Bomber command.........never thought of this aspect.

[ellal]

One can't but help think that if the americans wanted to they could have said...

'See that unihabited area? We will destroy it with one bomb. After that, we will do it again. After that, it will be Tokyo'...

Simply put, in military terms that doesn't work. The Japanese were told in plain terms that if they didn't surrender then unimagineable force would be used on them. They didn't. It was. Even then they didn't surrender and it took the destruction of a second city to bring them to the table. The purpose of using the bombs was not "an experiment" as you blithely put it - it was to minimise the deaths of potentially 300,000 to 500,000 allied troops and millions of Japanese citizens which a landing would have provoked because of the Japanese (the military government, that is) intention to fight to the last person, be that a man, woman or child, as many had done at Okinawa.

I'm sorry - where did I say it was "an experiment"?

I just happen to think that the power of the bomb could have been shown in a different way to achieve the same outcome..

After all, wasn't that the idea of the 'deterrent' that has prevented WWIII so far?

 

[JBR]

For the reasons several people have already given on this thread, the use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese was completely justified in my opinion.

The anti-nuclear weapons lobby have also, I believe, missed a very important point: they have kept the peace, at least between European and 'Western' nations, for fifty years.

 

[joinerjohn]

I do appreciate that argument, and have thought hard and long about it, but in my opinion it was an experiment to determine the effects of an atomic explosion, why else choose two sites of different topographical difference.

Wotan

Thing is, Hiroshima wasn't the very first man made nuclear explosion.( and therefore test) That was at Alomogordo Army Airfield (now Whitesands) The infamous test of the first nuclear bomb which led Oppenheimer to utter those now famous words "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
Perhaps Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were tests to see the effects on a populated area.
Undoubtedly both explosions hastened the end of the war.

 

[EddieM]

My great uncle was a japanese PoW, he never spoke about it much, but to his grave he took with him a hatred of the Japanese and in his words their utter barbarity.

 

[Whitespirit66]

my ex f.i.l. was in the Lancs, he went to his grave ashamed of what he did in the war.....sad really, as every one else thought he was a hero...

You father in law was a hero. The freedoms we enjoy today are only possible because of many like him in ALL the allied services, as well as civilians who worked to keep the war machine supplied.

 

[Whitespirit66]

my ex f.i.l. was in the Lancs, he went to his grave ashamed of what he did in the war.....sad really, as every one else thought he was a hero...

The Americans thought the crew of Enola Gay were hero's after committing the biggest crime against humanity ever.

Digger

Crass, insulting drivel.

A few hundred thousand Japs? What about an even bigger crime against humanity perpetrated by their comrades in the Holocaust. A mere 6 million killed.

 

[joe-90]

Don't be silly.

 

[Whitespirit66]

Don't be silly.

Sorry, I forgot.

 

[Deleted member 174758]

I just happen to think that the power of the bomb could have been shown in a different way to achieve the same outcome..

The whole point of using a nuclear weapon is that it was so much more powerful than any other form of weaponry then available. The magnitude of this could only be adequately demonstrated by using it against main made structures - there is little point using it on the top of a mountain, say - and Japan, like these islands, is and was then fairly densely populated except for the central spine of mountains, thus limiting where any "demonstration" could take place. The other part of such a "demonstration" is also to impress on the civilian populace the futility of their government's continued beligerance and put pressure on the powers that be from another quarter. The plain fact is that even after one bomb had been exploded their military government still continued to act in a belligerent manner. Unfortunately it took a second weapon to ensure their surrender

After all, wasn't that the idea of the 'deterrent' that has prevented WWIII so far?

Are you old enough to remember the Cold War and the real insanities of it? Ther knife edge we lived on in the sixties to the eighties? MAD - or Mutually Assured Destruction for those unaware - only works because Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated the actual effect of a nuclear explosion on real cities with real people. A controlled explosion in an out of the way place would most likely be perceived as a piece of propaganda and not believed. Proving that you have the weapon and demonstrating its' effectiveness is far more effective

 

[Deleted member 174758]

my ex f.i.l. was in the Lancs, he went to his grave ashamed of what he did in the war.....sad really, as every one else thought he was a hero...

That in itself is shameful. As a serviceman he would be required to do his duty regardless of personal qualms. I think that the aircrew of Bomber Command were incredibly brave. You had to be if you understood that losses were in the region of 8% per sortie and that a tour of ops was 30 sorties. Out of a total of 125,000 aircrew some 55,573 were killed (a 44.4% death rate), a further 8,403 were wounded in action and 9,838 became prisoners of war. (Source: Imperial war Museum) - this was the highest percentage of deaths of any arm of the British and Empire Forces. It should be a greater shame on the government and people of this country that we failed for so long to recognise the bravery and sacrifice of these servicemen on our behalf

"You (the RAF) kept our hopes alive for four long years.
The sound of your engines night after night was the only sign the battle was still going on and one day we would be free again."

I've lived in the Netherlands and heard similar stories from members of the older generation.

 

[Norcon]

Glassing up a lump of desert would have really scared the japs into surrender.

 

[chapeau]

Funny old place is Hiroshima, from what you hear about these A-bombs you would expect the whole place to have been flattened as far as the eye could see but the damage wasn't as great as you might imagine. Only one bomb of course, but other cities had far more damage from incendary attacks during WW2.

Clearly an experiment but whether that was the primary or secondary purpose is not clear to me. No lessons learned unfortunately and I am sure this sort of thing will happen again.

 

[joe-90]

Hiroshima was an 'atom bomb' not an 'H-bomb.'

 

[gasbanni]

For the reasons several people have already given on this thread, the use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese was completely justified in my opinion.

The anti-nuclear weapons lobby have also, I believe, missed a very important point: they have kept the peace, at least between European and 'Western' nations, for fifty years.

True M.A.D. ~ Mutually Assured Destruction

 

[pred]

Firstly; back in 1945 the Japanese Emporer was a god like figure to his people, by dropping the bomb and then i thought he was ordered to come to the signing of the peace treaty to show to his people he was a mere mortal but i found this instead
http://www.netplaces.com/world-war-ii/the-axis-giants-fall/japan-surrenders.htm
and what i found interesting is how he wanted to hang on to power and that the military were not ready to surrender, they must have been listening to Churchills speach "we shall never surrender"

Seconly the U.S. and Japan have an agreement, the Yanks will forget Pearl Harbour if the Japs forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki.....