The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

[P@triot]

Good grief! I've already refuted this nonsense.

The only thing you’ve “refuted” is credibility about your sanity.

I posted a detailed review of Japan's peace feelers and noted that the emperor, two foreign ministers, senior military officers, and others approved of peace feelers through third parties.

“Feelers” isn’t surrender, clown. Japan was still fighting and killing.

I've also pointed out that we knew in July, from intercepts and other sources, that the emperor himself wanted to end the war and that the only issue, the only concern, was his status in a surrender.

So his ego got him nuked? Good! Should have had the humility to actually surrender.

 

[P@triot]

Japan provoked the US into nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Japan earned nuclear bombings the moment they bombed Pearl Harbor.

 

[Open Bolt]

Nothing but war propaganda to justify mass murder.

No propaganda. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were indeed military targets.

And attacks on military targets are not murder.

They tried to surrender several times.

No they didn't.

Dirty Harry told them to fuck off die.

Fake news.

You can never justify massacring defenseless civilians.

But you can always justify attacking military targets.

No one’s reading your dumb posts Open Dolt.

Childish insults will not change the fact that the atomic bombs were proper and justified attacks against military targets.

 

[Open Bolt]

No, it has not.

That is incorrect. It has indeed been proven that Japan only offered to surrender after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

Overtures to surrender were floated even before the Yalta Conference. The scumbag fdr ordered that they be ignored. As a result, many many more American servicemen died before his lackey could finally use their new toy to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians, as he had wanted more than anything.

Fake news. Japan did not offer to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

Invasion was NOT the only other option against an already-defeated foe.

The fact remains, if Japan was still refusing to surrender on the day that we were finally ready to invade, then we were going to invade.

MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.

Fake news. Never happened.

 

[Open Bolt]

then again if the US had been a little less aggressive and allow the Japanese to save face then who knows a peace treaty might have been reached with the killing of immoral act of killing civilians

We were less aggressive, and we did allow them to save face. The Potsdam Proclamation was a list of generous surrender terms.

The atomic bombs were dropped on military targets by the way.

then the US could save face instead of arguing among themselves as what was the best way to end the war

We did not lose face. Progressives just oppose our use of the atomic bombs because they hate America.

 

[Open Bolt]

Anyone defending our nuking of Hiroshima or Nagasaki has no soul.

We were at war and we had every right to attack military targets.

Even if we had dropped Little Boy directly on Hitler, it wouldn't have justified killing the 150,000 people around him would it ?

Why not?

 

[Open Bolt]

Well, firstly, Japan had already surrendered before the first atomic bomb was dropped, the United States refused that surrender and dropped not one, but two nukes.

Japan did not offer to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

Secondly, those were civilians, not "enemies". They were random people, going about their own lives, no say in the war, no say in the surrender terms. These were cities, not military bases.

Both atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.

the Japanese GOVERNMENT wanted to stay in power, which was their condition,

Actually what Japan requested was that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.

Needless to say, we refused and told them that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.

all those people that the US Government murdered with an atomic bomb had nothing to do with it. All they did was murder 7000 people they saw as nothing more than tax cattle, much like how the US Government views you.

Attacks on military targets are not murder.

Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.

No need to pretend. Japan did not offer to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians?

Hiroshima was the headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion of Japan. It also held tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers.

Kokura Arsenal and Nagasaki were part of Japan's war industry.

Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder.

Attacks on military targets are not murder.

"Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands.

Attacks on military targets are still not murder.

 

[Open Bolt]

Even if true, that still doesn't make the bombing necessary or moral.

Japan was still refusing to surrender and we had every right to keep attacking military targets.

 

[Open Bolt]

the Japanese only decided to attack Pearl Harbor after FDR had imposed draconian sanctions on them that would have caused the collapse of Japan's economy if Japan did not find other sources of oil and other raw materials--and even then Japan only attacked after FDR had rejected every Japanese peace proposal.

If Japan had wanted to keep buying our stuff, then they shouldn't have been using that stuff to commit genocide.

FDR provoked Japan to attack so he could save the Soviet Union and have an excuse to enter WW II.

Japan provoked us into nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

They were practically defenseless.

Except for those millions of troops and thousands of kamikazes waiting to greet our invasion.

More of your militarist propaganda.

RetiredGySgt is offering facts.

The army unit was on the outskirts of the city

No it wasn't. It was right in the center.

and was a garrison HQ unit, with no fortifications. You say you were a Gunnery Sergeant--then you know what a garrison unit is. A garrison unit is a unit that is not in combat status. Furthermore, those troops were mostly reservists and supply troops.

43,000 soldiers is quite a garrison.

If we wanted to bomb the garrison unit, we could have easily done so with conventional bombing and without damaging the city,

Carpet-bombing with conventional weapons also destroyed cities.

And a massive conventional raid would have inspired the troops to take cover and survive. The atomic bomb caught them out in the open and killed them.

but the nuke was aimed at the center of the city.

Which is right where the military headquarters was and where the thousands of troops were.

And I notice that neither you nor MaryL addressed the point that three days was far too soon to drop another atomic bomb on Japan, not to mention that we knew that Japan's largest Christian community lived in Nagasaki.

Said point is nonsense. There is no requirement that we allow the enemy to rest and recover between each blow.

 

[Open Bolt]

Indeed, if we were really so worried about the small garrison HQ unit that was stationed on the outskirts of Hiroshima,

43,000 soldiers is a pretty large garrison unit. And the garrison unit was in the center of the Hiroshima.

we could have easily bombed it with conventional bombers.

Setting aside the fact that carpet-bombing also destroyed cities, a large conventional raid would have inspired the soldiers to take shelter and far fewer would have been killed.

But even if destroying the city with a conventional raid had been a viable option, so what? The nuke did just fine.

Furthermore, the nuke was aimed at the center of the city, which is why the army compound suffered minimal damage compared to the city, and why so many of the soldiers there survived.

The destruction of the military headquarters was total. And most of the enemy soldiers were killed.

Aiming the nuke in the center of the city where the military facilities were is the reason why the military damage was so extensive.

If that garrison unit made Hiroshima a "military target," then just about every major city in America is a "military target" because every major American city has national guard units and several units of reservists.

Hiroshima had more Japanese soldiers than any city other than Tokyo.

Hiroshima had the highest soldier/civilian ratio of any major Japanese city.

Hiroshima was the military headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion of Japan.

And they just keep repeating myths that have been soundly debunked in this thread.

Facts are not myths, and you have not debunked any.

And let's not forget, as historian John Dower points out, that Truman approved a massive conventional bombing raid on Japan five days after Nagasaki and after we knew Japan was going to surrender:

Even after the Japanese government clearly indicated its intention to surrender, the United States chose to send a massive final bombing mission over Tokyo on August 14, killing and injuring additional thousands of civilians. (History Wars: The Enola Gay and Other Battles for the American Past, p. 86)​

Japan had not clearly indicated its willingness to surrender when the raid was approved.

And the surrender might never have happened if not for that bombing raid.

A true patriot does not find it necessary to defend war crimes ordered by the corrupt and immoral Truman administration.

No such war crimes, no such corruption, and no such immorality.

 

[Mushroom]

Japan earned nuclear bombings the moment they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Actually, I can give them a pass there as that was a legitimate military target.

The slaughter of civilians on Guam? The Bataan Death March? Unit 731? Comfort Women? Slaughtering their own civilians just in the event they might surrender? The Rape of Nanking? For all that and even more I do agree with that, as none of those were "military" at all. But their twisted form of Bushido that gave them the idea that they could do anything they wanted, and the lives of nobody else mattered.

Funny how those that cry the most never seem to bring up those incidents. Like how they will scream about "innocent civilians" living near the largest shipyard and a major military command, but ignore around 8 million Chinese civilians slaughtered. And I mean that literally, as the IJA actually made it a game of killing civilians just for sport.

Just as the same ones will cry about the "US Concentration Camps". Compare those to the conditions that the Japanese put civilians in during the war. Where rape, starvation, beatings, and death at the whim of a pissed off guard were the norm. Not to mention actual cannibalism. I have never heard of Americans beating, torturing, raping, killing, or eating the Japanese, Italians, and Germans that were interred. Nor of the incredible death rates even close to that of the civilians the Japanese held.

 

[Open Bolt]

Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals
By Walter Trohan

Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals
By Walter Trohan

Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals
By Walter Trohan

Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals
By Walter Trohan

Fake news. Never happened.

I mean, yes that article was unfortunately published.

But everything that the article says is untrue.

Always. The unnecessary slaughter of civilians doesn't bother you, does it? Neither one bothered the fucking scumbag fdr, that's for damn sure.

The slaughter was necessary.

Without the example of Hiroshima to deter them, the US and USSR would not have made it out of the Cuban Missile Crisis without killing off the human race.

The war could have ended in any number of ways with a surrender and without the incineration of hundreds of thousands of women, children, and the elderly.

And humanity would have gone extinct by the end of 1962 without the example of Hiroshima to restrain the US and USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The terms of surrender being floated - terms that MacArthur informed fdr about in a 40 page letter before that old son of a bitch left for Yalta - outlined terms for surrender that turned out to be exactly the same terms that truman ultimately accepted after incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians. This was well before Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Just think how many American servicemen might not have had to die in those terrible battles.

Except, that never happened. Japan didn't offer to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

Just think of all the people who are alive today because we had the example of Hiroshima to deter the US and USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Only two atom bombs existed at the time,

Japan was just a few days away from getting hit with a third atomic bomb when they surrendered.

 

[Open Bolt]

Uh, guy, if there was a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia or China, it would end civilization as we know it. They've estimated that even if Pakistan and India had a nuclear war with their relatively small arsenals, it would result in 2 billion deaths and the collapse of the world economy.

Just think how the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out without the example of Hiroshima to restrain the US and USSR.

 

[Open Bolt]

And what about 2025?
History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "

If the US and Japan are involved in a nuclear war in 2025, they will be fighting on the same side.

May be, there was a way to do it better? For example, to use three bombs instead two.

A nuclear war in 2025 (that involves the US) would probably result in the use of hundreds or even thousands of nuclear weapons.

 

[Open Bolt]

By summer 1945, they were defenseless. This is why the US air forces could daylight bomb with impunity. They had no air defenses. This means they were defenseless

That is incorrect. Japan had millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes waiting to pounce on our invading forces.

They only asked that the emperor not be harmed.

Japan did not ask this until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

And actually, no. That isn't what Japan asked. They asked that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.

Needless to say we refused and told them that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.

 

[Pogo]

Facts should never be dismissed.

Nor should entire contexts from THREE FUCKING YEARS AGO when whatever this aged topic was about appeared. What, you think I've been sitting here for three years waiting for some feedback on a topic I don't even remember on a site I don't even use any more? You must be from the Special Bus.

 

[Mushroom]

We would have had plenty more atomic bombs come off the assembly line had the war continued.

The expected rate of production was 2 per month until the end of 1945, increasing to 10-15 per month by the end of 1946. And most of those would have been of the Fat Man type implosion device, as plutonium was easier to produce than refining uranium.

And this was even taken into account, as most of Operation Olympic was to use 1-3 bombs just prior to landing. In addition to the use of bombs strategically on more major mainland cities. But one of the last targets prior to Operation Coronet would have been nuking Tokyo. That would have been roughly March 1946, and it was understood that if they had not surrendered by then, there was no more reason to try and keep the Emperor alive.

 

[Open Bolt]

And most of those would have been of the Fat Man type implosion device, as plutonium was easier to produce than refining uranium.

All of them would have been implosion. You could get 3-4 implosion bombs with the amount of uranium that it took for one gun type bomb.

They built Little Boy in case implosion didn't work. They decided to use Little Boy instead of recasting the uranium into multiple implosion cores because it would take too long to recast the uranium. But future uranium would have been made directly into implosion cores instead of being wasted on gun-type bombs.

 

[Mushroom]

All of them would have been implosion. You could get 3-4 implosion bombs with the amount of uranium that it took for one gun type bomb.

No, because we were still producing uranium, and it is believed that of the first few dozen bombs built, 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 would have been shotgun style Little Boy weapons.

The large-scale conversion from shotgun to implosion largely came after the war was over, and even our uranium bombs were converted to implosion devices for the most part. But in the event WWII had continued, we would have continued with those two tested and working designs.

The large increase in stockpiles came in the 1950s, once the research was done to increase our outputs of both Uranium and Plutonium. But in a "WWII to 1946+" scenario, this would not have happened until later.

It must be remembered, obtaining bomb grade uranium is fairly straightforward, if slow. With implosion bombs, you have to still refine it to a degree, then do the step to convert it to plutonium. And we already had operational GD facilities. Those would not have shut down, and in many ways a shotgun bomb is still easier, faster, and more reliable than an implosion device.

 

[Open Bolt]

1 in 3 or 1 in 4 would have been shotgun style Little Boy weapons.

That would have been criminally wasteful. Each gun type bomb consumed enough uranium to power 4 implosion type bombs.

Note:
"4. The final components of the first gun type bomb have arrived at Tinian, those of the first implosion type should leave San Francisco by airplane early on 30 July. I see no reason to change our previous readiness predictions on the first three bombs. In September, we should have three or four bombs. One of these will be made from 235 material and will have a smaller effectiveness, about two-thirds that of the test type, but by November, we should be able to bring this up to full power. There should be either four or three bombs in October, one of the lesser size. In November, there should be at least five bombs and the rate will rise to seven in December and increase decidedly in early 1946. By some time in November, we should have the effectiveness of the 235 implosion type bomb equal to that of the tested plutonium implosion type."

Atomic Bomb: Decision -- Bomb Production Schedule, July 30, 1945

The Manhattan Project could make atomic bombs at an ever-increasing rate

www.dannen.com

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/45.pdf