Does anyone think the atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki recieve too much attention in comparison to other incident in the war? One could argue that it does, since most of the inhabitants of the cities were instantly killed. Other incidents, such as the rape of Nanking, were committed by hand. But maybe it is getting as much atention as it should, since it was a new way of killing people, and was the only incident like it ever. Maybe even argue that many died of cancer, which was worse. I am somewhat undecided. I would like to hear everyone's opinions.
I agree that is has too much attention payed to it since your right there are many other things that happened that were much more horrific. But i think that the reason its always there is the large amount of firepower unleashed.
Well, as a child of the Cold War, who grew up just a few miles from the USAF SAC base at Greenham Common and saw American nuclear bombers in the sky on a daily basis in the 1950s, I would say that the first use of nuclear weapons was an event of world historic importance in its own right. It is not just something you can restrict to a WWII context. At the same time, I do agree that there were other WWII era events which produced casulties in the same order of magnitude.
The use of the Atomic bombs signalled the start of new era. It no longer took thousands of bomber several days to destroy a city, one could do it in an instant. The violence of the new weapons also shocked people. An entire cities population was vapourized by one bomb, along with their dwellings and businesses, twice. I imagine more than a few people were reminded of biblical events when they heard of the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Well it was the weapon that finally persuaded the Japanese to end the hopelessly lost war. I have never felt the moral dilema that is frequently raised about the decision to use. I do not believe the Japanese would have hesitated for a moment to use it on the Allies if they had had it available, which ends the discussion for me. The terrifying nature of the totally flat landscape of the cities seems to have been endlessly presented. While I absolutely agree with anyone who states it is a huge and devastating weapon, I have always been worried that no one notes that the Japanese built their houses in wood and paper. The few cement buildings seem to be relatively upright even close to ground zero. The thought that western cities would be as devastated as H and N does not necessarily follow but yes there was much further refinement. I think a lot of the repeated discussion is caused by modern people with changing views re-judging past actions without considering the circumstances at that time. Regds Bill
Originally posted by Compo@Aug 30 2005, 01:07 PM Well it was the weapon that finally persuaded the Japanese to end the hopelessly lost war. I think a lot of the repeated discussion is caused by modern people with changing views re-judging past actions without considering the circumstances at that time. I have put a link at the end of this. This is where the saying of "read it and weep" must have come from. Where would be without hindsight. What many modern day "pacifists" and sympathises don't key into their logic is that the Japanese had no intention of surrendering without honour. This was not considered and could never have been allowed. Hiroshima & Nagasaki was a small price the Japanese paid for their atrocities and dreams of Asian domination. Aerial bombardment of the home island would have "raised" most Japanese cities and killed millions of civilians. Soldiers on both sides would have died in their 100's of thousands. As I said in a previous post we actually had mercy on those who did not have mercy on others. The anti-bomb enthusiasts speak of the post war injuries and ongoing medical conditions of those who survived in the two cities yet what is conveniently omitted is the scars they left on the soldiers they interned and treated inhumanely to the point of eradication. What of the civilians they slaughtered, (in Timor alone, they executed some 60-70,000 or 13% of their total population) and the families of the POW's who would never be the same again. What of their ongoing medical conditions? While 95% of all Japanese prisoners were repatriated to Japan only 51% of allied prisoners of the Japanese survived the war. Even on this forum there was a champion of the Japanese who stated, " We had to kill the Chinese because they would not do what they were told" Doesn't it make you sick. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm
Too much? Certainly not. Well said Spidge, I wholeheartedly agree with everything you have said. Tim D
Not much attention is paid to the fact that the Japanese also used WMDs' in WW II, although on a much smaller scale. The Japanese developed weapons grade Anthrax and in the process killed several hundred Chinese. They also made drops of Anthrax on several Chinese cities, but fortunately did not achieve the results they hoped for. I'm not sure how many Chinese causualties there were. The Japanese also had a nuclear weapons program, although it got no where near producing a weapon. I have no doubt the Japanese would have used the atom bomb in WW II if they had that option, especially against the Chinese. One thing not many people talk about, is the fact that Japan still controlled large areas of China at the end of the war. How many Chinese were saved by the dropping of the Atom Bombs?
Excellent site spidge. Numbers there indicate the Japanese caused 558,000 Chinese deaths by Bombing/CB. I'm assuming CB stands for Chemical/Biological warfare. I had no idea the number of deaths were so high.
Originally posted by Dac@Aug 31 2005, 06:19 AM Excellent site spidge. Numbers there indicate the Japanese caused 558,000 Chinese deaths by Bombing/CB. I'm assuming CB stands for Chemical/Biological warfare. I had no idea the number of deaths were so high. [post=38407]Quoted post[/post] Hi Dac, Read my post "Final Victory Over Japan, 60th anniversary dates coming up" Post #3 shows the extent of the stock holdings of C/B weapons.
Originally posted by spidge@Aug 30 2005, 05:50 PM Hi Dac, Read my post "Final Victory Over Japan, 60th anniversary dates coming up" Post #3 shows the extent of the stock holdings of C/B weapons. [post=38415]Quoted post[/post] 700,000 chemical weapons! I imagine they were mustard gas or similiar weapons developed in WW I. They could have done incredible damage to the Chinese population in a last ditch battle. How is it the Japanese have become the victims of WW II, when they were so clearly fighting a "War Without Mercy".
How is it the Japanese have become the victims of WW II, when they were so clearly fighting a "War Without Mercy". [post=38418]Quoted post[/post] [
Originally posted by spidge@Aug 30 2005, 09:46 PM Another fact I omitted from my post here is that the bomb's were dropped on those that deserved it and at the same time it showed the world that it should not be used again in anger. [post=38421]Quoted post[/post] After the Ultra-Nationalists assasinated the moderate leaders of Japan in the 1930s and seized power, they and the people of Japan effectively became one. This led eventually to the unfortunate events of August 1945.
Well, that depends on what you mean by "too much." Putting aside the great debate over whether or not they should have been used for a moment, we have to consider the massive change they brought about in warfare and world politics forever after. Humanity had mastered the means of its own destruction. We are now capable of incinerating cities, nations, and entire national populations or ethnicities in the blink of an eye. It took Hitler 12 years to annihilate 6.5 million of Europe's Jews, and he still missed a few million. It would take a few seconds for a 3.5-megaton hydrogen bomb, detonated in Times Square in New York, to kill that many people. The whole questions of superpower politics, warfare, and so on, changed completely. With the advent of nuclear proliferation, we now have the situation where the 3.5-megaton hydrogen bomb that detonates in Times Square is not delivered by an accountable nation-state (and therefore subject to retaliation), but by three extremists with a penknife to grind and degrees in physics and chemistry -- or adherents of a cause that includes someone with a degree in physics and chemistry. If Osama Bin Laden annihilates New York to celebrate the fourth anniversary of destroying the World Trade Center, where does the United States retaliate? Can humanity survive its own weapons of mass destruction? Our survival seems dependent on the least stable terrorist leader's well-being or the angriest rogue nation. What will become of us after such weapons are used? What will the survivors inherit besides vast tracts of radioactive slagheap? I'm a pessimist, so my vote is "no." The most basic and inherent trait of humanity seems to be our relentless sadism. From the kindergarten schoolyard to the Wannsee Conference, from the bar brawl to the televised war, human beings enjoy making others suffer. We enjoy making others feel pain. We routinely torture the weak. We watch with relish as demented family members scream at each other on television talk and "reality" shows. We snicker when important people are caught. We get into "road rage" and "flame wars." We hurl lawsuits at the drop of a coin. We cheer on OJ Simpson as he makes his legendary drive. We watch TV newscasts of police car chases, stand-offs, shootings, and wars. We play violent computer games and watch violent movies, and we snicker when Clint Eastwood or Robocop delivers a smarmy crack, while eviscerating his opponent. So I don't think we'll survive. But the atomic bomb and its use have led us into this world, where sooner or later, someone with a penknife to grind will get his hands on the ultimate weapon, and dispense destruction on a scale unimaginable, even by Hiroshima's standards.
I think the fact we got through 40 years of the "Cold War" without the use of nuclear weapons in combat is a hopefull sign for our species. The horror of what happened at the end of WW II played a large part in that. Unfortunately, as you point out Kiwiwriter, the threat posed today is by people who don't feel that horror and will use any means to acheive their ends.
Originally posted by Dac@Aug 31 2005, 02:56 PM I think the fact we got through 40 years of the "Cold War" without the use of nuclear weapons in combat is a hopefull sign for our species. The horror of what happened at the end of WW II played a large part in that. Unfortunately, as you point out Kiwiwriter, the threat posed today is by people who don't feel that horror and will use any means to acheive their ends. [post=38443]Quoted post[/post] Very true...and this week, we were reminded that nature makes man's powers pale to insignificance...New Orleans will be abandoned for months in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Originally posted by Kiwiwriter@Sep 1 2005, 11:16 AM Very true...and this week, we were reminded that nature makes man's powers pale to insignificance...New Orleans will be abandoned for months in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. [post=38472]Quoted post[/post] Nature sometimes has a way of making our differences seem pretty pointless!
