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

[Open Bolt]

Many people react badly when a comfortable narrative is shattered.

It's not like these falsehoods that you keep posting are shattering anything.

Or were you referring to your own reaction when I pointed out that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets and Japan was refusing to surrender?

A real historian isn't so defensive and weak-minded.

There is nothing weak minded about denouncing lies.

A real historian will always challenge lies.

Real historians care about the truth.

Admiral King, Commander in Chief of Naval Operations, stated in his memoirs that neither the atomic bombings nor a prospective U.S. invasion of the Japanese mainland was necessary, as “an effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials.”18"

So what? All this pathetic whining is pretty tedious.

Japan was free to surrender any time they wanted.

Japan chose not to surrender, so we kept on attacking them.

If Japan didn't want us to keep on attacking them, then they should have surrendered earlier than they did.

"General Dwight Eisenhower, in his memoirs, recalled a visit from Secretary of War Henry Stimson in late July 1945: “I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face.’” Eisenhower reiterated the point years later in a Newsweek interview in 1963, saying that “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”1

More tedious whining. Japan was free to surrender any time they wanted to.

It was their choice and their fault that they chose not to do so.

The Bomb Was Not Necessary

With the sixty-fifth anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb almost upon us, there is undoubtedly going to be a flood of commentary on the wisdom of its use by the United States during World War II. The justified scolding of Charles Pellegrino and his The Last Train From Hiroshima...

historynewsnetwork.org

More tedious whining. Japan was still refusing to surrender so we had every right to continue attacking them.

"Two days before the late President Roosevelt left the last week in January for the Yalta conference with Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stalin he received a Japanese offer identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, Harry S. Truman."

Fake news. Never happened.

"Indeed, Japan had put out peace feelers. As reported in the New York Times on July 26, 1945, “The Tokyo Radio, in an English-language broadcast to North America, has urged that the United States adopt a more lenient attitude toward Japan with regard to peace.” The broadcast quoted an ancient Aesop Fable in which a powerful wind could not force a man to give up his coat, but a gentle warming sun succeeded in doing so.25
Japan’s appeal fell on deaf ears in Washington."

They are the ones who waited until August 10 before deciding to surrender.

"This was not why Hiroshima was chosen. Rather, the city was selected because it was “the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list,” according to the administration’s Target Committee.20 Hiroshima, in other words, did not have enough military production to justify an earlier conventional attack (as compared to other cities on the priority list), and the effects of the bomb had to be uncontaminated from previous bombings in order to properly assess their damage."

Are you quoting Gar Alperovitz there?

Whoever you are quoting is pretty disingenuous, because Hiroshima was selected as an atomic target early in the bombing campaign when only a handful of Japanese cities had been destroyed.

"The assertion that the atomic bombings forced Japan to surrender was not supported by a U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, published in July 1946, which noted that the decision of Japanese leaders “to abandon the war is tied up with other factors. The atomic bomb had more effect on the thinking of government leaders than on the morale of the rank and file of civilians outside the target areas. It cannot be said, however, that the atomic bomb convinced the leaders who effected the peace of the necessity of surrender.”17"

Who cares? Japan refused to surrender so we kept bombing them.

We stopped bombing them once they surrendered.

That the Japanese were on the verge of defeat was made clear to the president in a top-secret memorandum from Secretary of War Henry Stimson on July 2, 1945. Stimson noted that Japan “has no allies,” its “navy is nearly destroyed,” she is vulnerable to an economic blockade depriving her “of sufficient food and supplies for her population,” she is “terribly vulnerable to our concentrated air attack upon her crowded cities, industrial, and food resources,” she “has against her not only the Anglo-American forces but the rising forces of China and the ominous threat of Russia,” and the United States has “inexhaustible and untouched industrial resources to bring to bear against her diminishing potential."

And yet Japan chose to not surrender.

Turned out to be a bad choice. Dumb move on their part.

 

[Open Bolt]

Its obvious you are lying.

Everything that I've said is true.

It is obvious Japan was starving to death since 1943, and desperate to surrender.

Japan's refusal to surrender until August 10, 1945 says otherwise.

They continually tried, and the US would not respond.

Japan's first surrender attempt came on August 10, 1945, and the US responded the next day.

Anything remotely military at Hiroshima or Nagasaki had been removed long ago, and there was zero justifiable targets there.

The military headquarters that was responsible for repelling our invasion of Japan was still at Hiroshima.

43,000 Japanese soldiers were still at Hiroshima.

The massive (4100 feet by 2000 feet) factory complex that made all of Japan's light machine guns, heavy machine guns, 20mm antiaircraft guns, and the ammo for all those weapons was still at Kokura Arsenal.

The shipyards that built many of Japan's largest warships were still at Nagasaki.

The torpedo factory that designed and built special torpedoes to defeat Pearl Harbor's defenses was still at Nagasaki.

All were valid military targets.

It is obvious that Japan was already trying to surrender because the atomic bombs killed FEWER people than a typical firestorm or conventional bombing attack on Japan.

That's bad logic.

And Japan did not try to surrender until August 10, 1945.

{...
Japan's military and civil defenses were unable to stop the Allied attacks. The number of fighter aircraft and anti-aircraft guns assigned to defensive duties in the home islands was inadequate, and most of these aircraft and guns had difficulty reaching the high altitudes at which B-29s often operated. Fuel shortages, inadequate pilot training, and a lack of coordination between units also constrained the effectiveness of the fighter force. Despite the vulnerability of Japanese cities to firebombing attacks, the firefighting services lacked training and equipment, and few air raid shelters were constructed for civilians. As a result, the B-29s were able to inflict severe damage on urban areas while suffering few losses.

The Allied bombing campaign was one of the main factors which influenced the Japanese government's decision to surrender in mid-August 1945. However, there has been a long-running debate over the morality of the attacks on Japanese cities, and the use of atomic weapons is particularly controversial. The most commonly cited estimate of Japanese casualties from the raids is 333,000 killed and 473,000 wounded. There are a number of other estimates of total fatalities, however, which range from 241,000 to 900,000. In addition to the loss of mostly civilian life, the raids contributed to a large decline in industrial production.
...
By the end of these raids just over half (50.8 percent) of Tokyo had been destroyed and the city was removed from XXI Bomber Command's target list.[135]
...
During May and June the bombers had destroyed much of the country's six largest cities, killing between 112,000 and 126,762 people and rendering millions homeless. The widespread destruction and high number of casualties from these raids caused many Japanese to realize that their country's military was no longer able to defend the home islands. American losses were low compared to Japanese casualties; 136 B-29s were downed during the campaign.[141][142][143] In Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Yokohama, Kobe, and Kawasaki, "over 126,762 people were killed ... and a million and a half dwellings and over 105 square miles (270 km2) of urban space were destroyed."[144] In Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya, "the areas leveled (almost 100 square miles (260 km2)) exceeded the areas destroyed in all German cities by both the American and British air forces (approximately 79 square miles (200 km2))."[144]
...}

Air raids on Japan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Clearly there was no one left in Japan who did not want to surrender before the atomics were dropped.

Clearly not, because Japan refused to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

Japan did decide to surrender before the third atomic bomb was dropped on them though, so there's that.

when you prohibit trade with others by the use of force, like we did to Iraq in 2002, to Cuba, or recently to Russia.

We did no such thing.

Yes we did.

That is incorrect. We have not used military force to prevent trade with those countries.

We threatened and used military force to prevent trade with Iraq, Cuba, and now Russia.

No we didn't.

Finally after many years of an illegal economic blockade of Iraq, we allowed the OFF (Oil For Food) program

We did not blockade Iraq.

But if we had blockaded Iraq, it would not have been illegal in any way.

we allowed the OFF (Oil For Food) program in Iraq because so many countries were complaining about our illegal economic sanctions.

Economic sanctions are not illegal in any way.

No nuclear weapons are not legal.

Yes they are.

They clearly violate the existing Geneva conventions against weapons of mass destruction.

No such violation.

{...
After World War II, a new set of treaties concerning the laws of war—the Geneva Conventions—established the standards of international humanitarian law (IHL). Under Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, the nuclear bombing of Japan would have violated IHL. In fact, using nuclear weapons in any situation would likely violate international law. Due to its potential for utter destruction, nuclear weapons should not exist in our current world and should not be used in any circumstance.
...}

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/international-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2018/05/48-3-The-Legality-of-Nuclear-Weapons-for-Use-and-Deterrence.pdf#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20using%20nuclear%20weapons%20in%20any%20situation,interna%C2%AD%20tional%20law%20does%20not%20ban%20nuclear%20weapons.

That article is pretty goofy. They claim that radiation rendered Hiroshima and Nagasaki inaccessible. That's just bizarre.

Their understanding of "superfluous injury" is also lacking. They seem to think that it refers to collateral damage. It does not.

They do comprehend the notion of an "indiscriminate weapon" at least. But they are wrong to say that nuclear weapons cannot be used discriminately.

Nuclear weapons certainly destroy a wider area than a lesser explosion would destroy. But some military targets are large, or are so well armored that lesser explosions will not harm them.

 

[Unkotare]

Many people react badly when a comfortable narrative is shattered. A real historian isn't so defensive and weak-minded.

^^^^^^^^^

 

[Open Bolt]

Many people react badly when a comfortable narrative is shattered.

That begs the question of why you found anti-American lies to be so comforting in the first place.

If you mature some more you will not react so badly to the truth.

A real historian isn't so defensive and weak-minded.

Real historians will tell you that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets, and that Japan didn't surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​

​

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​

​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

I have quotes from every major US military of the time that says we did not need to use nuclear weapons in the war with japan

 

[Vegasgiants]

That begs the question of why you found anti-American lies to be so comforting in the first place.

If you mature some more you will not react so badly to the truth.



Real historians will tell you that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets, and that Japan didn't surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

Why did all the generals after the war say the bomb was not needed?

 

[Vegasgiants]

Sez the habitual America hating liar. Strange how the Japs surrendered very shortly after we set them on fire,

We could win every war if we just drop nukes now.


But that's a bad idea

 

[Unkotare]

That begs the question of why you found anti-American lies to be so comforting i....

What "anti-American lies"?

 

[Open Bolt]

What "anti-American lies"?

All your lies about Japan trying to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped, and all your lies about the bombs not being dropped on military targets.

America bombed military targets in a country that was refusing to surrender. That was entirely legitimate, and we did nothing wrong.

 

[Open Bolt]

I have quotes from every major US military of the time that says we did not need to use nuclear weapons in the war with japan

We've already been bombarded with all the generals' pathetic whining.

Why did all the generals after the war say the bomb was not needed?

I neither know nor care. I just wish they didn't whine so much.

Japan was the one who chose to wait until after we had nuked them twice before surrendering. If the generals were upset that Japan didn't surrender earlier, the generals' whining should have been directed at Japan.

We could win every war if we just drop nukes now.
But that's a bad idea

How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out if the US and USSR had not had the example of Hiroshima to restrain them from launching a nuclear war?

 

[Vegasgiants]

All your lies about Japan trying to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped, and all your lies about the bombs not being dropped on military targets.

America bombed military targets in a country that was refusing to surrender. That was entirely legitimate, and we did nothing wrong.

General Bombs Away Lemay said the war would have been over in 2 weeks. He later said probably even earlier

 

[Vegasgiants]

We've already been bombarded with all the generals' pathetic whining.



I neither know nor care. I just wish they didn't whine so much.

Japan was the one who chose to wait until after we had nuked them twice before surrendering. If the generals really wanted Japan to have surrendered earlier, the generals should have directed their whining at Japan.



How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out if the US and USSR had not had the example of Hiroshima to restrain them from launching a nuclear war?

What you call pathetic whining I call military analysis from some of the greatest military minds this world has ever known


But then you have an opinion. Lol

 

[Turtlesoup]

I agree
There was no need to attack a second city so soon. Japan should have been told we have dozens of more bombs and were prepared to use them.

While Hiroshima could be justified (did we need to demonstrate on such a populated target?). Nagasaki was not necessary

They were both necessary------Japan didn't surrender after Hiroshima was bombed...they did after nagasaki was though.

 

[Turtlesoup]

True, because FDR should not have provoked Japan to attack us. In the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese tried repeatedly to get FDR to lift the crippling sanctions he had imposed on Japan. They offered enormous concessions, including ignoring the Tripartite Treaty. But, FDR, who was ever willing to excuse Soviet atrocities and tyranny, refused to show even half as much flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. Instead of making Japan our ally and letting the Japanese carry out their plan to invade the Soviet Union, FDR, desperate to save the Soviet experiment, provoked Japan to war.

Japan was invading other countries--raping and murdering civilians even before they attacked us at Pearl Harbor. They deserved and should have been sanctioned hun.

 

[Vegasgiants]

They were both necessary------Japan didn't surrender after Hiroshima was bombed...they did after nagasaki was though.

The military generals disagreed

 

[Open Bolt]

General Bombs Away Lemay said the war would have been over in 2 weeks. He later said probably even earlier

So what? Who cares?

The war certainly wasn't over when the atomic bombs were dropped.

What you call pathetic whining I call military analysis from some of the greatest military minds this world has ever known
But then you have an opinion. Lol

Appeals to authority are still a logical fallacy even when the authority is whining.

The military generals disagreed

How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out if the US and USSR had not had the example of Hiroshima to restrain them from launching a nuclear war?

 

[Turtlesoup]

I have quotes from every major US military of the time that says we did not need to use nuclear weapons in the war with japan

Facts say that we needed to...dropping the bombs ended the war..PERIOD. Ending the war saved hundreds of thousands of our troops and stop Japan from terrorizing others.

Dropping the bombs was the right and moral thing to do...only idiots don't realize and only idiots or liars claim otherwise.

 

[Turtlesoup]

The military generals disagreed

Japan surrendered completely after the first bomb? Am I wrong?

Say NO Vegas....

I don't care what anyone says---I care only about the facts.

AGAIN for you slow marxist people out there...

The bombs ended the war--------ending the war was a good thing as it saved thousands if not millions of lives doing so.

Idiots upset about dropping the bombs would have preferred to see more people. These are the only two choices...drop the bombs and end the war, or continue to fight the war and lose more lives. Binary choice here hun.

 

[rightwinger]

They were both necessary------Japan didn't surrender after Hiroshima was bombed...they did after nagasaki was though.

We only gave them two days to decide

What would have happened if we gave them a week?

 

[rightwinger]

The bombs ended the war--------ending the war was a good thing as it saved thousands if not millions of lives doing so.

The war was over once we successfully tested the bomb at Alamogordo.

From that point on, we had the bomb and nobody else did. An invasion of Japan was no longer necessary

The question was how best to demonstrate our nuclear weapon.

Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki better options than bombing a purely military target?

Would Japan have surrendered if we had bombed military targets to demonstrate the weapon?

We Will never know
We didn’t give them the chance