The Nuking of Japan

[TaraJo]

If they had to use the bombs, why bomb civilians? That's what I don't understand.

I actually read something on how they decided on the spot they dropped the bomb. The military generals were told they had to select at least two certain cities to be 'test spots' for the bomb. The selected sites, they didn't want those sites to be damaged at all so they could really judge how much the damage the bomb did. That meant they had to select sites that we weren't going to need to bomb otherwise.

[Autumnlicious]

Were not both Hiroshima and Nagasaki legitimate targets? And what is the difference in morality between dropping an immense warhead or a hundred firebombs?

The USA only had two warheads to waste. To them, it was a hail-mary at forestalling the land and sea based invasion of Japan. A gamble, as the next warhead would be available in a few months. It also was known that the Soviet Union was expanding it's influence and within the USA's best interest to conquer Japan before they did.

One thing people seem to ignore here is that there was a war going on. And that the people involved in that war were no doubt desperate to end it as fast as they could. Combined with total warfare to break a supporting population into submission and pressing national interest in containing a rising super power, one can see why the Great Generation did what they did.

Two warheads. Hundreds of firebombs. I don't really see the difference between the two, especially given to whom both weapon types were targeted at.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Were not both Hiroshima and Nagasaki legitimate targets? And what is the difference in morality between dropping an immense warhead or a hundred firebombs?
...

There isn't much of a difference except in long term environmental consequences. But I'd object to either if they're used on civilians.

[cratehorus]

There isn't much of a difference except in long term environmental consequences. But I'd object to either if they're used on civilians.

not really........ the Iraq war, has caused more enviromental damage then the nukes in Japan did

[Anomalocaris]

If they had to use the bombs, why bomb civilians? That's what I don't understand.

I actually read something on how they decided on the spot they dropped the bomb. The military generals were told they had to select at least two certain cities to be 'test spots' for the bomb. The selected sites, they didn't want those sites to be damaged at all so they could really judge how much the damage the bomb did. That meant they had to select sites that we weren't going to need to bomb otherwise.

One of the candidate cities was Kyoto. But that city was struck off the list because it was deemed worth preserving for cultural and historical values because it had been the historical capital of Japan before the capital was moved to Tokyo during Meiji restoration.

---

If they had to use the bombs, why bomb civilians? That's what I don't understand.

Because it was used specifically as a terror weapon, to explicitly terrify the Japanese and implicitly terrify the Russians.

As it happened the Japanese were already adaquately terrified and the Soviets weren't terrified. Stalin had a fairly good idea of the size, scope and progress of American bomb project before Harry Truman himself has ever heard of the bomb, and had calculated Soviet Union could absorb 40 atomic bombs and survive, and knew the Americans had very few bombs.

[Shell B]

I think what is being lost here is that saying it was immoral and wrong is not quite the same as saying it did not work or it was not strategically sound. A war was going on, yes. Most things about war are immoral and wrong. Are they necessary? It depends on who you ask. I will never, ever say that dropping two nukes was good.

Question: Was the attack on Pearl Harbor immoral and wrong?

[Mystic]

Question: Was the attack on Pearl Harbor immoral and wrong?

Yes, the Emperor was better of surrendering to remove embargo that go into a futile war they would surely not win.

But he should try to make sure that his country would not be ruled by a dictator, but democracy, etc...

[NoraBrimstone]

It is without doubt the most heinous act in human history so far. Only the Holocaust come even remotely close to how atrocious it was.

[greneknight]

It is without doubt the most heinous act in human history so far. Only the Holocaust come even remotely close to how atrocious it was.

I totally disagree. It was an act which was the lesser of two evils. You probably do not know the evil atrocities committed by the Japs on many Asian countries and what the US did was wonderful in the eyes of the tortured victims. Without these two A-bombs, Japan would never have gone down on its knees. The people of Japan prior to the A-bombs were all for the war and their Emperor. The mushroom clouds were a symbol of hope and salvation for many innocent people in Asia whose families were massacred by the Japs. I've seen a documentary on this.

As I have said, the Japs continue to worship their Class A war criminals and torturers in their Yasukuni shrine. It's a sign that they are unrepentant which is why they are not allowed to build up their military to this day. They can't be trusted. Imagine if Hitler's shrine is venerated in Germany. No, the Germans are decent people, unlike the Japs.

[Anomalocaris]

Question: Was the attack on Pearl Harbor immoral and wrong?

It was not immoral. But it was much worse than wrong. It was a colossal blunder.

---

It is without doubt the most heinous act in human history so far. Only the Holocaust come even remotely close to how atrocious it was.

Just how much history do you know?