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

[Frannie]

Port. Check. Airbase Check. Manufacturing Hub. Check, Army Headquarters. Check, Troops there. Check. Training civilians for invasion. Check. But golly gee it wasn't a military target HONEST.

This is sick, especially coming from someone who claims to be a former Marine. Yes, Hiroshima had a port, since it was on a coast, but the port was hardly used anymore by then--it was somewhat clogged with sunken ships and port-bound ships that didn't dare leave the port. ALL Japanese civilians were being trained for an invasion, so that proves nothing, unless you're going to tell me that women and children wielding bamboo spears were a serious threat to us. Yes, Hiroshima had a fair amount of factories; most of them were on the outskirts of the city, and they were almost completely unharmed in the nuking because the nuke was dropped near the center of the city. Troops and an HQ? Yeah, they were garrison troops. An airbase?! Yeah, a small one. The city had no fortifications, no outer defenses, etc. I ask again, why do you suppose we felt confident enough to send the Enola Gay totally unprotected by any fighters? Hey? We both know the answer to that question.

It is sad and obscene to see an alleged former Marine trying to justify the murder of over 100,000 people, at least half of them women and children, by making the ludicrous claim that Hiroshima was a valid military target. The factories on the outskirts of the city were valid targets, and the small unfortified compound where the troops stayed was a fair target, but those were only a small part of the city and contained a very small part of the population.

300,000 + civilians = a civilian center. You lack the courage to look at the issue clearly and directly.

We don't bomb civilian centers. What is wrong with you? You are as inhumane as some of the Japanese soldiers you excoriate.

300,000 civilians did not die in Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together.

Over 200,000 died from those two nuke attacks, and tens of thousands more suffered from radiation effects for the rest of their lives.

FDR screamed because the Japanese bombed a handful of cities in China. We bombed dozens of cities in Japan and dropped far more bombs on them than the Japanese dropped on the cities they bombed.

You have not provided a single Government document to prove your claims YET. And all you have on MacArthur is an unsourced book.

I have linked to the ACTUAL Japanese Government documents ACTUAL Intercepts of Japanese Government and ACTUAL US documents you have not done any of that at all.

First of all, you realize that Eisenhower and Leahy stated in their own memoirs that they had opposed nuking Japan and that they still thought it was wrong and unnecessary, right? You realize that Admiral, the Chief of Naval Operations at the time, indicated in his memoir that nuking Japan was unnecessary and that Japan could have been defeated by naval blockade alone, right? We’re not talking about second-hand accounts in these cases.

Second, MacArthur’s opposition to nuking Japan was confirmed by his biographer, William Manchester, and by his former consultant during our occupation of Japan, Norman Cousins. What’s more, Richard Nixon said that MacArthur told him that he believed we should not have nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Hiroshima: Quotes

We didn't need to drop the bomb -- and even our WW II military icons knew it

You wanna see a link to a “Government document”? Okay, how about the report of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS), which concluded that Japan would have surrendered without nukes and without an invasion by no later than December 1945, even if the Soviets had not invaded? The USSBS spent months studying the effects of our conventional and atomic bombing of Japan, interviewing former Japanese officials, and interviewing former Japanese generals and admirals, and concluded that Japan would have surrendered by no later than December 1945, and probably before November, even if we had not used the atomic bomb and even if the Soviet Union had not entered the war against Japan:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (page 26, available at United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War))​

Mitsubishi Nagasaki shipyard, presumably you know what a submarine is

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan? Think about that. My father-in-law was a gunner on a Billy Mitchel, My dad was a sonar tech on a DD.

 

[Kilroy2]

Yes they bombed Pearl Harbor first but it was a military target and yeah civilians probably died but it was a military target. They could have bombed the city next to the base

Dropping a bomb on cities which were primarily civilian targets can never be justified. Thus the secondary argument that the city had a weapons factory or some other such nonsense probably makes some feel good about it.

The fact remains Japan was defeated, they had lost all territories gain, there military was defeated, Kamikaze is interesting but in the end you are destroying your military assets. they could have blockade the island into submission but the president decided that its best to bring the boys home and they wanted that signed surrender

also it was a test and show for the destructive power of nuclear weapons

Still we have military bases there and Japan military spending is so low that its even less than Chad.

Yet the their GDP is 3rd on the list with US and China being the top dogs, German is 4th no wonder

This does indicate what an economy would look like with low military spending.

US had a strong case for a just war but they put a question mark on it by the last act of targeting a civilian city which had no defense

to put it in prospective the death tolls

Japan 2,120,000 military 580,000- 1,000,000 civilian

US 416,800 418,500 and that is a WW2 total

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the industrial cities building the weapons that were used in Pearl Harbor.

Were you born stupid or did you study?

Well u certain seem to be either stupid or do selective reading

what part of 2,120,000 miltary dead fails to move u to believe that even though it had military industrial machinery it is hard to believe that at the end they were operational and producing with most of the men dead that would be using them.
If written numbers cause your brain to hurt then how about 2 million deaths

Still conventional weapons worked in Germany so why the overkill

Wake up and smell the roses and you will find that it does stink


Mitsubishi Nagasaki shipyard

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?

Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientists would have gotten the picture.

 

[Unkotare]

....

Still we have military bases there and Japan military spending is so low that its even less than Chad....

Not in total $$ amount, of course. 7th most powerful military in the world.

 

[Dick Foster]

Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.

Nor was the rape of Nanjing and all the other crap and atrocities thise assholes pulled. Hell lets nuke em again. But as I said before I guess the assholes nuked themselves with Fukushima.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?

Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientists would have gotten the picture.

They only had two bombs, they didn't know for sure if they would work.

 

[Frannie]

How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?

Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientists would have gotten the picture.

Japanese scientist...………………………….

These fucking turds were crashing themselves into ships

Scientist

The Germans had scientist, all the Japs had and have are baby whale butchers

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They only had two bombs, they d

When they dropped the first bomb, they only had one bomb. The second was not operational until after the hiroshima bombing. And a third bomb was almost operational. And 12 more were in the works and could be ready within a couple weeks. So, really, they had 15 bombs, if they had 2.


And, if it didn't work over the city, the difference is...?

 

[Wry Catcher]

BTW, more Japanese Civilians could have died during an invasion than died in both bombings. Women and children were training to fight with sticks and rocks and never surrender. Consider this:
Suicide Cliff - Wikipedia

 

[karpenter]

Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientists would have gotten the picture.

'Shit !! They're Going To Vaporize Our Remote Areas !!'

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

'Shit !! They're Going To Vaporize Our Remote Areas !!'

Of course, that is not the message they would have taken. They would have immediately puzzled out the danger to a city from the destruction they found. Cities, like Tokyo.

 

[Frannie]

They only had two bombs, they d

When they dropped the first bomb, they only had one bomb. The second was not operational until after the hiroshima bombing. And a third bomb was almost operational. And 12 more were in the works and could be ready within a couple weeks. So, really, they had 15 bombs, if they had 2.


And, if it didn't work over the city, the difference is...?

Then they should have waited and dropped 15

 

[Unkotare]

How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?

Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientiats would have gotten the picture.

The attack on Pearl Harbor (very bad decision) was of course understood as an instigation to war, and war is always terrible, but it is worth remembering that Pearl Harbor was a military base (and not even in one of the United States) while the only two atomic bombs in existence at the time were dropped on civilian centers clearly and deliberately to incinerate women, children, and the elderly in an essentially defeated nation.

 

[karpenter]

And 12 more were in the works and could be ready within a couple weeks.

Surre....

So, really, they had 15 bombs, if they had 2.

No,
They Had Two

 

[Frannie]

And 12 more were in the works and could be ready within a couple weeks.

Sure....

So, really, they had 15 bombs, if they had 2.

No,
They Had Two

They had 2 that no one knew would really go off

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?

Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientiats would have gotten the picture.

The attack on Pearl Harbor (very bad decision) was of course understood as an instigation to war, and war is always terrible, but it is worth remembering that Pearl Harbor was a military base (and not even in one of the United States) while the only two atomic bombs in existence at the time were dropped on civilian centers clearly and deliberately to incinerate women, children, and the elderly in an essentially defeated nation.

Correct. I do understand it. We were tired of losing our children.

 

[Frannie]

How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?

Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientiats would have gotten the picture.

The attack on Pearl Harbor (very bad decision) was of course understood as an instigation to war, and war is always terrible, but it is worth remembering that Pearl Harbor was a military base (and not even in one of the United States) while the only two atomic bombs in existence at the time were dropped on civilian centers clearly and deliberately to incinerate women, children, and the elderly in an essentially defeated nation.

Correct. I do understand it. We were tired of losing our children.

How many kids do you have Jr.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No,
They Had Two

Actually, when they dropped the first bomb, they only had 1. So, if you say they had two. .because the second was almost operational in a few days, then you can say they had 15, as the same is true of the other 13 bombs.

In reality, it is even more correct to say they had about as many as they wanted.

 

[karpenter]

They had 2 that no one knew would really go off

And You Get Weapons Grade Uranium And Plutonium
At The Local Army/Navy Store