Bombing Hiroshima changed the world, but it didn't end WWII
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Nope. The information came from this wonderful thing called a "book". You know, those hardcover paper thingys people used to read before the internet rotted their minds.
If you're interested, the book is called "Flyboys", written by James Bradley. Don't ask what chapter it's in, just read the book.
The book is fantastic as it goes into much greater detail into the causes of the Pacific War. It also deals with the fates of 8 US Navy airmen who were shot down and ultimately cannibalized by Japanese officers. Some of the facts in the book weren't declassified until shortly after the turn of this century.
And for a little background on the author, he's the son of one of the men who raised the American flag on Iwo Jima. He also wrote "Flags of Our Fathers".
The bombs were meant to show the Nations what would happen to them should they thing of going to war against the US. Dresden was the message to the Nations of what would happen to them should they revolt against the winners of the EU part of the war. Agent Orange in Vietnam was also a warning to other nations about how far the US would go in a war.
Nah, just raging firestorms that destroyed more of those cities and killed more people than either of the nukes did. Mushroom cloud, fire tornadoes, they're both rather apocryphal.
And it wasn't just that the nukes were big and scary. It was the fact they could be delivered from a height that the Japanese air defenses couldn't reach. When your enemy can completely level your cities from the air with impunity and you have absolutely no way to retaliate effectively, what's the point of continuing the hostilities?
Tokyo was firebombed almost to the same degree that Dresden was. When you look a Pearl as being allowed to happen it makes the US the problem rather than the solution as far as armed conflict goes. There is no doubt that the US caused 9/11 and the goals were what has unfolded since then.
Perhaps a wider view of some events will help shed light on the specific actions that are interlinked.
What If We Are The 'Bad Guys?' : Waking Times
Perhaps a wider view of some events will help shed light on the specific actions that are interlinked.
What If We Are The 'Bad Guys?' : Waking Times
In what way?I guess it was Nagasaki that actually put the finishing touches on it!
Feel free to debunk any point in this article.
alrighty comrades
I read the book and it was a great read. Some of the book is based on opinion. Britain was a signatory of the Potsdam Declaration which called for the Unconditional Surrender of Japan.
First, Truman and the generals were aware that, if there was no sch thing as a nuclear bomb, the US would have to invade Japan. The expense and time to conquer the Japanese aside, there were a couple of considerations the politicians had to discuss. They are talked about on occasion, but the nuclear solution always seems to take centre stage.
Politically speaking, how do you explain to the citizens of the US that the war was about to enter a new phase, which meant the end was still years away? How do you rationalize the belt tightening and money needed to keep on fighting? Remember, I'm talking about mom and pop sitting in the living room, listening to the radio. They were safe in the US. No one was dropping bombs on Nebraska or Florida. It's different when you are not personally being threatened with harm or death. What they were feeling was a war that was almost four years old, with four years of demands from the government. It was getting tiresome for the most part. Well almost. Give me your money, material, and the big one - give me your sons.
Young men were dying. Many US citizens, despite Pearl Harbour, did not see the war as something that demanded their country make so many sacrifices. In short, folks were getting tired.
My second point. Dropping a nuke had to happen, but not because 'the war would be over sooner', or 'many American lives would be saved'. That's a line for public consumption. The government and the military had to know exactly what this device would do. Japan gave them the perfect reason to test. Theory is one thing: detonation is another. The government knew that should these nukes prove formidable, the future of the US on the world stage would be bright. Politicians the world over are power brokers. If the thing worked, the US would emerge as a major power. Who else had the bomb?
It sounds callous, but no one in government or the military gave a rat's pattoot if you nuked a far away country, full of fanatical, slanty eyed gooks! This and other expressions were in common use at the time. It was the perfect opportunity to test. The Allies detested the Japanese. Blowing up the island was win-win. No one would miss Japan if it was gone from the world map.
Finally, something that personally pisses me off every time I read re-interpretations of history. I love reading about, and learning if new facts or artifacts have been discovered. What I do not like is speculation without anything to back it up. Most of the university papers publish "what they believe" actually happened, based on "learned opinion". Well, that doesn't always work. What was the mood of the people? What was on every radio station and newspaper?
Talk to a historian, and he will tell you the more time passes after a major world event, the less likely their interpretation will be correct - unless they have indisputable evidence.
I'm done.
Politically speaking, how do you explain to the citizens of the US that the war was about to enter a new phase, which meant the end was still years away? How do you rationalize the belt tightening and money needed to keep on fighting? Remember, I'm talking about mom and pop sitting in the living room, listening to the radio. They were safe in the US. No one was dropping bombs on Nebraska or Florida. It's different when you are not personally being threatened with harm or death. What they were feeling was a war that was almost four years old, with four years of demands from the government. It was getting tiresome for the most part. Well almost. Give me your money, material, and the big one - give me your sons.
Young men were dying. Many US citizens, despite Pearl Harbour, did not see the war as something that demanded their country make so many sacrifices. In short, folks were getting tired.
My second point. Dropping a nuke had to happen, but not because 'the war would be over sooner', or 'many American lives would be saved'. That's a line for public consumption. The government and the military had to know exactly what this device would do. Japan gave them the perfect reason to test. Theory is one thing: detonation is another. The government knew that should these nukes prove formidable, the future of the US on the world stage would be bright. Politicians the world over are power brokers. If the thing worked, the US would emerge as a major power. Who else had the bomb?
It sounds callous, but no one in government or the military gave a rat's pattoot if you nuked a far away country, full of fanatical, slanty eyed gooks! This and other expressions were in common use at the time. It was the perfect opportunity to test. The Allies detested the Japanese. Blowing up the island was win-win. No one would miss Japan if it was gone from the world map.
Finally, something that personally pisses me off every time I read re-interpretations of history. I love reading about, and learning if new facts or artifacts have been discovered. What I do not like is speculation without anything to back it up. Most of the university papers publish "what they believe" actually happened, based on "learned opinion". Well, that doesn't always work. What was the mood of the people? What was on every radio station and newspaper?
Talk to a historian, and he will tell you the more time passes after a major world event, the less likely their interpretation will be correct - unless they have indisputable evidence.
I'm done.
Last edited:
I believe that the US dropped the second bomb because two different nuclear materials were used to make the bombs.
Uranium-235 was in Hiroshima's bomb. Plutonium-239 was dropped on Nagasaki. Was one better than the other? Would both work? A comparison and testing was needed. They didn't have a lot of nuclear material at the time, so you work with what you got.
Uranium-235 was in Hiroshima's bomb. Plutonium-239 was dropped on Nagasaki. Was one better than the other? Would both work? A comparison and testing was needed. They didn't have a lot of nuclear material at the time, so you work with what you got.
It certainly did for Emperor Hirohito. After the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima some members of the Japanese Diet and military assured the Emperor that the Americans did not have any more atomic bombs. After the second one was dropped the Emperor had had enough with the BS.
A lot of the revisions were from the Soviet Union. Instead of ending the war with Japan they viewed it as a threatening gesture to them. They also wanted to claim it was their entry into the war was what caused the Japanese to surrender. Stalin will be Stalin... paranoid and unwilling to give credit to anyone but himself.
I believe that a few government/military leaders wished to continue. If the transcripts of the meetings with the Emperor are accurate, Hirohito got his way. To me, i this makes sense. The generals may have wished to die fighting, but Hirohito didn't see it that way. He may have sympathized with the suffering of the Japanese civilians, or believed that if they didn't surrender, the nation would be wiped out. I do not believe anything was ever recorded that definitively explained the emperor's decision.
It would have given them a reason to proceed to the next level of testing. The mechanism functioned. The next question: What happens if you drop it on a city full of people and buildings?
It would have given them a reason to proceed to the next level of testing. The mechanism functioned. The next question: What happens if you drop it on a city full of people and buildings?
WW2 ended?
Who would end a business so profitable? The nice people who donated to the war effort? There's no end to profitable war. Is There?
war on drugs, war on bugs, war on bags, war on cancer, war on CO2, fuk off the war is nevr over till it smolders.
Who would end a business so profitable? The nice people who donated to the war effort? There's no end to profitable war. Is There?
war on drugs, war on bugs, war on bags, war on cancer, war on CO2, fuk off the war is nevr over till it smolders.