Japan, Nagasaki, second atomic bomb, DUPE....get it?  


No rationalization for Nagasaki attack

By BRAHMA CHELLANEY

NEW DELHI -- History is written by victors and thus abounds in well-cultivated rationalizations for the winners' actions, however unjustifiable or gory they might be. Vanquishers are rarely burdened by guilt. Sometimes the rationalization stops with their first major slaughter in a war, as if their willful repeat of similar blood baths were automatically defensible.

This is best illustrated by the United States' atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the incineration of Hiroshima was justifiable as a means to end the war and save American lives -- a thesis that even most liberal Americans accept -- what was the justification for the destruction of Nagasaki three days later before Japan had a chance to grasp the message from the first nuclear attack?

The U.S. actions arose not from any rage but from cool, calculated thinking. The intent was to deliver a crippling psychological blow to Japan by obliterating two of its important cities. No warning was given to the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki before unleashing the nuclear holocaust.

When a U.S. Air Force B-29 bomber dropped an untested uranium bomb, code-named "Little Boy," on a sweltering morning and reduced Hiroshima to ashes, the mass death and destruction set off celebrations in some American cities. The revelers were celebrating America's newborn technological prowess.

U.S. President Harry Truman, applauding the bomb as "the greatest achievement of organized science in history," ordered a second surprise atomic attack on a Japanese city three days later. "Fat Boy," based on the design of an implosion-type plutonium bomb which had been secretly tested in the New Mexico desert more than three weeks earlier, was dropped on Nagasaki.

Picturesque Nagasaki became the second victim of nuclear holocaust by an accident of weather: Kokura, the city chosen for the attack, was under a heavy cloud blanket, so the bomber was diverted to Nagasaki. To U.S. officials, the dropping of the plutonium bomb mattered more than which Japanese city it vaporized.

The political use of a technological discovery to incinerate Hiroshima and Nagasaki was made possible by a political-military culture in industrial societies that approved civilian massacre as a legitimate tool of warfare. Before the nuclear genie was let loose, mass killings had already become a feature of the war for all sides.

On a single night, for example, nearly 200,000 citizens burned to death when U.S. bombers doused Tokyo with jellied petroleum in March 1945. Indeed, in the months before the nuclear bombings, half a million Japanese had already died and 14 million rendered homeless in U.S. firebombing raids on cities.

The Anglo-American firebombing of Dresden in February 1945 left some 39,000 Germans dead in an air campaign Churchill acknowledged amounted to "terror bombing." Hitler's massacres of Jews, and Japanese atrocities in China, reflected a similar disdain for civilian life.

By the time Hiroshima and Nagasaki were reduced to smoldering ruins, 50 million people in the world had already been killed in conflict since 1939.

The culture that made those blood baths possible remains embedded in the strategic doctrines of a number of powerful states today.

Nuclear deterrence, for example, relies on targeting civilian and industrial centers. Conventional military strategies still seek to destroy an adversary's civilian infrastructure. The world can never be safe as long as Armageddon-ready nations armed with weapons of mass murder pursue military strategies pivoted on first use and on intentional civilian targeting, even if it ended up destroying civilization.

Just as the nuclear problem has persisted, the questions arising from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings still call for answers. Despite the large-scale bloodletting during World War II, couldn't the U.S. have demonstrated its new technological might by dropping an atomic bomb on an uninhabited island? Or why were nuclear bombs dropped in a way to maximize civilian casualties?

Before Hiroshima was flattened, Hitler had committed suicide in April and a battered Japan was on the brink of defeat, with its military searching for an honorable surrender. More than half of Tokyo and Kobe, a third of Nagoya and a quarter of Osaka had been destroyed.

The military logic of the two nuclear bombings was to establish U.S. primacy in the postwar order. The bombings helped put the stamp of Pax Americana on the globe. Yet, questions relating to the Nagasaki bombing continue to haunt today.

Before dropping the second bomb, shouldn't the U.S. have given Japan a reasonable and firm deadline to surrender? In rushing into a second nuclear attack before Japan could grasp the strategic significance of the first bombing, Truman achieved little more than showing that a tested implosion-type bomb worked.

The U.S. establishment has shied away from an objective examination of the past use of nuclear weapons primarily because it still remains wedded to nuclear first use. Any reevaluation of the past use would bring into question the present nuclear posture

The past, however, will continue to be a heavy burden on the American conscience -- Hiroshima because it was the first atomic attack, and Nagasaki because it was a wanton act, militarily and politically. Even those who still justify Hiroshima offer no rationalization for Nagasaki.

HAHAHAHAHAHA, heavy burden my fucking atom bomb loving ass you fucktard!!

Brahma Chellaney, a professor of strategic studies at the privately funded Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, is a regular contributor to The Japan Times.

It is very simple. Both the US and Japanese Governments owed an absolute duty to their people to bring the war to as swift a conclusion as possible. After all, the US Army would be taking casualties just from having troops in the field, from disease, injuries, and other things, even if there was no fighting.

Truman did his duty to his people. The Japanese government didn't.

As for those who say that Nagasaki wasn't necessary, even after two atom bombs, the Japanese Government was still split down the middle on surrender and it took the Emperor to break the tie. If they were ready to surrender then it was their duty to do it ASAP. They didn't.

If I was in charge, Tokyo would've gotten the second bomb.

I guess the first one was just too subtle a hint...

If there had been no Pearl Harbour there would have been no Hiroshima.

If I had been president this is what I woulda done..

1) Threaten that we now have a bomb that could level an entire city, BY ITSELF.

2) Detonate one just outside of the largest city in japan at the time. I'm talking close enough to let them get a real good look at what it can do, without the immedatiate blast killing everyone.

3) Threaten (perhaps stage a picture with multiple bombs, perhaps fakes) that we have more.

4) IF that doesn't get anywhere, level a city or military base.

5) Repeat as neccissary.

Quoted: If I had been president this is what I woulda done.. 1) Threaten that we now have a bomb that could level an entire city, BY ITSELF. 2) Detonate one just outside of the largest city in japan at the time. I'm talking close enough to let them get a real good look at what it can do, without the immedatiate blast killing everyone. 3) Threaten (perhaps stage a picture with multiple bombs, perhaps fakes) that we have more. 4) IF that doesn't get anywhere, level a city or military base.

We had to hit them twice and the cabinet was still split on surrendering. So you think a demonstration drop would do it?

5) Repeat as neccissary.

We only had a grand total of three in the entire arsenal at the time.

I've read a few accounts of the nuclear end game with Japan at the end of WWII.

The Japanese, particularly the military, were obsessed with maintaining their "honor", and to that end would sacrifice everyone, military and civilian, to preserve it.  Okinawa showed that clearly to the US leadership.  Something that I gathered from my reading the accounts was that it was only by the realization that the US might well simply obliterate their entire nation from the air - preventing honorable sacrifice in battle - that enough of the leadership was swayed to surrender.

The Nagasaki bomb following closely after the Hiroshima attack I believe was a critical element in convincing the leadership that there would be no honor in their defeat.

I agree with the Article: Hitting Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a Mistake: We should have Hit Kyoto and Tokyo instead.

How long would it have taken to build more? I was under the impression that usable material wasn't really the issue once we had the bombs..

Quoted: I agree with the Article: Hitting Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a Mistake: We should have Hit Kyoto and Tokyo instead.

Point well taken; however, if we hit Tokyo or Kyoto, Nagasaki would now be the capitals of Japan.

We erased two major cities.  F'n erased them forever.

Quoted: Quoted: I agree with the Article: Hitting Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a Mistake: We should have Hit Kyoto and Tokyo instead. Point well taken; however, if we hit Tokyo or Kyoto, Nagasaki would now be the capitals of Japan. We erased two major cities.  F'n erased them forever.

IIRC, Tokyo was next on the target list (each mission had a primary target and a backup in case of weather) along with Kokura as the secondary target.  Kyoto was off the target list, as it was considered the equivalent of a "religious" city with the Emperor's residence.  It was also feared that if the Emperor was killed, that there would be no chance of Japan surrendering.  The calculation at the time was how to proceed to get Japan to surrender as quickly as possible.

Stupid asshole doesn't have much of a grasp of history.

Quoted: If I was in charge, Tokyo would've gotten the second bomb. I guess the first one was just too subtle a hint...

Some were afraid if the Emperor was killed, Japan could not surrender, then operation Downfall would have to be carried out.  

Quoted: How long would it have taken to build more? I was under the impression that usable material wasn't really the issue once we had the bombs..

I have read that the production capacity at the time allowed for one bomb core every two weeks.

Quoted: Quoted: How long would it have taken to build more? I was under the impression that usable material wasn't really the issue once we had the bombs.. I have read that the production capacity at the time allowed for one bomb core every two weeks.

We pretty muched used all the fissionable material available at the time.

Quoted: If I had been president this is what I woulda done.. 1) Threaten that we now have a bomb that could level an entire city, BY ITSELF. 2) Detonate one just outside of the largest city in japan at the time. I'm talking close enough to let them get a real good look at what it can do, without the immedatiate blast killing everyone. 3) Threaten (perhaps stage a picture with multiple bombs, perhaps fakes) that we have more. 4) IF that doesn't get anywhere, level a city or military base. 5) Repeat as neccissary.

Yeah....maybe someone forgot about Pearl Harbor, the Bataan Death March, or the Rape of Nanking.....sorry but appologist practices went out with Neville Chamberlin.  They got what they deserved.  Good thing you weren't in charge.

Quoted: Quoted: If I had been president this is what I woulda done.. 1) Threaten that we now have a bomb that could level an entire city, BY ITSELF. 2) Detonate one just outside of the largest city in japan at the time. I'm talking close enough to let them get a real good look at what it can do, without the immedatiate blast killing everyone. 3) Threaten (perhaps stage a picture with multiple bombs, perhaps fakes) that we have more. 4) IF that doesn't get anywhere, level a city or military base. 5) Repeat as neccissary. Yeah....maybe someone forgot about Pearl Harbor, the Bataan Death March, or the Rape of Nanking.....sorry but appologist practices went out with Neville Chamberlin.  They got what they deserved.  Good thing you weren't in charge.

history lesson time

1) we did threaten them
2) we didnt even know if the bomb would work
3) we had only 2
4) they (jap and natzis) were developing nukes too!! this is the biggest one!! it was nuke or be nuked!! all the cry babies can STFU cause it is well documented that the germs and japs were working on nukes thank god they were not as good at it as we were, but the truth is the germans were just having funding issues and we were choking their supplies for nukes.... then they tried to ship their tech over to the japs.

I agree with the gentleman who mentioned Okinawa.  That was the most brutal battle of the entire war, but you hardly ever hear about it.  Much more so that Normandy was. There is probably not one square inch of that island that does not have American blood soaked in it.

And fuck the Japanese.  Those souless bastards.  3 days was plenty of time to assess the damage to Hiroshima.  Hell-it is easy to tell from the Movietone reels that that bomb was some serious shit. And Fuck libs.  At least back then, America had balls.  I just wonder what it will take to get them back again.  

We should have let the Russians have their way with the norther part of Japan also.

Quoted: Japan, Nagasaki, second atomic bomb, DUPE....get it?   No rationalization for Nagasaki attack By BRAHMA CHELLANEY NEW DELHI -- The Anglo-American firebombing of Dresden in February 1945 left some 39,000 Germans dead in an air campaign Churchill acknowledged amounted to "terror bombing." Hitler's massacres of Jews, and Japanese atrocities in China, reflected a similar disdain for civilian life. Brahma Chellaney, a professor of strategic studies at the privately funded Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, is a regular contributor to The Japan Times.

According to this writer, our disdain of life was similar to Hitlers deliberate genocide and the millions murdered by the Japanese in China.

Tells you just how fucked up his view of the world is.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How long would it have taken to build more? I was under the impression that usable material wasn't really the issue once we had the bombs.. I have read that the production capacity at the time allowed for one bomb core every two weeks. We pretty muched used all the fissionable material available at the time.

Correct.   All the available enriched U235 was used for the Little Boy weapon and enrichment of U235 remained slow until the gasous diffusion plant at Oak Ridge was completed.

Plutonium was coming out of Hanford at a steady trickle by mid 1945, I don't remember if the two week figure is accurate or not.   There was a bit more Pu available, since its production had been going for a little while prior to the implosion weapon design being completed.  Gadget and Fat Man had consumed much of the Pu available, there was enough to complete a third Pu core which was in transit to Tinian (although I don't think it had left CONUS) at the time of the surrender.   There would have been a delay before another core could have been produced.  There were also issues with the availabilty of Polonium needed for the early initiators which would have paced implosion weapon production.

ETA

Quoted: According to this writer, our disdain of life was similar to Hitlers deliberate genocide and the millions murdered by the Japanese in China. Tells you just how fucked up his view of the world is.

To the US leadership at the time there was little choice.  Have the entire nation of Japan commit suicide, and take a lot of Americans with them, or else use the atomic bomb to convince them to surrender.   On (edit) Saipan virtually the entire population of Japanese civilians committed suicide rather than surrender to the US forces.  You don't hear about that too much when people criticize the US for using the atomic bomb on mainland Japan.

Errrr, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both thriving cities these days.

As of 2003, Hiroshima had an estimated population of 1,136,684 and the density of 1532.44 persons per km². The total area is 741.75 km².

Industry
Mazda Motor Company, now controlled by the Ford Motor Company, is by far Hiroshima's dominant company. Mazda makes many models in Hiroshima for worldwide export, including the popular MX-5/Miata and Mazda RX-7.

As of 2000 Nagasaki shipbuilding is the biggest industry in the city of 622,000, employing about 11,000 of Nagasaki's work force of 180,000. Shipyard customers come from all over the world, including the United States.

Fishing is another major Nagasaki industry. The city's harbor is home port to 1,020 fishing boats, which caught 198,000 tons of mackerel, tuna, yellowtails, shrimp, squid and octopus in 1993.

Tourism also has become a steady industry. About 5.59 million tourists visited Nagasaki in 1993.

New industries are growing - including manufacturing light ceramic engines and parts for wind turbines.

Nagasaki's links with China are resurfacing. Last year, Nagasaki and Shanghai opened a shipping route between the two for the first time since World War II.

Quoted: We erased two major cities.  F'n erased them forever.