uaru
|
posted on August 6, 2001 03:34:21 PM new
I love history and the development and mission of the Enola Gay is one of the most fascinating chapters for me. Today Japan marks the bombing of Hiroshima. I wonder how many more lives would have been lost without the use of the atomic bomb?
My father got a signed book by Tibbets (pilot of the Enola Gay) for me once, he new I had several books about the topic and wanted to surprise me with it. It was a nice gift. When he got the signature he told Tibbets, "I'm glad you dropped it." Tibbets is very hard of hearing and didn't understand my father so my father repeated it, "I'M GLAD YOU DROPPED IT", not only did Tibbets hear him that time but so did the rest of the book store." My dad said he didn't know what others at the book store thought about his statement but he had no qualms about his thoughts. My dad was a navy pilot ready to ship out when news of the bombing came.
One critic of the atomic bomb was Admiral "Bull" Halsey. I thought it strange he would be a critic because at the surrender ceremony he told an aid, "I'd like to go down there and kick the teeth out of those Jap bastards." Halsey's objection to the use of the atomic bomb was that in the future Japan would use it to portray themselves as a victim instead of the aggressor. He seemed to have made an accurate call on that one.
[ edited by uaru on Aug 6, 2001 03:36 PM ]
|
KatyD
|
posted on August 6, 2001 03:35:50 PM new
This will be a good thread. 
KatyD
|
Borillar
|
posted on August 6, 2001 04:41:21 PM new
Yes, Japan has, in some measure, done just that. But more than that, they have striven to use it as a symbol to reduce nuclear arms around the world. That is the best way to honor the dead of the Hiroshima attack.
|
Femme
|
posted on August 6, 2001 06:16:49 PM new
You know, this is getting downright scary.
I can't tell you how many times I've thought of a subject, just to have someone else start a thread about it.
I had every intention of starting a thread with this same title as a result of a film I just watched, "Hiroshima." It was a Canada/Japan production.
If this subject is of interest to you and your video store carries it, by all means rent it!!! (I saw it on Showtime.)
Don't let the length (3 hours) discourage you. It was the most engrossing thing I've seen in a long time. The 3 hours flew by.
It was done documentary style and includes historical footage. I learned a lot I didn't know leading up to the dropping of the atomic bomb, including a failed coup by the Japanese military opposed to the impending surrender by the Emperor. The Japanese dialog is in subtitles, which adds reality to the film.
I had only recently had the opportunity to see "Fat Man and Little Boy" in its entirety, which helped to pave the way for me to understand this film.
I hope this film was an award winner. It deserved to be recognized.
|
uaru
|
posted on August 6, 2001 06:49:35 PM new
I had only recently had the opportunity to see "Fat Man and Little Boy" in its entirety
A good movie, but far from a documentary. The character that gets the high level of radiation and dies, that did happen but it was a couple years after the war was over. An excellent book is Richard Rhodes' "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", very big book, and it gets very techincal at times, but it is excellent. It won the Pultizer Prize for non-fiction. I read it till it literally fell apart. I need to get another copy.
|
gravid
|
posted on August 6, 2001 07:56:31 PM new
The scary thing to remember is we are talking about 1940's technology. I am only a High School graduate with limited math ability and I am 100% sure I can build a thin man with normal machine tools if you will get me a chunk of U-235. The Isrealis have a isotopic seperation system based on the laser excitation of Uranium vapor that results in 100% seperation in one pass. The equipment should be able to be constructed for that for a couple hundred thousand dollars. It is easy to make a Hiroshima class weapon - but making it small enough and rugged enough to fit on a rocket is tough. However a F-350 pickup would do fine.
|
Microbes
|
posted on August 6, 2001 08:03:45 PM new
However a F-350 pickup would do fine.
I always thought the same thing. Makes you wonder about all the anti-missle stuff.
|
mark090
|
posted on August 8, 2001 06:52:55 AM new
Yes, we as American are supposed to feel ashamed because we dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese. But how many of them shed a single honest tear for anyone else because of what they did to Korea? the rape of Nanking? the Bataan death march? and numerous other atrocities they committed during the war? Hell, they don't even teach it in their schools except that the BIG, BAD AMERICANS killed innocent lives with the atomic bomb. And I am supposed to feel ashamed for what we did?!?
|
Femme
|
posted on August 8, 2001 07:35:51 AM new
If the Japanese would have had the technology to develop an atomic bomb, you can bet your sweet bippy they would have used it.
Germany had it, and they were working on it. Had the fall of Germany not taken place first, it could very well be a different world from the one we now know.
--------
Can someone suggest the definitive book on the Bataan Death March?
|
gravid
|
posted on August 8, 2001 07:45:32 AM new
The Germans were very close to having the bomb. If someone had not figured out that they were producing heavy water and bombed the snot out of that location they would probably have made their goal. They intended using that instead of graphite as a moderator for nuclear reactors.
|
bunnicula
|
posted on August 8, 2001 08:10:49 AM new
Mark090: yes, of course we're supposed to feel guilty. This conversation gets started every few months in some of the newsgroups. People will hurl recriminations about Hiroshima but conveniently forget Japan's atrcocities. About the bombing of Dresden but say nothing about the Germans bombing the crap out of London (not to mention devastating Europe, Russia and doing their best to wipe out Jews, homosexuals, & political dissidents).
Etc. etc. etc.
After all, every ill in the world since WWII is our fault, don't you know.
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on August 8, 2001 08:32:30 AM new
I read a very interesting article that may or may not be relevant. Essentially it showed that the military's supply of purple heart medals - to this day - are World War II surplus. Apparently in the final months of the war something like one or two million purple hearts were ordered. The premise of the article was that this fact might constitute some sort of circumstancial evidence that there really was the great expectation of casualties that was claimed. Just an aside. Carry on.
|
fred
|
posted on August 8, 2001 08:46:18 AM new
Femme. There are many good books on the march.
I like this one.
General Wainwright's Story. by Jonathan M. Wainwright.
Fred
|
gravid
|
posted on August 8, 2001 09:17:17 AM new
An interesting thing for the mathematically literate (numerate) The destructive power of a nuclear weapon goes up not by a linear factor by in proportion to the cube of the power, so there is a point very quickly reached where bigger does not make much difference. It takes 27 megatons to do twice the damaage of a 3 megaton. It is really more effective to deliver three smaller weapons in a spread than a super big one. That is why nobody has ever developed a deliverable warhead bigger than the Soviet's 100 megaton. It might be worth making one however that would do damage at ground level if detonated overhead in low earth orbit without needing reentry.
Another interesting item that goes up as the cube is the power required to attain top speed in an automobile.
|
Femme
|
posted on August 8, 2001 09:28:53 AM new
Thank you, Fred.
-----
Gravid,
Huh???
I'm mathematically impaired. 
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on August 8, 2001 09:46:55 AM new
Another interesting item that goes up as the cube is the power required to attain top speed in an automobile.
How intereresting!
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Aug 8, 2001 09:47 AM ]
|
ahc3
|
posted on August 8, 2001 03:27:16 PM new
I've heard figures of staggering casualties if a land based assault would have been needed. It took 2 bombs to end this, not one. The list of atrocities in the period before and during the Second World War is quite tragic and long one. Personally, I don't think the dropping of the bomb is on the list. Not that I don't have sympathy for the innocents affected, but considering that by July of 1945 it was literally the world against Japan (Russia had joined the war, Italy and Germany had surrendered) there really was not much of a choice there, considering something like 100,000 casualties were predicted if Japan was taken by ground.
|
gravid
|
posted on August 8, 2001 05:17:34 PM new
You wonder how many they were prepared to drop on them if they were really stubborn. It has never been revealed. from the size of the facilities they built to produce Plutonium on the Columbia River it would appear they were setting up to rain destruction on them. Can you imaigine if they had been bombed enough they could have gotten in a condition where their C3 no longer existed and nobody was in charge to surrender. They had a tradition of no surrrender so they might have destroyed most of the big towns before invading. Glad it did not go that way.
[ edited by gravid on Aug 8, 2001 06:21 PM ]
|
godzillatemple
|
posted on August 9, 2001 05:17:49 AM new
Well, you do have to feel a little sorry for the Japanese. I mean, even if the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were somehow justified, they then had to put up with being attacked by Godzilla every couple of years ever since. At some point, you just gotta say enough is enough....
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
|
REAMOND
|
posted on August 9, 2001 08:44:45 AM new
The US killed more Japenese in the fire bombings of Tokyo than with both Nuclear bombs.
My dad was part of a group of servicemen being grouped in Alaska for a possible invaision of Japan. The word was out that if an invaision took place, the fighting would be worse than anything we had seen in the Pacific to date - and that says alot.
I find that the use of nuclear weapons on Japan saved more lives than any other possible alternative. It was not only justified, but necessary.
|
barbarake
|
posted on August 10, 2001 08:37:28 PM new
The fact that Japan committed atrocities does not make it ok for others to do the same thing. (Two wrongs do not make a right.)
But the biggest problem I have with the bombings is that we bombed a city filled with civilians. Why didn't we bomb their military headquarters or something like that. We deliberately bombed women and children. And then we did it again. Why didn't we give the Japanese time to realize how much damage we had done to Hiroshima before bombing Nagasaki (sp?)? It was - what - three days later?? That part has never made sense to me.
|
gravid
|
posted on August 10, 2001 09:59:47 PM new
Both cities had major facilities that made them military targets. It was not like bombing
Palm Springs that is golf carts and retirees. It was more like bombing San Diego with
the Naval Yards the air base and all sorts of industry and shipping. Kind of hard to find a city anywhere without civilians. I can understand
the psychology of using another weapon in 3 days.
Hey wizbang the whole town is
gone! How much analysis do you need to absorb that basic datum? Wonder if we can
do it again or if we shot our wad with that one and won't be back for 6 months? Boom
- there's your answer! Want to see if we can do it again? Kind of expensive question to keep asking. Of course they wanted to put the pressure on them. That's how war is conducted. Not at a casual pace.
[ edited by gravid on Aug 10, 2001 10:03 PM ]
|
bunnicula
|
posted on August 10, 2001 10:19:39 PM new
It was three days later, on August 9. And they didn't need three days to "realize how much damage had been done." That was immediately obvious. Truman *told* them another would be dropped if they refused to surrender. They didn't...he did. Even then, Japan didn't surrender officially until July 14. Truman was urged to continue the attack, but held off.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Looking back over a distance of 40+ years it is easy for us--many of whom have been born in the period since the last real war--to say this or that should have been done. The emotions felt against Japan and their actions during the war was incredibly high. And people just plain wanted the war to be *over*.
To give Truman his due, he did order that the bomb be used on a non-military target, as is seen in his diary entry of July 25, 1945: "The weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. (Kyoto or Tokyo)
"He (Stimson) and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement [known as the Potsdam Proclamation] asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance."
However the order drafted by General Grove--and approved by Stimson--made no mention of non-military targets.
edited to put in a missing non
[ edited by bunnicula on Aug 11, 2001 08:21 AM ]
|
DoctorBeetle
|
posted on August 10, 2001 10:34:59 PM new
The expectation of significant casualties was indeed a factor in the decision to use atomic weapons against Imperial Japan. I am not at all surprised that there are 1000's of surplus Purple Hearts from WWII.
An excellent book on the subject of the invasion of the main Japanese island is The Burning Mountain by Alfred Koppel. In this book he takes the plans the allies had developed for the invasion of the main island and projects likely casualty figures. His projection was approxaimately 500,000 wounded/dead among allied forces and Japanese forces and civilians.
Survivors of the invasion and capture of the Japanese island of Okinawa would have a hard time distinguishing between military and civilians. Many allied casualties were inflicted by civilians. Large numbers of civilians also committed suicide rather than be captured by allied forces.
The casualty levels incurred during Okinawa, and the actions in general of the civilian population, give credence to the view that the invasion of the mainland would cost too many allied lives. It also showed that the civil population would not stand idly by. After all, if your country were invaded would you fail to resist just because you were not a uniformed member of the military?
Dr. Beetle
|
REAMOND
|
posted on August 11, 2001 05:36:58 AM new
In the industrialized era there can be no distinguishing between military and civilian targets. It is a hard lesson.
How is it morally sound to kill a soldier and unsound to kill the person supplying the weapons, food, tanks, and airplanes ? How can I morally extricate myself from war involvment when I build the the weapons and other supplies.
The "civilian target" idea dates back to chivalry. However it was long ago abandoned.
The U.S. hit civilian targets during the American Civil war. Federal troops burned the Shanondoah sp? Valley because it supplied food to the Army of Northern Virginia. Sherman burned Georgia for the same reasons. Many "civilians" starved or were otherwise killed during these operations.
There has been no such thing as civilian targets, in the classical sense, in warfare for nearly 200 years. The linkage between "civilian" endeavors and making war is undeniable and a morally sound target. Targeting war making capabilities eventually saves more lives than it destroys. This would include destroying "civiliian" enterprises.
|
Femme
|
posted on August 11, 2001 08:16:33 AM new
I may be wrong about this, but I believe the Japanese military knew the extent of the damage and loss of life in Hiroshima before the bombing of Nagasaki.
Even with the deaths of 130,000 Japanese people, the military still refused to surrender. Their pride overrode the lives of the Japanese people.
The bombing of Nagasaki was a result of that pride.
|
Femme
|
posted on August 11, 2001 08:20:26 AM new
uaru, where are you? 
--------
Nice to see you, Doctor Beetle.
|
toke
|
posted on August 11, 2001 08:55:11 AM new
Femme...
Uaru is one of the "best" posters I was talking about. He basically said he'd had it and was leaving. I hope he reconsiders.
|
Femme
|
posted on August 11, 2001 09:17:46 AM new
Hi Toke,
I saw where uaru said he didn't feel like he fit in. I felt bad that I didn't take the time to tell him I thought he fit in very nicely.
uaru, I am saying it now.
It upsets me when someone I like leaves. I wish they would concentrate on the posters with whom they do get along instead of focusing on the 1 or 2 with whom they don't get along.
Heck, if we all did that, there wouldn't be anyone on the boards.
And, there is always the ignore button.
|
toke
|
posted on August 11, 2001 09:27:17 AM new
I agree, Femme. Maybe he's just taking a break, and I took him too literally? Breaks can be a good thing.
He's a wonderful poster.
|
