I’ve got a question that’s probably more suited to GD or GQ, but what the hell.
What was the military significance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the time of the bombings? I mean, other than expedience.
As I understand it, both Eisenhower and Mac were opposed to using the bombs, because they didn’t think destroying those particular cities would have any real military value. On the other hand, I know that Hiroshima was a communications center, and Nagasaki a shipyard, at least earlier in the war.
I don’t agree with the basic premise – that it was a choice between nuking cities or an invasion. (Of course, this has been hashed out endlessly in previous threads.) There’s evidence Japan was ready to surrender weeks before August 6, on essentially the same conditions as the actual surrender. My feeling is that the purpose of the bombs was to make it clear that it was the U.S. and not the U.S.S.R. that was winning the Pacific War. Like the destruction of Dresden, it was unnecessary terrorism on an immense scale.
Actually, there isn’t any such evidence. In fact, if a Cabinent member had even publically mentioned it, I have no doubt he would have been assasinated right then and there.
Sure, there were some dudes very low down in the chain- who- without any authority at all- made some “peace feelers”. But that happened in Nazi Germany too.
Although I agree with most of the posters that think it was justifiable to do so, the only shame IMHO will remain the fact that the zero target of the bombs was the center of the cities, had it had been the sea ports or the military factories then I would have been 100% in favor, as it was, the population center was the target.
It has to be mentioned that the Hiroshima target, a small bridge in the middle of the city, was missed by only 800 feet. The target in Nagasaki was missed by over a mile, still leveling half the city. That mistake however saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
I will always suspect that the bombardiers at Nagasaki, knowing then what this bomb could do, found a way to almost “miss” the city.
It was an act of evil. That’s all there is to it. Just ask yourselves if you’d be willing to burn your own children to death to stop a war. It is no more moral to burn someone else’s children than your own.
I wish Americans would just admit that dropping the bomb was evil and move on. We’re not perfect. We did a shitty thing. Why is it so hard just to admit that?
Americans don’t tend to go Hiroshima was burning children; it was about ending the war quicker and on terms favorable to the USA.
Your logic is not wrong, and is actually very nice. But on the day most Americans agree with you or better off most of the world agree with you, we will probably be able to achieve world peace. I apologize for the fact the shortness of my reply would lead you to think I disagreed with your logic. I just don’t think many people would follow your logic.
Most people can’t even make the connection that we invaded Iraq on premise of fear of WMD. We seem to have proof that WMD intelligence was made up and so American public re-elected the President who started a borderline illegal war. (I will now done a helmet and flak jacket for my own defense from attacks for this statement)
I know I have an unpopular opinion. I’ve been roasted for it before. Someone will be here shortly to tell me that burning those childrens saved billions of lives…BILLIONS, I tell you.
The US won WW II largely by deliberately targeting civilians. When other people do that, we (rightly) call them “terrorists.” When America does it, it’s heroism.
Well, no, the Allies (be it the USA, UK, USSR, or whomever) won WWII largely by destroying the armed forces of Germany, Japan and their minor allies. The killing of civilians was part of it to be sure, but was certainly not the major route to victory.
Yes I did. I asked if you would be willing to burn your own children to death to end a war. If your answer is no, then you have no right to burn anyone else’s children to death. If your answer is yes, then you’re a fucking psychpath.
The Pacific war was about fighting enemies, Island by Island. Most people killed on both sides were military. By the time we were able to fire bomb Japan and then Nuke them, the bigger question to me is why a defeated Japan did not surrender until we resorted to terror tactics. I think we were in the right to use such means. War is HELL. Japan’s record on civilian treatment was amazingly bad. Ask Chinese and Koreans to this day about Japanese. They might even be secretly disappointed we didn’t nuke every Japanese city. Every debate has multiple sides. Every war has civilians being targeted and killed.
More civilians were killed by fire bombing cities in Germany and Japan than were killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. All told, the US killed something like 800,000 civilians (some estimates are higher). The demoralizing effects of our terroristic attacks on cities like Tokyo (100,000 dead civilians) and Dresden (400,000 dead civilians) were instrumental in ending the war. It was a deliberate and calculated strategy.
And if it wasn’t a major route to victory, then how can it be justified?
Not that it changes the significance of burning a city down very much, but those numbers are out by an order of magnitude. Your number for Tokyo agrees with Wikipedia, though.
