why Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

[The King in Yellow]

Hiroshima also had one very large military target:

The Mitsubishi factories, the USA definitely wanted to take those out.

Nagasaki was a " miss" apparently, because of the weather, they wanted to hit a far larger area.

@ Catrilia, you forget the people that were born with radiation illnesses and mutations throughout the years, those aren't in the numbers. But yes the USA wanted to prevent a full scale invasion, because they feared Japan would fight till the last man standing.

Further more it was the psychological effect, showing Japan that the USA had no problem at all, killing citizens of Japan, they have also shown this by bombing Tokyo with Napalm before the bombs.

[GG you got me]

The Rape of Nanking comes to mind...

In the similar vein, the Japanese treatment of prisoners of war during WWII was not unlike the german treatment of jews and invalids in Auschwitz. But yes the Japanese genocide in China has gone largely unheralded in history which is a shame. There are some very brave stories from that side of the world during that time.

[Feldoom]

As others have previously stated, it needed to have shock and awe to it. I think using the nukes was the right choice, otherwise a full scale mainland invasion of Japan would be inevitable and cause hundreds of thousands more casualties to both sides, plus with the nukes we lost no American lives. Sure it was used on the cities and caused civilian casualties and collateral, but there were also military targets there as well. Though I digress, Shock and Awe was one of the main points to be achieved by the weapon to force a surrender of Japan.

[GG you got me]

Hiroshima also had one very large military target:

The Mitsubishi factories, the USA definitely wanted to take those out.

Nagasaki was a " miss" apparently, because of the weather, they wanted to hit a far larger area.

@ Catrilia, you forget the people that were born with radiation illnesses and mutations throughout the years, those aren't in the numbers. But yes the USA wanted to prevent a full scale invasion, because they feared Japan would fight till the last man standing.

Further more it was the psychological effect, showing Japan that the USA had no problem at all, killing citizens of Japan, they have also shown this by bombing Tokyo with Napalm before the bombs.

It was a realistic fear too. The Japanese military had been losing the war most notably since Midway, and still fought horrendous battles like Okinawa that for some reason are largely forgotten today but that yielded staggering casualties on both sides and some of the most gripping war stories in history.



As a brief aside, I'd like to mention that in my younger years I was lucky enough to be in a golf group with an older gentleman who had a pretty quiet demeanor and really didn't talk. He was sort of the kind of guy that if you asked him to go out for a beer after a round he might tell you to fuck off. As I later found out, according to his brother he had been in the first wave of land troops at Iwo Jima and was so affected by what had happened that he didn't talk about it for (as far as I know) the rest of his life.

I just think people tend to lose scope of how horrible World War 2 was, because the greatest generation fought it and had a way of making it seem like it was taken in stride.

[The King in Yellow]

It was a realistic fear too. The Japanese military had been losing the war most notably since Midway, and still fought horrendous battles like Okinawa that for some reason are largely forgotten today but that yielded staggering casualties on both sides and some of the most gripping war stories in history.

Indeed, still I do not agree on the weapon they used, but on the other side; many, many, many millions of more casualties have been spared though.

Not to mention a war which would lead towards the destruction of the entire country, instead of just two cities.

[Therdin]

@ Catrilia, you forget the people that were born with radiation illnesses and mutations throughout the years, those aren't in the numbers.

To be fair the U.S military did not understand radiation sickness when the bomb was dropped (at least that is what i remember from my history books, if i'm wrong i'll accept it). That isn't to say it is a free pass because they didn't. They hadn't done enough tests to understand the radiation had such devastating long term effects.

[GG you got me]

Indeed, still I do not agree on the weapon they used, but on the other side; many, many, many millions of more casualties have been spared though.

Not to mention a war which would lead towards the destruction of the entire country, instead of just two cities.

It's certainly a moral quagmire. I think that is why it remains so heatedly debated to this day. It's just nice when the opposite side of the argument can also realistically concede what a land invasion of Japan might have ultimately meant. Nice talking with you =).

[Deleted]

This one is rich... ahh der, Germany had already surrendered on May 7, 1945, the first bomb "Trinity" was tested on July 16, 1945......

Don't know where I got my information from to be honest, I just remembered that. However, Hiroshima was bombed after the war was won, or am I awfully wrong here? They could also have punished Germany.

[GG you got me]

Don't know where I got my information from to be honest, I just remembered that. However, Hiroshima was bombed after the war was won, or am I awfully wrong here? They could also have punished Germany.

What ... what? lol.

[meathead]

I am not going to waste my time, on a conspiracy theroist. Your ideas are fragments of your paranoia, and your writing makes no sense. Its all one thought screams.

thats your choice,just remember i stated facts and these facts you have to learn yourself.the USA will not teach you them because it makes them look bad.do you really think wars are NOT FOUGHT over $?do you really think the USA was right in stealing all the german scientists and making them work for nasa.dont believe me fine,just google the first trip to the moon and read the names of the people that worked for nasa at that time.

where am i wrong about korea and china?the USA is globalizing the world economy so corporations can get rich.do you really think the USA did not know an attack was going to happen in pearl harbor?see im stating facts not conspiracys.

so i give you this last piece of info,do you know the real meaning of thanksgiving?why it was a celebration?a group of pilgrims helped a tribe of Indians slaughter/kill a rival tribe of Indians.so to celebrate there victory the Indians offered a fest to there new allies the pilgrims.its messed up but its the truth,do some research and you find it hell you can even see that on the history channel.

[Tasandriel]

They had a map with a multitude of possible targets on their list at the initial selection for bombing with A-weapons.
After some days of debate they decided to bomb the cities with the least historical and cultural assets, so that the Japanese culture would still be preserved post-war. After bombing Hiroshima though, the Japanese didn't surrender unconditionally, and thus they decided to drop a second bomb.
Normally that bomb would have been dropped on the city of Kokura, but due to bad weather conditions and reduced sight, they changed target to Nagasaki, which what at that time also operating as a main weapons facility with the use of the then popular Mitsubishi shipyard.

Hope that enlightens a bit of your questions

[The King in Yellow]

Don't know where I got my information from to be honest, I just remembered that. However, Hiroshima was bombed after the war was won, or am I awfully wrong here? They could also have punished Germany.

May 8 is considered to be the end of the war in Europe yes. Japan tried to surrender trough it's war council as early as mid July, to the Soviet Union and try and contactthe Allied forces trough them, however the Emperor decided Japan would fight till the end, the atomic bombs were such a shock Japan was forced to surrender.

Some Japanese forces on the pacific islands didn't even surrender till the early 70s, the isolated ones that is.

@ Meathead it is recent information that the USA had fired on a Japanese vessel on "accident", which eventually led to the events including but not limited to Pearl Harbour. Japan did declare war, while many believe they didn't. (Aka making Pearl Harbour a war crime.) Only the declaration of war arrived later than the attack of Pearl Harbour, got to love technology back then.

It is also known that both the Soviet Union and the USA send troops and equipment to China as early as 1937, during the Second.. or was it third? Sino-Japan War.

[Tasandriel]

Didn't the Japanese kind of realise that they woke a sleeping giant with their attack on Pearl Harbor? Personally, I think dropping the bomb was unnecessary. I can understand the reasoning behind it - what little there was, the whole "shocking them into submission", but I think the US went way out of line on that particular course of action.

It was either that, or a possible continuation of WWII for many years to come, afterwards it might even have saved millions of lives worldwide, sadly for Japan they were the ones taking the hit at the time though. And don't get me wrong, I'm no US fanboy by far. I love Japan, it's culture and people.

[Adhal-Blackrock]

Sounds familiar. Just like they want to kill every society they don't understand or can't control to this day.

Next to Germany, the US has the most innocent blood on their hands, not bad for a country only a couple of centuries old.

Really??? Hmmm maybe you should go talk to the Chinese about that. Maybe you never paid attention to what the Japanese did to them when they occupied their country or many other countries in that region.

Of course nukes aren't moral, no one pretended they were. Then again this wasn't a moral war by any means on any side. The Japanese Emperor might have surrendered for immunity, but would any European country have let Hitler surrendered with immunity? No, and this guy wasn't much better.

As for the civilian vs soldier issue, in this war the only difference was ability to fight. If you were able you were forced to fight on both sides. both were military targets and lets face it, its pretty much impossible to drop a nuke without civilian casualties. The Emperor was just as guilty for the bombings as the US, he was given an choice and refused surrender, the first bomb was dropped. He saw the devastation and still refused, 3 days later the second was dropped. Then he finally came to his senses.

Point of this is this was a war of which the likes no one has seen since, and no one can imagine. In survival morality goes out the door and that's what this war was about. Instead of arguing who was wrong or right we should be trying our best to make sure the world never escalates to this level of depravity again.

[IIBlackmagikII]

thats your choice,just remember i stated facts and these facts you have to learn yourself.the USA will not teach you them because it makes them look bad.do you really think wars are NOT FOUGHT over $?do you really think the USA was right in stealing all the german scientists and making them work for nasa.dont believe me fine,just google the first trip to the moon and read the names of the people that worked for nasa at that time.

where am i wrong about korea and china?the USA is globalizing the world economy so corporations can get rich.do you really think the USA did not know an attack was going to happen in pearl harbor?see im stating facts not conspiracys.

so i give you this last piece of info,do you know the real meaning of thanksgiving?why it was a celebration?a group of pilgrims helped a tribe of Indians slaughter/kill a rival tribe of Indians.so to celebrate there victory the Indians offered a fest to there new allies the pilgrims.its messed up but its the truth,do some research and you find it hell you can even see that on the history channel.

Economic globalization has actually hurt most developed countries, like the U.S., and bolstered developing countries. Look at GDP growth in the world and you will see this. Goods and services are now more available to all, but countries are losing their exclusivity and superiority in the process.

Stating "see im stating facts not conspiracys" without any sources for anything you have said is arrogant and actually hurts your argument, which needs some severe help to begin with.

Also, any public middle school and beyond would teach that the colonization of America was a constant bloody war with the indigenous population. This isn't a secret our education system keeps from us, so don't act as if it is, for it makes you appear ignorant and not us.

[The King in Yellow]

Really??? Hmmm maybe you should go talk to the Chinese about that. Maybe you never paid attention to what the Japanese did to them when they occupied their country or many other countries in that region.

Of course nukes aren't moral, no one pretended they were. Then again this wasn't a moral war by any means on any side. The Japanese Emperor might have surrendered for immunity, but would any European country have let Hitler surrendered with immunity? No, and this guy wasn't much better.

As for the civilian vs soldier issue, in this war the only difference was ability to fight. If you were able you were forced to fight on both sides. both were military targets and lets face it, its pretty much impossible to drop a nuke without civilian casualties. The Emperor was just as guilty for the bombings as the US, he was given an choice and refused surrender, the first bomb was dropped. He saw the devastation and still refused, 3 days later the second was dropped. Then he finally came to his senses.

Point of this is this was a war of which the likes no one has seen since, and no one can imagine. In survival morality goes out the door and that's what this war was about. Instead of arguing who was wrong or right we should be trying our best to make sure the world never escalates to this level of depravity again.

Even though I agree with a lot, morality does not completely gets tossed out of the door in times of war. There were still Rules of Engagement, etc. etc. The best examples the British trying to rescue German sailors from the ships they sank.

Also the Emperor wouldn't surrender, even after the bombs he wanted to fight on. The Japanese War Council surrendered, with that they forced the emperor to sign the treaty... Emperor Hirohito was rather... insane..

And to you others... can you stop talking about conspiracies, other wars and trade globalization.... I believe this thread is not about that..

[Adhal-Blackrock]

thats your choice,just remember i stated facts and these facts you have to learn yourself.the USA will not teach you them because it makes them look bad.do you really think wars are NOT FOUGHT over $?do you really think the USA was right in stealing all the german scientists and making them work for nasa.dont believe me fine,just google the first trip to the moon and read the names of the people that worked for nasa at that time.

The captured them? No a lot came to US AND Soviet Union for immunity, Hitler killed anyone who did not agree with his ways/methods. They then worked for the US/Soviet for quite a bit of money. Everyone needs a job, were these brilliant scientist supposed to take a job washing dishes at a restaurant???

[Defengar]

guys its alright what happened is the past im sure japan made some questionable decisions to all that matters is we are friends and they send anime and manga over here.

In fact, if it wasn`t for American occupation, there would be no anime.
All of the first anime artist have said that they were inspired to start drawling after seeing Disney cartoons for the first time (Disney cartoons were not allowed into Japan pre American occupation).

What I want to know is how sleeping beauty inspired such disturbing crap (i.e. fucked up disturbing fetishes that get portrayed in anime all the time)

[Catrilia]

Indeed, still I do not agree on the weapon they used, but on the other side; many, many, many millions of more casualties have been spared though.

Not to mention a war which would lead towards the destruction of the entire country, instead of just two cities.

I think there are also some other factors worth considering. First, if the war continued for at least another 3 years, with even the best case casualty numbers, the numbers of returning soldiers would have been devastated. At the very least, this could have delayed the baby boom which helped to drive American prosperity into the 80's. Secondly, as part of Operation Downfall, Japan would have become a "nation without cities". So, the two largest economies in the second half of the twentieth century would have spent years wiping each other out and recovering from the process instead of creating computers, compact cars and all of the other neat shit they've done for the past 60 years

Source: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm

[Sunseeker]

That's nice. I didn't speak to the efficacy of dropping the bomb. If you don't like the topic of morality, don't speak to me about the subject.

You did, several times by now I might add critique the purpose, the efficacy, the "need" through a moral lens. You are arguing that the attack shouldn't have taken place because the Japanese would be scared by the Soviets and that it was EVIL to strike first and NOT wait for the Japanese reaction to the Soviet invasion. You are making a MORAL judgement of a military tactic, that it was "evil" to not wait and see how the Japanese would react. It's a tactic. Analyze it on it's tactical efficacy but not on it's moral subjectivity.