soon as I saw the date.  Strange that I didn't hear anything about it on the left wing NPR news.

I don't think that "experienced" would be the word I would use to describe it.

Well on this day in 1945 Hiroshima experienced a nuclear bomb

.....and the world hasn't been the same since!

A city gets destroyed by a nuclear weapon and nobody says much about it anymore.  Sad how soon people forget history.

Jim

I was always amazed at how well the crew of the Enola Gay were treated when they visited Japan some 5 decades later. The Japanese showed no hostility and treated them as honourable guests, as they were men merely obeying orders as soldiers, and this was within the code of Bushido, they were honourable men.
The respect shown them I think was an example to us all of the strength of the human spirit, and the ability to forgive.

Well on this day in 1945 Hiroshima experienced a nuclear bomb

.....And three days later the city of Nagasaki suffered the same fate.

To Japanese who remember Bushido the Enola Gay crew did nothing wrong...in war one uses all weapons available.

I think that at this point we all hope that Hiroshima marked the first use of nuclear weapons and that Nagasaki marked the last.

Thank god that we only had 2 back then................otherwise I don't think we would've accepted Japan's surrender until there wasn't any of it left..................but then today our economy would be alot better

..and there would neither be cheap,reliable cars, nor electronic stuff like Playstations...

I think the surrender would have been accepted even if Japan had done so before Hiroshima.

I believe Truman went through a personal hell (albeit privately) about that decision. I'm sure he would have given anything not to have had to make it.
I believe he was, 'in essence' a good man, simply trying to do the right thing by thousands, perhaps millions of Americans who may well have been killed had Japan had to be taken 'conventionally'.

It's very sad that such a terrible weapon had to be used, but I think we all realise that Japan (the military more particularly), were so 'crazed' with their ideal of no surrender at any cost, that it took something like that to finish it. Actually, the fact that a second had to be dropped is in itself, proof that they wouldn't have surrendered if faced with anything short of complete anihilation.

Very sad. Very sad that such a relief to the world had to come about with such destruction and death.

I wonder if everyone could be as accepting and forgiving if such a thing was done to them, even if it was in the name of 'ultimate peace'?

And yet...........Hamberg, Dresden and the like suffered as much devastation and death. Just not in a few few seconds. Just a few hours. So, is there really any difference?

I'm fully confidant that a surrender would have been accepted before the bomb was dropped-provided it was unconditional since thats what the American's were demanding.

I have always wondered how difficult of a discission is was for Truman to order the bomb dropped.  I've read that he was quoted as saying "the hardest decission I ever made was going to Korea" but I don't really know if he ment that.  Although Harry Truman was a good man, he was also a former soldier and I would assume it was more important to him to protect his men than the civilians of the enemy (who were being trained to fight).  

In the end, the whole war was very sad-millions died and none of them had too.  I have never questioned wither dropping the bomb was the right thing to do-I have always believed that it was neccessary.  But, I have always wondered why the war was neccessary.

Your forgetting that the surrender was not unconditional. The Japanise wanted to keep their Emperor and the Americans accepted.

I always thought of that being able to keep the emperior was a gift we gave to the Japanese to show that we wern't going to treat them as a conquered people.  Plus, I'm sure the reason that the US government did that was because it would help keep the Japanese people more accepting to on occuping army for a few years (since they knew that they wern't completely powerless)-even if the emperior is mainly a ceremonial position.

But, I highly doubt that had the American's pushed-that "demand" would have been quickly dropped.  The war was over, and they knew it-there was nothing left to fight for. they might as well not get anyone else killed.

[quote]I always thought of that being able to keep the emperior was a gift we gave to the Japanese to show that we wern't going to treat them as a conquered people.

And yet...........Hamberg, Dresden and the like suffered as much devastation and death. Just not in a few few seconds. Just a few hours. So, is there really any difference?

I've often wondered this myself, and have yet to come to a conclusion.  I can only imagine it must be the fact almost everyone dropped incendiaries, even if not everyone got exactly the same effects.

I still say if you are to criticize the Atom Bomb, criticize the firestorms first.  In my humble opinion, they're a much more terrible method of destruction, achieving much more "success" of their intended purpose.