On This Day: Aug 6, 1945 - Hiroshima... One of the worst days in the history of mankind?

[Junaids]

then please tell me why the top military brass of America was against it, this was a political decision on the part of Trueman

this is from Eisenhower's memoirs




Histroy is written by the victor even in WW2

I used to share your views.

But the Japanese fought to the death and caused huge casualties even once their defeat was certain. And the government had not told their people what was happening. They could have surrendered on any given day - but they didn't.

I commend to you the book "The Rape of Nanking" by Iris Chang. Once you've read it - or even seen the pictures - you will understand that Japan was never going to surrender unless something like the two nuclear attacks happened. And there was no reason why any more families on our side should lose loved ones due to the weird beliefs that the Japanese had which prevented their surrender.

My only regret is that they didn't nuke Tokyo first, and hopefully get a quicker surrender.

 

[pakistanigoneaussie]

I used to share your views.

But the Japanese fought to the death and caused huge casualties even once their defeat was certain. And the government had not told their people what was happening. They could have surrendered on any given day - but they didn't.

I commend to you the book "The Rape of Nanking" by Iris Chang. Once you've read it - or even seen the pictures - you will understand that Japan was never going to surrender unless something like the two nuclear attacks happened. And there was no reason why any more families on our side should lose loved ones due to the weird beliefs that the Japanese had which prevented their surrender.

My only regret is that they didn't nuke Tokyo first, and hopefully get a quicker surrender.

Okay so clearly the men who were fighting the war didnt really know what was happening, is that what you are trying to attest ?

Japan got there shock in Okinawa where yes many died and many committed suicide

you yourself need to read the above mentioned books, those are all direct quotes and there are many more as well.

 

[pakistanigoneaussie]

America dropping the Bomb is no different to the fire bombing of Dresden and the Mass rape of Berlin, all unnecessary acts done due to a thirst of revenge and so that certain people could appear politically strong

it wont be long before this is the general consensus, only reason it isnt is because people dont want to offend surviving WW2 veterans

 

[CricketTragic]

Mankind must put an end to war, before war puts an end to mankind.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

I wonder how many people would have died in India in the hands of Japanese had USA not dropped that bomb on Japan.

Japanese troops were on a rape rampage on the entire South Asia. A lot of Indians might have looked Japanese.

 

[Robert]

then please tell me why the top military brass of America was against it, this was a political decision on the part of Trueman

this is from Eisenhower's memoirs

Actually MacArthur wanted to use it against the NK and Chinese five years later. So it would be more correct to say that there was a difference of opinion in the top brass.

I don't really see how Ike could have complained, given that he had unleashed Spaatz to destroy German city after city, and how the conventional B-29 strike on Tokyo killed more people than the A-bombs. As you say, his opinion was that the Japanese would have surrendered to a blockade. But he didn't ever have to fight them so he didn't know them. I say they would not have surrendered in a hurry and they would have starved. The political decision was the correct one because the nukes gave Hirohito a way out while saving face.

 

[Robert]

My only regret is that they didn't nuke Tokyo first, and hopefully get a quicker surrender.

Tokyo was already burned to the ground, mate. Nothing left to nuke.

 

[Robert]

Complete nonsense.

Not at all. Obviously, scaring the Soviets was a significant secondary gain. Things don't happen for just one reason, you know. Such decisions are taken on balance, by people with pluralist understanding rather than your binary Manichean one.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Not at all. Obviously, scaring the Soviets was a significant secondary gain. Things don't happen for just one reason, you know. Such decisions are taken on balance, by people with pluralist understanding rather than your binary Manichean one.

This was the only reason. America used the bomb for future political advantage. It's not like dropping a missile, it's a nuclear weapon which targetted innocent civilians, dropped in residential neighbourhoods.

This is the aftermath.

Many of those who survived the immediate blast died shortly afterwards from fatal burns. Others with possibly less-fatal injuries died because of the breakdown of rescue and medical services, much of which had been destroyed, with personnel themselves killed.

Within two or three days, radiation victims who were near the hypocentre developed symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, bloody diarrhoea and hair loss. Most died within a week. Radiation victims further away from the explosion developed symptoms one to four weeks after the explosion.

Pregnant women who survived the bomb faced additional horrors, for the bomb had a terrible impact on a foetus. Many were stillborn, but those born alive faced higher infant mortality rates than normal, or had abnormally small skulls, often suffering from mental disabilities. From about 1960 a higher rate of cancer became evident, in particular of the thyroid, breast, lung and salivary gland.

Radiation is known to cause many types of cancer, and Japanese scientific research has now shown a direct correlation between the distance from the atomic bomb hypocentre, the probable exposure dose of radiation and cancer rates.

http://stopwar.org.uk/news/remembering-hiroshima

Read again

General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:

The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

His view has more legitimacy than any other persons in history being the one made all the plans. There is no way Eisenhower would have said this embarrassing his nation for which in my opinion was the greatest act of terrorism the world has ever seen.

America before this and after has proven not to a humanitarian of the world but a nation of hegemony and state terrorism.

You are a smart guy Robert but you are very much like many Indian posters who blindly defend their own(& allies) when the truth is very clear.

Maybe if you were Japanese and your wife had been pregnant living near the area where the bomb was dropped, you may then see reasons why it wasn't necessary. It's easy to justify when it's not you who is the victim.

 

[Robert]

This was the only reason. America used the bomb for future political advantage. It's not like dropping a missile, it's a nuclear weapon which targetted innocent civilians, dropped in residential neighbourhoods.

Which caused fewer casualties than some of the thousand-bomber conventional raids of 1944 in Europe, sanctioned by your mate Ike. Every German city was smashed, every one. The RAF and USAAF stopped their campaign two months before VE Day because there was nothing left to destroy.

General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:

The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

His view has more legitimacy than any other persons in history being the one made all the plans. There is no way Eisenhower would have said this embarrassing his nation for which in my opinion was the greatest act of terrorism the world has ever seen.

He didn't make all the plans. He was Supreme Commander Allied Forces Europe, not the world. MacArthur was his opposite number in the Pacific.

You are a smart guy Robert but you are very much like many Indian posters who blindly defend their own(& allies) when the truth is very clear.

Very clear to you. I don't see things in absolute terms. You hate Amreeka so therefore the Japanese must have been the victims, right?

I don't blindly defend my own. Sometimes I change my mind after learning different historical perspectives in my years on this board - about the Iranian Famine of 1917 for example. About the 800,000 DU penetrator rounds sprayed all over Basra by the USAF for another, still leaking radiation and causing teratogenicity today. So much for denying "terror states" the opportunity to develop and deploy WMD eh?

It might interest you to note that I post to an American board and challenge their view of history, often with perspectives I glean from PP.

Maybe if you were Japanese and your wife had been pregnant living near the area where the bomb was dropped, you may then see reasons why it wasn't necessary. It's easy to justify when it's not you who is the victim.

Maybe if you were family to any of the millions of Chinese, Korean and Burmese civilians murdered outright, or turned into slave labour, or sex slaves for the soldiers, or vivisected by Imperial Japan w=you would see another side to this. They will tell you a different story about the best way to end that horror, I think.

Kill 250,000 to spare one, two, five million? Every time.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Which caused fewer casualties than some of the thousand-bomber conventional raids of 1944 in Europe, sanctioned by your mate Ike. Every German city was smashed, every one. The RAF and USAAF stopped their campaign two months before VE Day because there was nothing left to destroy.



He didn't make all the plans. He was Supreme Commander Allied Forces Europe, not the world. MacArthur was his opposite number in the Pacific.



Very clear to you. I don't see things in absolute terms. You hate Amreeka so therefore the Japanese must have been the victims, right?

I don't blindly defend my own. Sometimes I change my mind after learning different historical perspectives in my years on this board - about the Iranian Famine of 1917 for example. About the 800,000 DU penetrator rounds sprayed all over Basra by the USAF for another, still leaking radiation and causing teratogenicity today. So much for denying "terror states" the opportunity to develop and deploy WMD eh?

It might interest you to note that I post to an American board and challenge their view of history, often with perspectives I glean from PP.



Maybe if you were family to any of the millions of Chinese, Korean and Burmese civilians murdered outright, or turned into slave labour, or sex slaves for the soldiers, or vivisected by Imperial Japan w=you would see another side to this. They will tell you a different story about the best way to end that horror, I think.

Kill 250,000 to spare one, two, five million? Every time.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

There is no justification for dropping a nuclear bomb on anyone unless you have been nuked first. If my family had been killed I still wouldn't want to nuke thousands of people. You clearly have no issues with using the nuke to save yours.

 

[ahmedzee]

RIP the dead from Hiroshima

 

[GenericBrand]

This is a huge example highlighting a nation's priority over the safety and well being of it's own soldiers vs enemy civilians.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

Kinda odd McArthur was against the use of the nuke since, if memory serves me well, he was sacked from the UN for proposing the use of the nuclear bomb on North Korea, which would've cost 10X as many lives as Hiroshima as China/Soviet Union likely would've gone to war with the US itself.

As for Hiroshima/Nagasaki itself, well like most historical events there are two sides to it.

On the one hand it ended the war, on the other hand the war could've ended soon regardless, albeit with further loss of life on the Allies side through an invasion.

On the one hand the Japanese committed so many atrocities of their own its hard to feel much sympathy for the Imperial Army, on the other hand thousands of innocent civilians died (although lets be honest neither side cared about civilians, they were legitimate targets for both Axis/Allies, probably the big change WW2 brought about.

On the one hand the use of the nuclear bomb arguably deterred the Soviets or Chinese from starting another war shortly after, on the other hand thats all speculation.

At the end of the day, good or bad, it was a massive moment in human history. In a way I'm not sure its fair for us to lampoon Truman because he himself was probably under immense pressure to end the war as quick as possible, and at the time a lot of Americans wouldnt have given a toss about the Japanese as they were enemies guilty of so many atrocities and were responsible for so many grieving widows/mothers in the States so for all we know the general perception could've been in favour of the bomb being used, only to switch back to negative once the horrible aftermath became aware to the public.

Either way I think it was a lose lose decision for Truman, use the bomb and have 300,000 innocent bodies on your hands, dont use it and have maybe less, maybe more, of your own soldiers bodies on your hands, at the end of the day I guess the nuke was seen as a quick fix to end the war and thats why it was used.

No winners in war really, and no matter what decision was made death and destruction would've followed.

Since we're all fortunate enough to have hindsight on our side I think we're all ultimately against it (I am) mostly because the as KKWC said the Japs were near surrendur anyway, and the Japs still surrendured on their own terms (Emperor in charge) anyway.

A very interesting discussion and topic though, love me some history.

 

[Robert]

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Weird that he requested fifty of them to use against China, then.

There is no justification for dropping a nuclear bomb on anyone unless you have been nuked first. If my family had been killed I still wouldn't want to nuke thousands of people. You clearly have no issues with using the nuke to save yours.

I wouldn't want to do it either. But I would, without question, if there was an opportunity cost in terms of lives saved overall.

Listen. The RAF and USAAF killed 600,000 German civilians in the strategic bombing campaign. How is that justifiable? By applying utilitarianism. When the Royal Artillery relieved Bergen Belsen the ovens were still warm. Every factory flattened, every German soldier home on leave killed, every telegraph pole felled, every records office burned out..... all these brought the day when the ovens went cold just that little bit closer.

The war was total, all sides committed atrocity (though the Germans and Japanese were far, far worse in this regard than the Allies) so forget morals and just apply utilitarianism. Do whatever it takes to stop the war continuing on.

 

[90MPH]

As bad as it was let's remember 50 million died in the war and the war had to end.

I don't think the 2nd Nuke blast was necessary though.

 

[Robert]

I don't think the 2nd Nuke blast was necessary though.

Hirohito didn't surrender after the first blast.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Weird that he requested fifty of them to use against China, then.




I wouldn't want to do it either. But I would, without question, if there was an opportunity cost in terms of lives saved overall.

Listen. The RAF and USAAF killed 600,000 German civilians in the strategic bombing campaign. How is that justifiable? By applying utilitarianism. When the Royal Artillery relieved Bergen Belsen the ovens were still warm. Every factory flattened, every German soldier home on leave killed, every telegraph pole felled, every records office burned out..... all these brought the day when the ovens went cold just that little bit closer.

The war was total, all sides committed atrocity (though the Germans and Japanese were far, far worse in this regard than the Allies) so forget morals and just apply utilitarianism. Do whatever it takes to stop the war continuing on.

If this aim is to stop wars then we must look at the background, preventing the first world war which ultimately led to the second and which will probably lead to the third, as they are all linked. Germany was a prosperous nation before the first world war, it was leading the way in Europe, it's important to consider why it became a nation ruled by fascists. This may be a discussion for another thread but my point is, do we really know the aim was to stop the war or was it to increase standing for future potential wars?

I think there is a moral difference when it comes to warfare, not every method of warfare should be legitimate even if it means saving future lives. Nuclear weapons along with chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction don't only destroy the present but the future, which is why after dropping the bombs in Japan future generations were also affected as were the children born after the Fallujah crimes where they were born with defects. It's interesting in Islam there is a limit on what weapons can be used regardless of circumstances, over a 1000 years ago, chemical weapons were outlawed, in those days it was poisoning of wells because totally innocent people who may not even have been around at the time of wars could potentially be effected.

I still believe there was no need as Japan was about to surrender but the precedent has now been set. If the US go to war with a nuclear power, that power will say it;s fair game to nuke America as they were the first ones to use these weapons. Anyway I will agree to disagree, I think we've had this discussion before on here . lol

 

[CricketTragic]

War does not determine who is right, only who is left. - Bertrand Russell

 

[Robert]

If this aim is to stop wars then we must look at the background, preventing the first world war which ultimately led to the second and which will probably lead to the third, as they are all linked. Germany was a prosperous nation before the first world war, it was leading the way in Europe, it's important to consider why it became a nation ruled by fascists. This may be a discussion for another thread but my point is, do we really know the aim was to stop the war or was it to increase standing for future potential wars?

WW1 was so horrible that the Geneva Convention was written to try to limit the horror. No heavy-machine-gun use against troops, no bombing of civilians, no chemical agents, no use of shotguns, no stabbing someone with a rusty bayonet. By WW2 all that had gone out of the window because all the powers were in a fight for national survival.

It could be argued that WW1 and WW2 were the same war, with a nineteen-year ceasefire, though the Japanese and Italians switched sides between the two.

Have a read of the short book War is a racket written in the 1920s by USMC General Butler, Amreeka's most decorated soldier ever. He argued that he was akin to an enforcer for the gangsters of Wall Street. "The flag follows the money, and the soldiers follow the flag" he said.

There are always several different motivations in war. Patton wanted to destroy totalitarianism. When the Nazis fell he wanted to finish the job by defeating the Soviets! Roosevelt wanted American hegemony and to achieve that had to end the British Empire, which he did by bankrupting it with Lend-Lease.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

When you can defend nuking entire cities then you can defend anything. It just becomes a matter of whoever wins writes history to favour the decision.

 

[hussain123]

Their is absolutely no justification for using nuclear weapons on a civilian population, whatever the circumstances.

 

[Vegitto1]

Those justifying the use of Nukes of civilians are the same ones who ****** their pants because some terrorist kills a handful of their citizens. They then suddenly realise that "you don't kill civilians"

 

[Robert]

Those justifying the use of Nukes of civilians are the same ones who ****** their pants because some terrorist kills a handful of their citizens. They then suddenly realise that "you don't kill civilians"

Well, the terrorists are attempting to make soldiers give up and go home from somewhere usually, just as the 1945 nukes were intended to make the Japanese soldiers do that, so there is an equivalence.

 

[Kean0]

When you can defend nuking entire cities then you can defend anything. It just becomes a matter of whoever wins writes history to favour the decision.

Completely agree. Its amazing how easily can defend dropping nuke on so many people. Lets just say they wouldnt be defending it if it had landed on their family and loved ones.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Completely agree. Its amazing how easily can defend dropping nuke on so many people. Lets just say they wouldnt be defending it if it had landed on their family and loved ones.

Nuclear weapons, like chemical weapons go beyond civilians and loved ones, they wipe out all forms of life and affect future generations as well through radiation and mutation. It's part of our history now, but I would not want to attempt to justify use of such terrible weapons past, present or future.

 

[Robert]

Completely agree. Its amazing how easily can defend dropping nuke on so many people. Lets just say they wouldnt be defending it if it had landed on their family and loved ones.

Since the alternative is my family being killed by a B-29 conventional strike, or starvation, or succumbing to typhoid when the infrastructure collapses or getting crushed by a M4 Sherman or blowing themselves up with a grenade in a suicide attack while my Emperor fights on in utter futility, I perceive no difference because dead is dead.

Except my way, the death toll is reduced by 90%. Which few here seem able to comprehend. Your way is infinitely worse, and I am saddened by your lack of understanding.

 

[Markhor]

People often forget in light of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the firebombing of Tokyo that took place in March 1945.

It actually killed more people than Hiroshima or Nagasaki, with estimates of up to 100,000 dead from that single raid alone. 25% of Tokyo was flattened and Emperor Hirohito actually visited the affected areas to see the destruction, which began his role in the peace process months later.

So nuclear or conventional, its a terrible story. With nuclear though the radiation effects lasts for generations and the doctors at the time of the atomic bombings had no idea how to treat the injured. But had the US continued conventional warfare and a land invasion of mainland Japan then lord knows how much more would have died.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Since the alternative is my family being killed by a B-29 conventional strike, or starvation, or succumbing to typhoid when the infrastructure collapses or getting crushed by a M4 Sherman or blowing themselves up with a grenade in a suicide attack while my Emperor fights on in utter futility, I perceive no difference because dead is dead.

Except my way, the death toll is reduced by 90%. Which few here seem able to comprehend. Your way is infinitely worse, and I am saddened by your lack of understanding.

Wipe out 10% of a population to warn the remaining 90% of the consequences if they fail to understand. Well. it's a pretty comprehensive statement by which chopping off a soldier's head in London seems pretty tame in comparison. Except of course Lee Rigsby had a name.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

People often forget in light of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the firebombing of Tokyo that took place in March 1945.

It actually killed more people than Hiroshima or Nagasaki, with estimates of up to 100,000 dead from that single raid alone. 25% of Tokyo was flattened and Emperor Hirohito actually visited the affected areas to see the destruction, which began his role in the peace process months later.

So nuclear or conventional, its a terrible story. With nuclear though the radiation effects lasts for generations and the doctors at the time of the atomic bombings had no idea how to treat the injured. But had the US continued conventional warfare and a land invasion of mainland Japan then lord knows how much more would have died.

Tokyo is alive and thriving since that time. Would it be fair to say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were sparsely populated areas that were nuked as a warning to the rest of Japan as to potential consequences lest they surrender?

 

[Buffet]

Nukes are terrible. Not only the immediate impact but long term impact is terrible as well.

 

[Markhor]

Tokyo is alive and thriving since that time. Would it be fair to say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were sparsely populated areas that were nuked as a warning to the rest of Japan as to potential consequences lest they surrender?

I think a combination of wanting revenge, geopolitics and an expensive new toy that could not be allowed to simply rust away, meant the atomic bomb had to be hastily deployed “in the field” in order to see its power.

Regarding the comments about a possible Japanese surrender - some of the Japanese hardliners welcomed the prospect of an Allied invasion so they could inflict severe casualties like they had done at Okinawa and pursue a more favourable peace. So the pro-nuke camp will point to that and say they had to drop it to hastily end the war.

However I think the Japanese knew the game was up. Almost nothing was left of the once mighty Imperial Navy, and Japan's air force had been all but totally destroyed. The B29s were doing the job and the atomic bomb was needless exhibitionism. If you're willing to accept the devastating lifetime effects of nuclear weapons and its deployment on the battlefield - then what cost is TOO much in war ? Where does the line get drawn ? That's why I have a hard time accepting the justification of the Bomb.

Ultimately its all "Monday morning quarterbacking" as the Yanks like to say. This week really puts the the Iran nuclear deal in perspective.

 

[Pantani]

You realise that in the long run, dropping the atomic bombs, despicable though it was to kill so many innocent civillians, was absolutely necessary? It has saved billions of lives.

Just imagine what the Cold War would have been like if everybody wasn't aware of how devastating these nuclear weapons are (and thus disincentivised from using them).

What would have happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis? If nobody knew what an a-bomb was capable of in 1962, then the Soviets and Americans would have called the blufff and gone and dropped dozens of them on each other, maybe one for each major American and Soviet city respectively. At that time both sides were manufacturing ICBMs like sausages and they would have fired ten or so at once, as though they were dropping a normal bomb. Potentially wiping all of us out in 1962 itself.

 

[Thivagar]

The Japanese murdered like millions of people as well. One of the Japanese Emperor's game was to see who can behead the most chinese heads, including babies.

 

[Robert]

Tokyo is alive and thriving since that time. Would it be fair to say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were sparsely populated areas that were nuked as a warning to the rest of Japan as to potential consequences lest they surrender?

No. But Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving too. My friend visited Hiroshima last week.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

No. But Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving too. My friend visited Hiroshima last week.

Good to know. From even the most horrific setback it seems humanity can bounce back and flourish given time.

 

[Robert]

Good to know. From even the most horrific setback it seems humanity can bounce back and flourish given time.

Not from Chernobyl, though. That's uninhabitable for the next 20,000 years.

 

[Vegitto1]

You realise that in the long run, suicide bombings, despicable though it is to kill so many innocent civillians, was absolutely necessary? It has saved billions of lives.

Just imagine what the American Empire would be like if everybody wasn't aware of how devastating Empirical rule is. Point in case, British Empire

I just amended your post to suit my argument. One can argue till they are blue in the face but the bottom line is that it is NEVER justifiable to kill innocent civilians no matter what might happen otherwise.

Once you justify doing it then you cannot stop others from doing the same no matter how absurd their logic is.

 

[Pantani]

I just amended your post to suit my argument. One can argue till they are blue in the face but the bottom line is that it is NEVER justifiable to kill innocent civilians no matter what might happen otherwise.

Once you justify doing it then you cannot stop others from doing the same no matter how absurd their logic is.

I don't understand your analogy.

What I meant to say was that if the effects of the atomic bomb were not known during the Cold War, it is quite likely that both America and the USSR would have dropped them on one another, especially during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was only because people knew how devastating these weapons were that they hesitated to use them.

 

[Robert]

I don't understand your analogy.

What I meant to say was that if the effects of the atomic bomb were not known during the Cold War, it is quite likely that both America and the USSR would have dropped them on one another, especially during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was only because people knew how devastating these weapons were that they hesitated to use them.

Well, they had done lots of A-bomb tests in the fifties, and still came close to nuclear exchange. It wasn't all Soviet provocation as the US had placed SRBMs in Turkey to threaten Moscow.

 

[Pantani]

Well, they had done lots of A-bomb tests in the fifties, and still came close to nuclear exchange. It wasn't all Soviet provocation as the US had placed SRBMs in Turkey to threaten Moscow.

Testing isn't the same as actually dropping a bomb on a city. You need to be a scientist to fully understand the impacts of a test, while any layperson could understand what the a-bomb could do after 1945. Also the precise results of nuclear testing would have been a closely guarded secret, only the general details would have been released to the public, if at all any details were released. Pretty much nobody knew about the Manhattan Project, for example. So, if the 1945 bombings did not happen, the public would have remained unaware of the impacts of the a-bomb and arguably as a result there would have been no political pressure against the use of the bomb.

On the other hand, if the 1945 bombings did not happen, and the US never dropped a bomb in a subsequent war, then it's quite likely the USSR would not have gotten around to building their own nuclear weapons.

Alternative history is always a lot of fun!

 

[Robert]

Testing isn't the same as actually dropping a bomb on a city. You need to be a scientist to fully understand the impacts of a test, while any layperson could understand what the a-bomb could do after 1945.

Good point well made.

 

[Vegitto1]

Testing isn't the same as actually dropping a bomb on a city. You need to be a scientist to fully understand the impacts of a test, while any layperson could understand what the a-bomb could do after 1945.

A layperson is not going to make a decision to drop an A-bomb. That decision is made by Military heads based on scientific data - therefore it is irrelevant whether or not a layperson understands the amount of devastation an A-bomb can cause.

 

[Abdullah719]

US used Hiroshima atomic bomb victims as ‘guinea pigs’, survivor tells RT

Survivors of the Hiroshima atomic bomb were used as lab rats for US research, and the post-war occupation forces censored media reports attempting to shed light on the atrocity, a survivor of the nuclear attack told RT.

Setsuko Thurlow, a nuclear weapons disarmament activist and survivor of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, told RT’s Sophie Shevardnadze that US forces occupying Japan after the end of World War Two were more interested studying the effects of nuclear warfare than they were in helping victims of the attack.

“The United States established an institution called ABCC (Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission) and people were very happy that finally we got some medication, medical experts who knew what this was all about, who would help Japanese doctors who were at a loss,” Thurlow said while speaking on Shevardnadze’s SophieCo program.

“But the sole purpose of the ABCC was to study the effects of radiation on human bodies, not to help the people sick because of the radiation. The survivors felt they were used as guinea pigs twice: first time as a target, second as a subject for research.”

To make matters worse, the US occupation forces did all they could to suppress media coverage about the deadly attack and its horrific aftermath, Thurlow said.

“Occupational forces didn’t want the media, newspapers to write anything that could be seen as disadvantageous to occupational forces. And if a newspaper writes something about the destruction and especially human suffering in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this would be considered disadvantageous, this would have stop. So they censored and forced some media companies to close the shop. This is not exactly a democratic thing to do.”

According to Thurlow, tens of thousands of personal items such as diaries, photographs and even haiku – Japanese poetry – were confiscated by the US authorities in order to prevent the world from understanding the full consequences of nuclear war.

“The scientific triumph of the United States of producing the atomic bombs was okay, the world could find out. But the human suffering these bombs caused - this was not to be found out by the world. That was the reason why [these things were confiscated].”

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8wUSq92ek-A" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

https://www.rt.com/news/435030-hiroshima-victims-nuclear-guinea-pigs/

 

[Abdullah719]

Japanese students recreate the Hiroshima bombing in virtual reality

Students in Japan spent that last two years working with virtual reality technology to painstakingly recreate the nuclear blast that wiped out Hiroshima in World War 2.

Over the course of five minutes, viewers are transported back to August 6, 1945 to witness the moment the United States killed 140,000 people and flattened a city.

‘Even without language, once you see the images, you understand,” Mei Okada, one of the students working on the project, told Phys.org.

‘That is definitely one of the merits of this VR experience,’ explained the student, who attends a technical high school in Fukuyama, about 60 miles east of Hiroshima.

The schoolkids and their teachers hope that the visceral impact of the digital experience will serve as a reminder of the horror of the event. They want to ensure that history is never repeated.

When you pull on the virtual reality goggles, you’re treated to a walk along the Motoyasu River and take in the city in the moments before the bomb hits.

It took the students months of work to recreate Hiroshima as it was 73 years ago. They studied old photos and even interviewed survivors of the strike.

‘Those who knew the city very well tell us it’s done very well. They say it’s very nostalgic,’ said Katsushi Hasegawa, a computer teacher who supervised the club.

‘Sometimes they start to reminisce about their memories from that time, and it really makes me glad that we created this.’

The nuclear bomb weighed 4,400kg, measured about 3 metres long and was dropped at 8.15 am on August 6, 1945. After 43 seconds, it detonated 600 meters off the ground and vaporised every person, object and building within a mile.

The final death toll is estimated at 140,000 and – along with the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki three days later – ended Japan’s involvement in the Second World War.

https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/06/japanese-students-recreate-hiroshima-bombing-virtual-reality-7803993/

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">A relatively small number of Hiroshima survivors, known in Japan as hibakusha, will attend this year's 75th memorial.<br><br>As their numbers fall, they and their supporters are being forced to envision what the nuclear disarmament movement will look like.<a href="https://t.co/behuKX1ZEU">https://t.co/behuKX1ZEU</a></p>— The New York Times (@nytimes) <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1291109872222773248?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 5, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[sweep_shot]

It was one of the saddest days in human history.

I hope this type of event will never happen again.

 

[MenInG]

Bells have tolled in Japan's Hiroshima for the 75th anniversary of the world's first atomic bombing, with ceremonies downsized due to the coronavirus pandemic and the city's mayor urging nations to reject self-centred nationalism and commit to nuclear disarmament more seriously.

Though thousands usually pack the Peace Park in central Hiroshima to pray, sing and lay paper cranes as a symbol of peace, entrance to Thursday's memorial ceremony was sharply limited, with only survivors, relatives and a handful of foreign dignitaries allowed to attend.

Participants, many of them dressed in black and wearing face masks, stood for a moment of silence at 8:15 am, the exact time that the atomic bomb, nicknamed "Little Boy", exploded on August 6, 1945, obliterating Hiroshima and killing 140,000 of an estimated population of 350,000.

Thousands more died later of injuries and radiation-related illnesses.

"On August 6, 1945, a single atomic bomb destroyed our city. Rumour at the time had it that 'nothing will grow here for 75 years,'" Mayor Kazumi Matsui said in a speech afterwards.

"And yet, Hiroshima recovered, becoming a symbol of peace."