Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[DD Brock]

A new low, even for the likes of Jarrah White. Apparently Hiroshima and Nagasaki are now terrorist acts, at least to the Blunder.

Somebody needs to beat some sense into this guy. If I could afford the plane ticket, I'd seriously consider volunteering.

[carpediem]

He's a weeaboo, what do you expect?

[gillianren]

I don't know; he's got a bit of an argument there.  They were horrific weapons used against civilian targets, after all.  I know all the military justifications for the bombings, and I'm not saying they were wrong.  But I'm not saying they were right, either, and I think an argument could be made.  Just by someone who knows more history than Jarrah White does.

[raven]

Yeah, it's the one argument JW has made I could see someone agreeing with. Beyond ending the war quickly, which according to some is debatable, one  good that came of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being bombed is that it showed just how horrifying a nuclear weapon is. If nukes had been developed but not used then, I think they could easily been used once the Cold War started happening, quite possibly triggering World War 3.
I'm curious, just what does JW claim it have to do with Apollo? The hoary old 'They did this eeevil thing, therefore they must have also done this eeevil thing I claim', like when CT bring up Von Braun's work in World War 2 Germany?

[Zakalwe]

I'm curious, just what does JW claim it have to do with Apollo? The hoary old 'They did this eeevil thing, therefore they must have also done this eeevil thing I claim', like when CT bring up Von Braun's work in World War 2 Germany?

I think that he's letting some of his core "values" slip. He comes across as being anti-American, therefore anything America does or did is tainted by that view. Apollo seems to be a lightening rod for these people, but it extends into lots of other areas.

On an aside, it does make me wonder why this type of crank magnetism seems to afflict the more right-wing people. The tea-baggers, the Obama birth twoofers, the 911 conspiracy theorists, in the main, appear to hold right-wing views. Given that they also claim to be super-patriotic I can't understand why they claim that things like Apollo didn't happen??? Maybe (especially in the more extreme holders of right-wing views) their disdain of anyone that isn't a WASP makes them question the right of a black man to be President which leads to the birth-twoofer thing. Once you are on that roller-coaster then you have to start to question everything else otherwise the whole thing becomes too conflicted. Then again, maybe it's just because they are nuts? 

[Peter B]

On an aside, it does make me wonder why this type of crank magnetism seems to afflict the more right-wing people.

Not to me it doesn't. I've seen plenty of such people with left-wing politics.

The tea-baggers, the Obama birth twoofers, the 911 conspiracy theorists, in the main, appear to hold right-wing views.

The first two, yes. But not 9/11 truthers - these people to me almost exclusively present left-wing attitudes, with all the attendant issues: dislike of George W Bush, links between the Bush family and various oil interests, the background and politics of Bush appointees such as Cheney and Rumsfeld. In my experience these people found it hard to believe I could dislike President Bush's politics and also believe he and his cabinet had nothing to do with 9/11.

Given that they also claim to be super-patriotic I can't understand why they claim that things like Apollo didn't happen???

Again I don't see Apollo HBs as right-wing. Instead they present as left-wingers, many showing admiration for the space achievements of the Soviets and a dislike of Nixon and the American employment of "Nazis" like von Braun. Having said that, there are nuances in their views. Some admire Kennedy while others despise him. Same for Johnson.

Maybe (especially in the more extreme holders of right-wing views) their disdain of anyone that isn't a WASP makes them question the right of a black man to be President which leads to the birth-twoofer thing. Once you are on that roller-coaster then you have to start to question everything else otherwise the whole thing becomes too conflicted. Then again, maybe it's just because they are nuts? 

And there are other left-wing conspiracy theory views, such as anti-vaccinationism (yes, some right-wing anti-vaccinationists but not as many and more likely to be concentrated in their dislike of Gardasil) and opposition to GM food.

[gillianren]

There are lots of right-wing anti-vaxxers.  There's a Catholic blogger who says he "isn't sure" my friend Chris whose son got measles even exists.  Of course, the lengthy and dull YouTube video making the same point seems to be left-wing.  The right-wing and left-wing anti-vaxxers are one of a handful of generic anti-government beliefs that get to the same place from different directions.  I know right-wing anti-GMO people, and for them, it's some religious thing I don't understand.

[DD Brock]

I don't know; he's got a bit of an argument there.  They were horrific weapons used against civilian targets, after all.  I know all the military justifications for the bombings, and I'm not saying they were wrong.  But I'm not saying they were right, either, and I think an argument could be made.  Just by someone who knows more history than Jarrah White does.

I have to respectfully disagree. We were at war, a war brought to OUR shores by way of a sneak attack. You do not fight a war by easing up on the enemy when they are down, you use every means at your disposal to end the conflict once and for all. You sort out the details when it's done.  That is why war is to be avoided when possible. We were long past that in 1945.

It's simple mathematics. We either sent in the Army and the Marines in a full scale, bloody invasion against an enemy we had every reason to believe would defend with the lives of their children, or we take a chance that two highly destructive weapons the likes of which have never been seen scare the enemy badly enough to persuade them to capitulate. Two bombs, or the lives of countless American soldiers. No contest to my mind, even with the unfortunate loss of innocent Japanese civilians.

Terrible? Absolutely! In retrospect, it may have even been overkill. However, consider the Japanese didn't surrender until after the second bomb was dropped. Not the first. Wartime commanders and decision makers do not have the luxury of retrospect, either.

Terrorism? Sorry, but no. That is putting a modern, agenda driven spin on a truly horrible wartime decision that simply had to be made, and smacks of armchair quarterbacking of the worst sort.

[Grashtel]

Plus with the scale of conventional bombing being used the damage produced was comparable to the effects of the nuclear bombs other than the radiation, and that wasn't well understood at the time

[DD Brock]

Plus with the scale of conventional bombing being used the damage produced was comparable to the effects of the nuclear bombs other than the radiation, and that wasn't well understood at the time

Agreed. The firebombing did tremendous damage to much of Japan and killed a hell of a lot of people. If the use of the atom bomb is to be considered terrorism, then the entire strategic bombing campaign would have to be considered terrorism as well. How many people died in the firestorm in Dresden?

Terrible, certainly, but not terrorism.

[Tedward]

I think he is playing the "anti US card" to up his ratings and bolster his position. He is playing politics with no sense of history.

[ka9q]

Historians and others will be debating the necessity of the atomic bombings until the end of time.

I can't really judge the military details, but I did find it interesting that Eisenhower didn't think the bombings were necessary.

This interesting fact also occurred to me. The definition of "weapons of mass destruction" usually has three elements: chemical, biological and nuclear. Three of the major belligerents in WW2 were working on them: the US specialized on nuclear, the Germans on chemical (they had discovered nerve gases in the 1930s) and the Japanese on biological (conducting some well-known and horrific tests).

But of the three, only the US actually used its weapon in war; the other two intentionally held back.

[Peter B]

Perhaps we might continue this part of the discussion in another thread.

LunarOrbit, would it be possible to extract the posts discussing the atomic bombings and start a new thread with them?

[bknight]

Historians and others will be debating the necessity of the atomic bombings until the end of time.

I can't really judge the military details, but I did find it interesting that Eisenhower didn't think the bombings were necessary.

This interesting fact also occurred to me. The definition of "weapons of mass destruction" usually has three elements: chemical, biological and nuclear. Three of the major belligerents in WW2 were working on them: the US specialized on nuclear, the Germans on chemical (they had discovered nerve gases in the 1930s) and the Japanese on biological (conducting some well-known and horrific tests).

But of the three, only the US actually used its weapon in war; the other two intentionally held back.

Agreed that the debate will continue forever. 
Lets take a look at the military viewpoint for a minute.  Most if not all the commanders deemed the war was won by the time the atomic bombs were dropped n Aug 1945(Man that is 70 years ago!).  However war records speak differently.  From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War#Okinawa The US had 75K casualties, the Japanese had 94% death fighting "to the last man".  And this was after an intense aerial bombing campaign.  So the mainland invasion scheduled for Oct-Nov 1945, would likely have involved similar casualties.
Secondly and perhaps more importantly, bombing never has won a war/battle.  Ground troops were a necessity to final victory.  Look at the air war over Britain/Germany/Japan that failed to bring the conflict to conclusion.  An invasion would have been required.
Thirdly many historians military and civilian have noted that the Japanese did not have the ability to wage further war from lack of resources.  There is truth to that statement, but that includes an air/sea battle worthiness, not a defensive land operation.
Fourthly the Japanese military conducted operations from the Bushido code, namely never surrender because that is a cowards way out.  Look at how the POW's from the early battles were treated by the Japanese, those individuals were below life as they had not fought and died.

A land invasion would have been required and resulted in large numbers of Allied casualties.  Dropping atomic weapons whether in a questionable morale aspect was necessary to stop the war earlier.

[grmcdorman]

Don't forget that even after the second bomb was dropped, the Japanese nearly didn't surrender. It took personal intervention by the Emperor - an unprecedented action - and even then there was an attempted coup with the aim of continuing to fight.

I have to agree with those who say that it was the right decision, especially in the context of what the US knew at the time.

There is a lengthy discussion of bombing in general, and towards the end the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, at ISF: Bombing civilians in WWII / Morality of War.