Atomic bomb in hiroshima( Not for faint hearted)

[EyelessInGaza]

the failure of humanity was that the Americans were not made to pay for what they did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
If Japan would have been conquered by the American army..surely they'd have not killed the innocents.It was mass extermination....the gravest human crime.

Nuclear warfare is abhorrent, but the story is more nuanced than that.

By 1945 the USA had brought Japan to its knees; it's island hopping strategy had bought it close to the mainland.

However the resistance offered by the Japanese on an island as small as Okinawa shocked the US.

Some 120,000 Japanese died resisting the US on an 12000 Km square island. Very few Japanese gave up or survived. The US lost 12000 killed, 40,000 wounded.

This was just one Island; the calculation was that conquering Japan would cost the Allies at least 1 million killed, not counting injured.

The Japanese government showed no signs of surrendering even though it was bloodied.

And hence the bomb.

BTW, the US firebombing of Japan killed more people than the nukes and was equally if not more abhorrent.

 

[armyoptimist]

Thanks for a useful post. Please describe completely

 

[paritosh]

Nuclear warfare is abhorrent, but the story is more nuanced than that.

By 1945 the USA had brought Japan to its knees; it's island hopping strategy had bought it close to the mainland.

However the resistance offered by the Japanese on an island as small as Okinawa shocked the US.

Some 120,000 Japanese died resisting the US on an 12000 Km square island. Very few Japanese gave up or survived. The US lost 12000 killed, 40,000 wounded.

This was just one Island; the calculation was that conquering Japan would cost the Allies at least 1 million killed, not counting injured.

The Japanese government showed no signs of surrendering even though it was bloodied.

And hence the bomb.

BTW, the US firebombing of Japan killed more people than the nukes and was equally if not more abhorrent.

Japan had given up colonizing Asia Pcific..had lost the fight...it's AF and navy...it just was one fortified island with many to defend it.a simple blockade would have made sure that it surrenders...it had lost the ability to cause harm...brutal force wasn't required.When countries have enlisted armies...it is for the protection of the civilian population from war...both in victory and defeat.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Japan had given up colonizing Asia Pcific..had lost the fight...it's AF and navy...it just was one fortified island with many to defend it.a simple blockade would have made sure that it surrenders...it had lost the ability to cause harm...brutal force wasn't required.When countries have enlisted armies...it is for the protection of the civilian population from war...both in victory and defeat.

Not so. At least not before hundreds of thousands died of starvation or disease. No, the Japanese were not going to "surrender" without the capitulation of the Emperor. The atomic bombs brought the war to a quick end, like cauterizing a severe wound. Everyone was better off in the aftermath, except the people killed and injured at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The rest of the Japanese population could get on with the huge task of reconstruction and reconciliation. Which they did with energy and success. An abhorrence of nuclear bombs is natural. But your emotional statements, and one-sided recriminations, are naive hindsight, not truth.

 

[EyelessInGaza]

Japan had given up colonizing Asia Pcific..had lost the fight...it's AF and navy...

While they had been defeated in other parts of Asia, there were a million Japanese soldiers in China alone near the end of the war.

Japan may have lost the fight, but it's leaders were nowhere prepared to agree, nor accept defeat, nor give up. That is established history.

it just was one fortified island with many to defend it.a simple blockade would have made sure that it surrenders...it had lost the ability to cause harm...brutal force wasn't required.When countries have enlisted armies...it is for the protection of the civilian population from war...both in victory and defeat.

How long would a blockade have lasted to be successful? A year, two years? Five? What was the economic, moral, social cost of such a blockade. How would it be organized? What is the operational complexity of blockading an island the size of Japan? How many blockades have lasted more than six months anyway?

The US would have had to continue its bombing missions in the event of a blockade; how many Japanese casualties in that time?

Brute force is often required to end wars. In 1918, the Allies let Germany off the hook, more or less. Germans never accepted that their army lost for any other reason apart from 'betrayal'.

Two decades later, along came Hitler and more than 30 million people died the world over.

Brute force is often required to end wars. One may not like it, but that is the case.

 

[advaita]

Wonder if anyone has thought that perhaps due to the fearlessness of both Japan (in taking a hit) and US (in giving one) ensured that later on when USSR and USA both had nukes they actually did a lot to avoid this nuke war. Also this unequivocal win for US ensured that later Japs did not carry on the inferiority complex of a loss. Both sides did what they best could.

If an armyman decides to resist till death, he does not do it for the present only nor does he do it for his own benefit to the exclusion of all others. Just the same way when a civie decides to take on the rot in the system he does not do it for his present only nor does he do it for his own benefit to the exclusion of all others. For peace or for war we are in this together.

Nukes are just one more instrument of carrying on a fight, consequences were never in the hands of man. Man was allowed only the freedom of effort never the luxury of reward. In such a situatioin would it not be wise to avoid a war till it becomes absolutely necessary and once it becomes necessary would be equally wise to fight it with everything one got in order to provide for a possibility of a reasonable future. This i believe is just what US did and that is what every country should be doing.

 

[armyoptimist]

I think it is a tragic event when the bomb strucked the ground.

 

[funnyice]

Two things here: One , you missed the essenece of my post, i am not touting japan here , my main concern is civillian casualities --- 200,000 odd in two days.

Two your post is mostly based on if and buts which has no place in history.

Ask your Chineese friends to know more about the realities of the war that happened before you were born as a nation. Japaneese murdered thousands, lakhs of innocent chineese people after occupying it just in main land china and even does not apologized till today. Killing of its people in other nations is not even for accounts. China gets all tough these days and never spoke of the shame of that defeats of World War-II in hands of Japan. But War crimes by Japan imperialism are too much and it was so arrogant that the extreme steps needed to bring war to end...

 

[CorporateAffairs]

US is the first nation that should be trailed in an International court of law for its extermination on innocent Japs.

The US should learn from India that it would never use Nukes on non-nuke states!

Just dont understand when the US murdered Lakhs of humans, how big were the crimes committed by Saddam and Osama and Qadaffi were... death to US

 

[Facebooks]

US is the first nation that should be trailed in an International court of law for its extermination on innocent Japs.

The US should learn from India that it would never use Nukes on non-nuke states!

Just dont understand when the US murdered Lakhs of humans, how big were the crimes committed by Saddam and Osama and Qadaffi were... death to US

Are you a Retard?

Read this again:

Nuclear warfare is abhorrent, but the story is more nuanced than that.

By 1945 the USA had brought Japan to its knees; it's island hopping strategy had bought it close to the mainland.

However the resistance offered by the Japanese on an island as small as Okinawa shocked the US.

Some 120,000 Japanese died resisting the US on an 12000 Km square island. Very few Japanese gave up or survived. The US lost 12000 killed, 40,000 wounded.

This was just one Island; the calculation was that conquering Japan would cost the Allies at least 1 million killed, not counting injured.

The Japanese government showed no signs of surrendering even though it was bloodied.

And hence the bomb.

BTW, the US firebombing of Japan killed more people than the nukes and was equally if not more abhorrent.

 

[kawaraj]

that's horrible war, but continued throughout the history of mankind.

what the US has done was the most anti-humanity slaughter in the known history, it should be as evil as equal to Nazi holocaust.

 

[anonymus]

the failure of humanity was that the Americans were not made to pay for what they did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
If Japan would have been conquered by the American army..surely they'd have not killed the innocents.It was mass extermination....the gravest human crime.

This is a casual and honestly pretty stupid logic that people spew everywhere regarding nuclear bombs.

WWII was Brutal.Bombing of Dresden ran a casualty figure of 35000 in a single day.Bombing of Hamburg has a casualty figure of 80,000 which occurred over a period of three days.Battle of Stalingrad costed 850,000 German and red army 1,129,619 lives immediately and 2 million Germans dead in march towards POW camps.Siege of Leningrad took 1500000 casualties.

And Americans should be made to pay for 90000 casualties of Hiroshima.History's gravest crime.Great

Probably if they have used conventional bombing run which have equally devastating effect on a city as nuclear bombs,it would have been an commendable act.Even if they have to kill hundred times more people to force Japanese surrender.


Politically correct leftism turns people into sheepel and the worst part is that people think that they are enlightened when what they are doing is just following a commie narrative without reasoning.

 

[anon45]

that's horrible war, but continued throughout the history of mankind.

what the US has done was the most anti-humanity slaughter in the known history, it should be as evil as equal to Nazi holocaust.

You contradict yourself, if the nuclear bombings were the 'most anti-humanity slaughter in known history', they should not be equal to the Nazi holocaust, which is it?

I see why you hold your views, you struggle to form a coherent thought!

 

[breeze]

that's horrible war, but continued throughout the history of mankind.

what the US has done was the most anti-humanity slaughter in the known history, it should be as evil as equal to Nazi holocaust.

They have surpassed the Nazi's in many ways already.