Hiroshima 70 years ago

[abaris]

I think it's appropriate to remember the dropping of the first nuclear bomb in history. I'm certainly not a fan of japanese or any kind of militarism and imperialism. But it's well to remember that this hit civilians and mostly civilians. Not military installations. Some of these people may have been supporters of the regime, some of the may have not. But they all went about their daily business when the bomb hit. And even now they're still suffering from the aftermath.

On Aug. 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, killing tens of thousands of people – many instantly, others from the effects of radiation. Death estimates range from 66,000 to 150,000.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...omic-bomb/

[Anomalocaris]

In the prevailing conditions in Japan in 1945, when most military installation accessible to pin point strike from off shore has already been destroyed, yet japan's will to resist appear to be unbroken and Japan's ability to resist still appeared considerable, it was not possible to not hit japan in ways that would hurt, and it was not possible to hit japan in any way that would hurt that does not involve hitting mostly civilians.

[Minimalist]

The Japanese were about to be double-crossed by the Russians, with whom they had started negotiating to intercede with the US and UK for peace.  They did not know that Stalin had promised to attack Japan 90 days after the war in Europe ended.  VE Day was May 8 and Russian punctually attacked on August 8, the same day as the Nagasaki blast.  They knew the war was over. The incendiary raids had burned much of the built up area of Japan to ashes.  The submarine blockade was near total and American carrier groups raided at will.

[Pyrrho]

In the prevailing conditions in Japan in 1945, when most military installation accessible to pin point strike from off shore has already been destroyed, yet japan's will to resist appear to be unbroken and Japan's ability to resist still appeared considerable, it was not possible to not hit japan in ways that would hurt, and it was not possible to hit japan in any way that would hurt that does not involve hitting mostly civilians.

If the U.S. had actually cared whether thousands of Japanese civilians died or not, they could have told the Japanese that the U.S. had such a bomb and suggested demonstrating that it worked, without blowing up cities.  But the simple fact is, the U.S. did not care about the Japanese people, and were totally okay with using them in a demonstration.  That is why "virgin" targets were selected.  And they were "virgin" targets because actual military targets within range had already been attacked.

[Minimalist]

The demonstration was for the Russians.

[Pyrrho]

The demonstration was for the Russians.

In that case, we should have dropped a bomb on a Russian city.  That way, they could have studied the results in greater detail.

[Minimalist]

But we were allies!

[Pyrrho]

But we were allies!

What are you, sentimental?

[vorlon13]

Pyrrho

In the prevailing conditions in Japan in 1945, when most military installation accessible to pin point strike from off shore has already been destroyed, yet japan's will to resist appear to be unbroken and Japan's ability to resist still appeared considerable, it was not possible to not hit japan in ways that would hurt, and it was not possible to hit japan in any way that would hurt that does not involve hitting mostly civilians.

If the U.S. had actually cared whether thousands of Japanese civilians died or not, they could have told the Japanese that the U.S. had such a bomb and suggested demonstrating that it worked, without blowing up cities.  But the simple fact is, the U.S. did not care about the Japanese people, and were totally okay with using them in a demonstration.  That is why "virgin" targets were selected.  And they were "virgin" targets because actual military targets within range had already been attacked.

(I had some problem with the quoting, if I screwed it up, I'll attempt to fix it)


The 'weird logic' of nukes (watch Dr. Strangelove for a refresher) precluded the issuance of a warning, or a demonstration.  It was discussed to blast the top off Mt. Fuji prior to attacking a city.  The 'problem' with that sort of demonstration is if it is announced beforehand, and for some reason (weather, technical issues with the 'Little Boy' gun type weapon (never tested before it's use, BTW) or if by chance Japan, having been warned, might succeed in shooting down the plane carrying the bomb prior to it's getting to the target) the US would have then emboldened Japan to persevere in it's resistance from a failed or thwarted demonstration.  Shooting down the plane carrying the bomb also presented a small, but real risk, of an intact, or salvageable nuke winding up in Japanese hands. (Don't kid yourself about what they would not have done with one)

Japanese scientists prior to the war considered the possibility of a nuke but concluded it was not feasible for Japan, or significantly, any adversary, from completing one before the end of the war, so there was barely a Japanese nuclear program at all.  IIRC, they had a cyclotron, but with war time shortages, they did not have the appropriate vacuum tubes to operate it at full power.  Still, the Japanese scientists (not the general public however) recognized a nuclear device had been used on them, and were able to communicate that to the military leadership, and they were able to explain it the emperor, and he cited the bomb in his until then unprecedented speech to the Japanese people announcing he would surrender. The Japanese people were ordered by the emperor to lay down their weapons and endure anything that was going to be meted out to them as a result of their failing to win the war.

[Anomalocaris]

In the prevailing conditions in Japan in 1945, when most military installation accessible to pin point strike from off shore has already been destroyed, yet japan's will to resist appear to be unbroken and Japan's ability to resist still appeared considerable, it was not possible to not hit japan in ways that would hurt, and it was not possible to hit japan in any way that would hurt that does not involve hitting mostly civilians.

If the U.S. had actually cared whether thousands of Japanese civilians died or not, they could have told the Japanese that the U.S. had such a bomb and suggested demonstrating that it worked, without blowing up cities.  But the simple fact is, the U.S. did not care about the Japanese people, and were totally okay with using them in a demonstration.  That is why "virgin" targets were selected.  And they were "virgin" targets because actual military targets within range had already been attacked.

You forget Both the actual, and the anticipated effect, both in property destruction and casualties, of the atom bomb pales next to those of any one of several previous fire bombings attacks the U.S. army Air Force had already conducted against major cities in Japan since early 1945, including Tokyo.  

Keep in mind the atom bomb raid on either Hiroshima or Nagasaki were far from the most destructive or the most deadly air raids conducted against Japan or Germany.

Clearly the U.S. already demonstrated repeatedly it had workable and repeatable means to inflict damage and casualties in each raid that goes far beyond what a single atomic bomb could do.   

Japan had not been able to thwart any of those raids.

The U.S. had on many occasions dropped leaflets giving advanced warning of these impending raids, sometimes 2 weeks in advance.

The Japanese had not heeded the warnings and evacuated those cities, and had instead chosen to absorbe the upcoming damage and casaulties in each of these raids, which were in many cases greater than any a single atom bomb can hope to inflict.

Japan had not surrendered.

So why would any mere demonstration of another means of inflicting an what is by 1945 frankly already an Un-extraordinary amount of devastation be rationally expected to impress the Japanese more than actual and repeated application of even greater destructive power that had happened before?

I am not arguing the U.S. cared about the japanese cvilians.   On the whole It didn't.   But if it did, it is still likely it would have done this because in the circumstances it was prudent, not clearly a worse alternative than something else which it would have had to do in its stead, and served a geopolitical need independent from any humanitarianism.