Political Crossfire Forums

WorldParty · Joined: 07 Feb 2004 Posts: 759 Location: We are here.

I can understand the USA dropping an A-bomb off Japan's coast, or even over it's countryside or mountains to demonstrate US technology. I am sure the Japanese would have got the message.

What I don't understand is why not one, but two, heavily populated cities were wiped out.

Who authorised this approach? And why?

jawsome · Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 13580 Location: San Diego

theoretically, they believed that invading japan as scheduled would have killed 1 million people.

but in retrospect, we know now that japan was in the process of giving up and trying to get to peace talks, but i'm not sure if we knew that then.

and it was also dropped to check growing russian power and tensions.

WorldParty · Joined: 07 Feb 2004 Posts: 759 Location: We are here.

But why detonate twice over major cities? And again - who authorised this?

Windy · Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 3451 Location: Wolverhampton

WorldParty wrote: But why detonate twice over major cities? And again - who authorised this?

FDR did.
I think it was done twice to "test" the bombs and to show what they could do.

Nanaka1679 · Joined: 15 Mar 2004 Posts: 1644

After Nagasaki, the Japanese surrendered.

It was done to stop the war.

Night · Joined: 26 Jan 2004 Posts: 244 Location: Essex, UK

Quote: but in retrospect, we know now that japan was in the process of giving up and trying to get to peace talks, but i'm not sure if we knew that then.

Not completely. The War Minister of Japan was personally a man who wanted Japan to avoid surrender no matter the cost, and ordered the arrest of many who dared speak of peace.

Quote: FDR did.
I think it was done twice to "test" the bombs and to show what they could do.

I think FDR had already died at this point, and it was now President Truman in charge.

Quote: After Nagasaki, the Japanese surrendered.

It was done to stop the war.

This doesn't totally answer the question. I believe WP means why did it have to be dropped over two major cities? Why not smaller areas that might not be as populated, or in fact may be totally uninhabited? Why was it decided that that wouldn't be an appropriate warning?

jawsome · Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 13580 Location: San Diego

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/teacher/abomb.htm

yeah, it was truman.

this has to be one of the biggest stains on american history ever. i don't think the world has seen a bigger act of terrorism than those 2 bombings.

Nanaka1679 · Joined: 15 Mar 2004 Posts: 1644

Was either them or us.

Japan was 2 weeks away from having a nuke (through the efforts of Germany).

Should we have waited knowing what suicidal fighters they were?
Then DC and possibly NYC would have been nuked.

Windy · Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 3451 Location: Wolverhampton

Nanaka1679 wrote: Was either them or us.

Japan was 2 weeks away from having a nuke (through the efforts of Germany).

Should we have waited knowing what suicidal fighters they were?
Then DC and possibly NYC would have been nuked.

Where they really? Never heard that before.

It had to be dropped onto a city to demostrate the power it had, so people knew without a doubt what it could do.

jawsome · Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 13580 Location: San Diego

are you sure they were "2 weeks away"?

THE GERMANS DECIDE NOT TO BUILD A BOMB
In June 1942, soon after the American decision to proceed with the atomic bomb, the German authorities unaware of that decision) judged that the huge investment required to produce a bomb was too large for their war economy to support. They also expected to win the war before such an effort would bear fruit. The United States and Britain were unaware of Germany's decision and continued to assume that the Nazis would acquire the atomic bomb, possibly before the Allies did. Japan also investigated nuclear weapons, but its efforts never proceeded beyond small-scale laboratory research and had no impact on the Anglo-American decision to build an atomic bomb. Still, there is little doubt that if Japan (or Germany) had been able to construct such a weapon, it would have been used against the Allies.

http://www.theenolagay.com/study.html#THE%20DECISION%20TO%20DROP%20THE%20BOMB

WorldParty · Joined: 07 Feb 2004 Posts: 759 Location: We are here.

Night you read me right - I have no difficulty in accepting a display of power. I just don't understand why it had to be over these cities.

I am quite sure the Japanese would have got the message if two A-bombs had been detonated over their mountains or off their coast. Did Truman actually decide to test these bombs on these 'live' targets? Or did he just give the OK for there general use? Who targeted these?

Windy · Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 3451 Location: Wolverhampton

WorldParty wrote: Night you read me right - I have no difficulty in accepting a display of power. I just don't understand why it had to be over these cities.

I am quite sure the Japanese would have got the message if two A-bombs had been detonated over their mountains or off their coast. Did Truman actually decide to test these bombs on these 'live' targets? Or did he just give the OK for there general use? Who targeted these?

These cities were choosen because they were reatively untouched by the other bombing. They wanted the world to see the effects on two undamaged cities.

Josh · Joined: 01 Feb 2004 Posts: 6601 Location: Across America

It was a costly flexing of muscle to the Soviet Union. The US wanted the Japanese to surrender to them and not the Soviets. It has to be the single most destructive foreign policy play in history.

Night is right about members of the Japanese military wanting to continue fighting and the top civilian administration desiring a peace. The Emperor had actually taped his surrender speech and hid it in his home in case the military tried to stop him from giving the speech. (A group of soldiers had raided the house, but the Emperor was not there and the power went out in the building so they couldn't find the taped speech) I saw it in a documentary on the NY Times Channel. I don't know how accurate it was or how accurate I am in remembering it. I'm looking for an internet source.

WorldParty · Joined: 07 Feb 2004 Posts: 759 Location: We are here.

Thanks for all the posts. But I still don't understand why these bombs were not just detonated over open countryside, mountains, or just off the coast etc.

Why were two cities used instead for these tests? Was Truman really behind this?

jawsome · Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 13580 Location: San Diego

yes, he was the president who had the highest authority at the time, thus makes the calls militarily; such as this one.

it was supposedly to 'save lives', but i don't know. i still don't agree with it.

shoeless · Joined: 29 Dec 2003 Posts: 2236 Location: Blue Illinois

I like this idea. Maybe the board could make a new section dealing with history.

Dutchguy · Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 8:58 pm Post subject:

That would be a good idea shoeless...

Quote: These cities were choosen because they were reatively untouched by the other bombing. They wanted the world to see the effects on two undamaged cities.

Which brings me to an even more baffling thing about these bombings. Not only did they choose two fairly major, densely populated cities to drop the bombs over, the reason those cities were untouched before, is because they were of no strategic value. They weren't military targets. So essentially, the two A-bombs were deliberately dropped over civilian targets.

The reason to this baffles me as well though. Maybe it could have been excused if the second had been dropped over a city if Japan didn't respond (which means they should get the time to respond, which they didn't) to the first one, which might have been dropped over a less populated area. If that didn't work, than, ok, maybe a more definitve show of force would have been required. But there was no warning, no shot across the bow. The very first bomb dropped was on a city of no military significance, but with large numbers of civilians.

wlorilyn · Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 9:00 pm Post subject:

W Quote: this has to be one of the biggest stains on american history ever. i don't think the world has seen a bigger act of terrorism than those 2 bombings.

First off, this wasn't an act of "terroism" , we were in a legtimate war with Japan after they had attacked us on our soil through the bombings at Pearl Harbor. And since it did end the war, which was what we wanted it to do, we saved thousands of U.S. soldier's lives. As it goes, "The point of war isn't to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his".

SideTraKd · Joined: 19 Feb 2004 Posts: 6860 Location: Indianapolis

I could be mistaken, but I do believe that they sent two planes because they were afraid that one might fail and they wanted to have a better chance at having at least one plane succeed in dropping the bomb.

You have to remember also that we did not have the same capability level of communications that we enjoy today, and we would not have known instantly whether either mission was a success or failure.

As far as the locations that were chosen, I'm not sure I would agree with the choice, but any economic epicenter is a valid target in wartime when that economy is fueling the mechanism of war that you are fighting against.

Josh · Joined: 01 Feb 2004 Posts: 6601 Location: Across America

I still say it was a projection of power by the United States. It was intended to bring a country and society that viewed surrender as dishonorable to it's knees. Nationalism in Japan back then was not a little play thing where they'd wave a little flag and go home... it was intense devotion to national dogma. We had a tool that could end the war in a few days rather than fight for what could be another two years.

We built a weapon and we were going to use it. In war you don't shoot over the heads of the men shooting at you... you shoot them. If we had just demonstrated the weapon in the ocean or in a rural area do you really think that the other countries that developed their own nuclear weapons a few years after WW2 would have thought the US had the 'heart' to use it against them?

I don't think so. The Soviet Union would not have taken the Americans as a serious threat. It's likely we would have seen nuclear weapons used a few more times in the years following WW2. But, thank God we used them and not someone who really intended to swallow the Earth.