Should the atomic bombs have been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Chevan]

@Nickdfresh

… But at the same time, since the Luftwaffe never broke the will of the British people to resist even after inflicting tens of thousands of casualties. What was his causal evidence to support his thesis that slaughtering German civilians would cause them to capitulate any faster when all available evidence is that it made German troops fight even harder and more vengeful – and only marginally impacted production? Yes, the German’s terror bombed first, but I’m not sure revenge is the best policy to plan strategy with…

This is exactly what i’ve wrote to you from most beginning of this thread:)

I think that overall it was the right thing to do in order to save more lives than were lost. I wish that at least one of the targets would have been a military or naval one though. Perhaps the Tokyo Navy Yard would have minimized civilian casualties…

The USAAF had bombed the Tokio in march of 1945- with no effect ( as any previous carpet bombing raids) except the burning out the civils areas.
There is a logical mistake hides IMO.
If you are going to burn the ONLY Navy Yard ( or other military targets) , and the death rate should be very limited, right.
Becouse the sea buldings and docs are not so well burnings things like a huts of workers - but this is in direct contraduction with official aim of a-bombing - “To demonstrate a demonic power of new wearpon”, right?
By other words- the official aim was to kill as much peoples as it was possible.
So , there is no doubts, nobody even care about Naval targets in Japane, choosing the cities-victims for a-bombing.
The ONLY criteria was the relatively small level of AA-defence and enough big population .
As i know neither Hirosima nor Nagasaki wasn’t seriously bombed during the previous years?

[Nickdfresh]

@Chevan

This is exactly what i’ve wrote to you from most beginning of this thread:)

Um, not exactly. With all due respect.

The USAAF had bombed the Tokio in march of 1945- with no effect ( as any previous carpet bombing raids) except the burning out the civils areas.
There is a logical mistake hides IMO.

I wouldn’t say it had “no effect.” The problem was that any pretense of precision bombing was impossible over Japan because of the jet stream, which prevented high altitude missions or any sort of accurate bombing. The winds were so strong at high altitudes, that pilots described the sensation of flying backwards at times, or as moving forward at such a small rate of speed. Consequently, it was decided that the force B-29s would fly in low and carpet bomb with incendiaries…I’m only arguing that there was very limited value in doing this.

If you are going to burn the ONLY Navy Yard ( or other military targets) , and the death rate should be very limited, right.
Becouse the sea buldings and docs are not so well burnings things like a huts of workers - but this is in direct contraduction with official aim of a-bombing - “To demonstrate a demonic power of new wearpon”, right?

To an extent, but I don’t think even the people who built it nor used it knew exactly what to expect…

By other words- the official aim was to kill as much peoples as it was possible.
So , there is no doubts, nobody even care about Naval targets in Japane, choosing the cities-victims for a-bombing.
The ONLY criteria was the relatively small level of AA-defence and enough big population .
As i know neither Hirosima nor Nagasaki wasn’t seriously bombed during the previous years?

Actually, there were attacks on Hiroshima, and I believe its harbor was bottled up with mines…

[Chevan]

@Nickdfresh

I wouldn’t say it had “no effect.” The problem was that any pretense of precision bombing was impossible over Japan because of the jet stream, which prevented high altitude missions or any sort of accurate bombing. The winds were so strong at high altitudes, that pilots described the sensation of flying backwards at times, or as moving forward at such a small rate of speed. Consequently, it was decided that the force B-29s would fly in low and carpet bomb with incendiaries…I’m only arguing that there was very limited value in doing this.

Yes and new low-altitude tactic has been at first time tested over Tokio in march . Effect was impressive…i mean in sense of scale of terror.The casualties were even higher then after first days of a-bombing.The lack of AA-defence means was also good surprise fro USAAF command.
But again- this has no influence at the will of Japanes to fight, righ?
They were still able and ready to wage a war…to the most end , even if the end was very close.

To an extent, but I don’t think even the people who built it nor used it knew exactly what to expect…

Actually, there were attacks on Hiroshima, and I believe its harbor was bottled up with mines…

Well OK, but hardly the previous raids on Hiroshima was such devastating , right?
So as i guessed in the august of the 1945 the Hiroshima has been choiced becouse it was relativelly undamaged city where the air boming attack wasn’t even expected.
So you see the choice of target was determined rather “political” then “military” reasons.
From the pure political point- you need the ONE very IMPRESSIVE nuclear attack that should shake the Japanes.That should destroy their will to resist.
But whom you want to shake- the Japanes Crazy suicidal Militarists?Hardly .
Those gues had no many choice how to die. You should impress their parents, wifes and childrens via the mass terror.
But the whole problem is that they already survived the terror during the previous Firebombing compain- and this had no effect on Japan Military staff.
So you have to burn the next other city due this tactic…
Honestly speaking the US did n’t need to drop the a-bombat all.
What was sense to nuke the japs with superexpensive a-bomb if you have more then enough the banal NApalm on stores?The couple of raids of few hundreds of B-29 should burn out the half of Japane for couple of mounths with the same effect ( and even more effective and cheaper) and job well done.Japane will be destroyed finally.
So what was a sense to drop a-bomb?
You can’t answer, becouse there were no military sense at all.
The sense was in political plane- you have to demonstrate that you are exclusive OWNER of new kind of wearponry.Simply becouse of you personal ambitions:)Political ambitions.
So as i’ve sayed befor - the justification of a-bombing by the “saving of millions” is just a stoopid demagogy.
This is just like a justiry of firebombing of Japane by the “care about their lives”. This is more then rediculous.Althoug it probably has the effect on the Japane war mashine- simply becouse their workers died by tens of thousands per raid.
But this is more then disputable method from the human poin - you can kill one worker with 3-5 member of his family.

[herman2]

If U.S.A. only had the Hydrogen bomb at the time, then maybe only one blasting would have done the job instead of 2 Atomic bombs. A Hydrogen blast would have been much more effective in reaching the objectives of the military, in my opinion.

** Disclaimer - reading the above may make you stupid. The administration accept no responsibility for this - read this post at your own risk**

[namvet]

@herman2

If U.S.A. only had the Hydrogen bomb at the time, then maybe only one blasting would have done the job instead of 2 Atomic bombs. A Hydrogen blast would have been much more effective in reaching the objectives of the military, in my opinion.

are you serious??? the Hydrogen bomb would have destroyed the world.

[herman2]

No No it wouldn’t. Not if it were a small Hydrogen bomb. Besides, the Americans were racing against the Soviets to develop the H-bomb anyways, so had the Hydrogen bomb been available, i am sure the U.S.A. would have used it, not just to pulverise the Japanese but to show Stalin that U.S.A is superior. The world would have been a more better place if the hydrogen bomb were used, in my opinion.

Hi everyone, I am an idiot troll that breathes a lot through my mouth and often soils myself.

Please just ignore me, like everyone in real life does…

[img]

[namvet]

@herman2

No No it wouldn’t. Not if it were a small Hydrogen bomb. Besides, the Americans were racing against the Soviets to develop the H-bomb anyways, so had the Hydrogen bomb been available, i am sure the U.S.A. would have used it, not just to pulverise the Japanese but to show Stalin that U.S.A is superior. The world would have been a more better place if the hydrogen bomb were used, in my opinion.

so you mean small enough to nuke japan but not the world??? well it didn’t exist. can you imagine the hydro in the hands of scientists back then???

[pdf27]

For those of you who want to know how much more a 100kt Hydrogen bomb hurts than a 100kT A-bomb, I suggest you make your own nuclear bomb effects calculator. Fun for all the family!

[Chevan]

@pdf27

For those of you who want to know how much more a 100kt Hydrogen bomb hurts than a 100kT A-bomb, I suggest you make your own nuclear bomb effects calculator. Fun for all the family!

Yea, this is the first thing that must to have in any family:)
BTW as i do understand the 100Kt of trotil equivalent is an relative value of possible physical damage of a any kind of bomb.
So two bombs , that damaging power is equal , have the equal level of physical destruction.
The only difference is in the second-damaging factors like a radiation level after the explosion and emission of particles and radiation during this process, that cause the ray-illness.
So the equal hydrogen and uranian/pluton bomb are rather equal.
BTW where did you see the 100Kt hydrogen bomb?

[pdf27]

Nowhere, I was taking the piss out of Hermann.

Believe it or not I actually have a copy of that book - in the 1960s the US department of Energy decided it would be a good idea if the general public understood nuclear weapons better, so published a book on the subject.
In any case, there really are very few pure fission bombs any more, and few that use almost pure fusion. The overwhelming majority use “boosted fission”, which has aspects of both and allows very efficient use of fissile material (up to 90%).

[Ashes]

@Nickdfresh

But at the same time, since the Luftwaffe never broke the will of the British people to resist even after inflicting tens of thousands of casualties. What was his causal evidence to support his thesis that slaughtering German civilians would cause them to capitulate any faster when all available evidence is that it made German troops fight even harder and more vengeful – and only marginally impacted production? Yes, the German’s terror bombed first, but I’m not sure revenge is the best policy to plan strategy with…

Must be remembered that the Luftwaffe dropped 36,000 tons on Britain during the blitz, and 60,000 tons over the length of the war, while the Allied bombing offensive dropped 2.7 million tons on Germany and occupied Europe.

No comparison.

As Harris said nothing of the scale [of the combined bomber offensive] had ever been tried before.

It was probably reasonable [at the time] to think that if a country is subjected to that kind of offensive, it’s chance of continuing to fight on a large organised scale is very limited…that it’s economy or it’s will to fight, or both, will eventually collapse.

And as soon as the Anglo- Americans shifted the centre of gravity of their operations to oil and communications within the Reich, Germany was mortally wounded, as Georg Feuchter says in his book…
Oil was always the achilles heel of the Wehrmacht, which could barely keep pace with demands, [German total production = 33.4 million metric tonnes[including 23.4 synthetic] U.S.= 833.2 million metric tonnes] any serious disruption in production would prove disastrous.

The survey concluded…

The German experience suggests that even a first class military power – rugged and resilient as Germany was [and Japan]-- cannot live long under full-scale and free exploitation of air weapons over the heart of its territory. By the beginning of 1945, before the invasion of the homeland itself, Germany was reaching a state of helplessness. Her armament production was falling irretrievably, orderliness in effort was disappearing, and total disruption and disintegration were well along. Her armies were still in the field. But with the impending collapse of the supporting economy, the indications are convincing that they would have had to cease fighting – any effective fighting – within a few months.

And more of the same would have finished a blockaded Japan.

[pdf27]

It’s also worth remembering that the Luftwaffe nearly succeeded in breaking British morale in some cities (e.g. Southampton). The whole idea of a populace cheerfully willing to resist is largely an artefact of British wartime propaganda. On that basis, Harris also had good reason to expect the same of Germany, not expecting the effect of both their believing that “the British had withstood it and so could they” and the slow ramp up of Bomber Command.

[Chevan]

I think the Brits actually was in constant fear, but not from Luftwaffe that since the 1941 reduced its Battle of Britan, but mostly becouse of periodical attack of V-1 and since 1943 V-2 missles.
Germans specially aimed in most populated areas , killed about several thousands of civils for 3 years of Rocket Terror.
Hardly it caused any damage in British war production, but the primary aim was effect on moral of civils.
So Germans did the same , bombed the Britain by missles, as the RAF bombed the Germany by the strategic aviation. The only difference was the SCALE ( but not moral) , as it has noticed mr Ashes.
German NEVER cared safety of enemy civils , especially in East. When the at first firebombed the Stalingrad in august 1942 , the almost entire of city , still full of civils, was destroyed and burned out.

[Rising_Sun]

@Chevan

I think the Brits actually was in constant fear, but not from Luftwaffe that since the 1941 reduced its Battle of Britan, but mostly becouse of periodical attack of V-1 and since 1943 V-2 missles.
Germans specially aimed in most populated areas , killed about several thousands of civils for 3 years of Rocket Terror.
Hardly it caused any damage in British war production, but the primary aim was effect on moral of civils.
So Germans did the same , bombed the Britain by missles, as the RAF bombed the Germany by the strategic aviation. The only difference was the SCALE ( but not moral) , as it has noticed mr Ashes.
German NEVER cared safety of enemy civils , especially in East. When the at first firebombed the Stalingrad in august 1942 , the almost entire of city , still full of civils, was destroyed and burned out.

I suggest that in WWII you could have bombed the crap out of any nation with conventional weapons but it wouldn’t bring the leadership to consider surrender until other factors on land and or sea demonstrated that the noose was tightened around their national neck to the point that they couldn’t suvive.

The bombing was important but by itself it couldn’t win.

Then again, without the bombing the land and or sea aspects would have had less effect.

It applies equally to Japan and Germany.

Similarly, if Britain had been bombed while German land forces were landing in Britain and Germany was pounding Britain on the seas, the German bombing would have had a lot more effect.

[Rising_Sun]

@pdf27

It’s also worth remembering that the Luftwaffe nearly succeeded in breaking British morale in some cities (e.g. Southampton). The whole idea of a populace cheerfully willing to resist is largely an artefact of British wartime propaganda.

We didn’t even attempt such uplifting, morale building propaganda here, being a bit short of film of Aussies stoically bearing the Japanese bombing.

When Darwin was bombed early in Japan’s war by a force about the same size and composition as that which bombed Pearl Harbor, about half of Darwin’s remaining civilian population fled south while elements of the military joined them and otherwise covered themselves in disgrace, although other elements of the military performed courageously against overwhelming Japanese forces.

Air Force and military personnel did not, on the whole, feature well in many of the events immediately following the end of the bombing. Hundreds of Darwin civilians acted the way many people do under war conditions : they became refugees, leaving the town by any means they could. But many RAAF personnel also fled. Nearly 50 years later, the events of 19 February 1942 at the RAAF base are still not fully explained.

It seems that immediately after the bombing the commander, Wing-Commander Stuart Griffiths, gave an order for the men to “go half a mile down the road to Adelaide Waters and half a mile into the bush". Among many of the largely undisciplined and thoroughly scared airmen, this order was taken as ‘go bush’. Many did. One is reported to have kept going until he arrived in Melbourne thirteen days later.
http://www.battleforaustralia.org.au/2901/Overview/Bombing_Darwin

Darwin to Melbourne was about 3,800 road kilometres / 2,340 road miles. And much of the road then was a dirt track.

After such a shambles, the national government kept mum about the Darwin debacle during the war, to avoid spreading even more panic in the critical days of 1942.

Not our finest moment.

After the Japanese (not very) midget subs got into Sydney Harbour and did what was really very little damage there plus a bit of ineffective sub shelling along the coast http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/japsubs/midgetsubs.htm , houses were abandoned and property prices dropped dramatically in coastal areas around Sydney, as I believe also happened in parts of California around the same time.

[32Bravo]

@herman2

If U.S.A. only had the Hydrogen bomb at the time, then maybe only one blasting would have done the job instead of 2 Atomic bombs. A Hydrogen blast would have been much more effective in reaching the objectives of the military, in my opinion.

I’m sure this makes good ‘Stand-up’. Just seems to lose its effect in type.

[Rising_Sun]

@herman2

** Disclaimer - reading the above may make you stupid. The administration accept no responsibility for this - read this post at your own risk**

Hehehehehe! :mrgreen:

[imi]

I didnt beleive 76% think the atomic bomb was not a war crime???
Man…
Who cares about the peoples who have families,womans,childrens,and who’s want’s a family?
Made a genetic trash?
That’s NORMAL???!!!
Kill your enemy,but don’t kill generations…

[Rising_Sun]

@imi

I didnt beleive 76% think the atomic bomb was not a war crime???

What makes the atomic bomb a war crime compared with other methods of killing people in WWII?

[herman2]

It was a necessary MUST that the Atomic bomb be blasted over Japan. It would be a war crime not to so so as it would of meant more innocent Americans would get killed fighting mainland Japan who had no value for life with their honor code. I think even the Japanese people are happy they got blasted so they didn’t have to continue fighting for their Emperor. I see pictures of Japanese people smiling when the war was over so they must have been content that some of Japan got blasted by the A-bomb, otherwise they know it would mean a continued long never ending war.