Atomic bomb legacy haunts Hiroshima families

Why don't you check with the people of Nanking and see if they feel sorry for the poor Nipponese Mark4. Approximately the same amount of people died in Nanking and the two atomic bombings. The difference is that one incident was for fun, and the other was to end a war that was sure to cause millions of more casualties.

It's easy for people in this day and time to say that dropping the bombs were terrible and wrong. Put yourself in 1945, as a infantryman going in with the first waves and see what you think about it then. The Japs (of that era) got off too easy. We should have dropped more bombs.

Have you noticed, Japan hasn't started any crap with anyone since 1945. I wonder how happened?

 

....unless you regard defoliation was a redeeming attribute The term “dioxin” is most commonly used for a family of derivatives of dioxin, known as polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs)...and perhaps the most famous long-term release of PCCDs into the environment was the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam...!

But it's worth noting that there is a whole panel of chemicals that are known as "Dioxin-like" or "Dioxins" because of their very similar and derivate damage they cause - including PCBs used as coolants and insulating fluids for transformer and capacitors in components of early fluorescent light fittings, electrical transformers, plasticizers in paints and cements, stabilizing additives in flexible PVC coatings of electrical wiring and electronic components, pesticide extenders, cutting oils, reactive flame retardants, lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, domestic sealants for caulking in schools and commercial buildings, adhesives, wood floor finishes, paints, water-proofing compounds, casting agents, vacuum pump fluids, fixatives in microscopy, surgical implants, and in carbonless copy paper!

Then there was THIS - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Irish_pork_crisis

We have INTENTIONALLY released daily FAR greater amounts of teratogenic/carcinogenic compounds into our environment than we ever did in Japan in August 1945...

 

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that what became known as "dioxin" as a useful chemical was discovered as a "side product"of another process, not a destination of research toward a goal. If I am mistaken, I apologize.

 

IIRC the OTHER issue with Dioxin and Dioxin-like compounds, as well as their toxicity etc., is - they're almost impossible to destroy! The majority of them got into the environment/atmosphere in the first place because of combustion/burning....so materials containing them can't exactly be incinerated...

At least various radioisotopes released/created by a nuclear explosion have a short, medium or longterm half-life....they'll eventually become safe! Dioxins won't...

 

As someone with ties to the nuclear industry and many in it, I am deeply offended by your comment.

As others have said, the use of nuclear weapons against Japan (although 'not the nicest thing') saved hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of lives and prevented the complete destruction of the Japanese islands. Again, as others have stated, do a search for "Invasion of Japan" or "Operation Downfall".

And on the Cold War arms race: dare I say that the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction, "MAD", that resulted from the huge stockpiles of nuclear arms did in fact prevented a third world war? With conventional weapons, there is no threat of your nation being wiped off the map in mere minutes, whereas that is a very real threat when dealing with nuclear-armed superpowers, as was the case between the NATO powers and the USSR. If there was no threat of their country being destroyed, do you think the Soviets would have hesitated to push into Western Europe with their many armies (who outnumbered those of the allied nations) in the few years after WWII?

 

Somewhat related, and very well written;

Dangerous nuclear illusions

 

It's only PC wringing of hands and apologizing;you know :US were(are) bad,very bad .
The duties of the US commander in chief were
1)to finish the war as quickly as possible;well,IMHO,the Bombs were shortening the war;you can correct me if I am wrong
2)to do this with as less as possible American casualties;well,IMHO,the Boms saved American lives;you can correct me if I am wrong .
Btw:the use of these arguments will be efficient to shut up the adherents of PC .

 

An old cold war joke... ''they'll be no war, but in the struggle for peace not a stone will be left standing.''

So bomb or no bomb, twenty million people have died in wars since the end of WW2.

But apart from millions dead & who knows how many millions maimed, with the nuclear genie out of the bottle is the bigger problem the possible future spread of nuclear weapons [despite the non proliferation treaty] could more rogue more states like North Korea or more countries like Iran, decide to develop their own sometime in the future?

Will the nuclear armed countries ever get rid their own stockpiles completely?

And 'if' more countries do get them, the odds are that there's more chance someone uses them, might not auger too well for future generations.

The possibility of the Soviet Union starting WW3 but for the nukes, is mainly myth according to Sovietologist P H Vigor on Soviet theory of expansionist wars.......he goes on to say............

...Historically this was done only when the circumstances were right. Soviet theory considers that the revolution must never be put at risk & that circumstances were wrong for the undertaking of a military expedition unless it's success can be taken virtually for granted.

And historically speaking there have been none too many occasions when an expedition by the Sovs armed forces was well nigh bound to be successful. For a number of years after ww11 they had little hope of attacking successfully any economically strong well armed opponents as a result of their tremendous losses of men and material that occurred on the Eastern Front & the state of their economy...

And Soviet expert George Kennan, says.. history as understood by Marx's materialist conception of history -- the communists were in no hurry and would not risk major war.


Here in the west we have the tendency -- not unusual, I suppose -- to place the entire responsibility of the cold war upon the shoulders of the Soviet Union, but after seeing the Americans quickly demobilising & with their main nemesis Germany neutered the Russians decided to do the same, demobilising about four million men within a few months of the end of the war.


In the immediate post war the Soviets were more interested in controlling Eastern Europe & rebuilding a completely devastated country then wanting to start WW3 straight after what they just went through. The Sovs lost at least 30 million people during the war and many more from Stalin's decade of purge trials. 70,000 towns & villages & thirty thousand factories and forty thousand miles of railroad tracks had been destroyed. Most of the industrialization that Stalin had promised and delivered to his people with the Five Year Plans had been lost.

So realistically, [if you believe Western Soviet experts like Vigor, Kennan etc,] there was probably as much chance of the Red Army initiating an attack West post war, [bomb or no bomb] as there was in July '41 as described by Sururov, & that was probably next to no chance.

In all likelihood the Russians were probably just as afraid of attack from the West as vica versa & going on past history you can't really blame them.

 

I would understand why the bomb still haunts the minds of these families. The effects of the bomb's radiation would still continue to this day and would further affect the Japanese population leading to unknown disease or a certain birth defect. Those who survived the blast and the radiation are still scarred by the memories of that day and days onward.

This video should show you the true carnage of the blast from the perspective of a witness and would explain the scars left on the survivors:
(a quick note, the author of the manga that gave way to this anime was a bomb survivor and anyone faint of heart shouldn't click the link)
YouTube - Barefoot Gen, HIroshima Destroyed

 

That may well be true but in the abscence of nuclear weapons the risks change considerably. Korea for example could easily have gotten out of hand. Would the Soviets have risked a confrontation sooner in the Med East? or else where? Even in Europe there were some tense times.

 

It wasn't worth the risk for EITHER side to push the boundaries too far.......

As Triple C said on.........

http://www.ww2f.com/what-if-europea...es-war-allies-after-berlin.html?daysprune=365

'The two sides were tactically well matched. In case of a shooting war, there would be bloodshed on an unimaginable scale which was why it never broke out.'


And saluted by.............

 

It is hard to say how different our world would be had the atomics not been used, but sooner or later someone would develop them. So to envision a world without them just is not in the cards.

 

That's not only a tautology it's rather irrelevant. What matters is percieved risk and percieved gain. The lack of atomic weapons will for the most part lower percieved risk. As it was Mac wanted to use atomics in Korea. Without the threat of them would the US have gone after targets on the other side of the Yalu? Perhaps. If so would the Soviets have intervened? Or tried to pull some thing in Europe or elsewhere? The danger of things spiralling out of control would likely have been considerably greater.

 

And more's the pity isn't it?

As Eisenhower said after the weapon was quickly expanded from 20,000 tons of TNT to 10,000,000 tons with the testing of the hydrogen bomb...........

'Science seems ready to confer upon us, as it's final gift, the power to erase human life from this planet.'

And Kennedy said at the height of the cold war''Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.''

At least the doomsday clock has moved back one minute recently, so 'perhaps' with a bit of luck, we might not end up destroying ourselves, although going by past history you might not want to hold your breath.

Perhaps, but a major danger seemed to be not so much things spiralling out of control in a conventional war in Korea, but spiralling out of control in a nuclear war.

Apart from Mac, the possibility of using nuclear weapons was contemplated by Truman, & also by Eisenhower.

But 'if' things did escalate to include the Soviets , the Soviets themselves could possibly have been the biggest losers as you say.............

....Pretty much all of Europe looses but the Soviets even more so. Britain, US, and the Commonwealth end up on top....

And Stalin wasn't crazy.

 

Not sure I'd consider the time frame quick or why it's important. Of course I'm also not sure what the relevance of the above quotes is to the topic at hand.

You talk like the "doomsday clock" actually has some import asside from being a propaganda tool for the UCS.

Acutally mankind has shown itself to be rather resiliant. I susspect an extinction event is far more likely to be an astroid strike than a nuclear war.

When you do a risk assessment you take into account the probability of events as well as their cost. A conventional war was much more likely to spiral out of control and the potential damage could be on the same order of magnitude or even greater than a nuclear one.

And decided against.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

I usually get in on the end of threads because I am not always able to read quickly the postings but I do hold compassion for those that suffered from the effects of the A-Bombs. Along with my compassion for their suffering that is long term I also comprehend that the suffering undergone by victims of the Holocaust amongst many Jews and others that Germany imprisoned did not end when they were freed. Many soon died and many ailments could not be cured as the human body cannot always recover from starvation. I also will point out that the sufferers of the cruel imprisonment on Bataan was not unlike that suffered by the victims of the Holocaust in that the survivors often suffered from damage to organs and general health brought on by their starvation and suffering. Some also suffered this in the German prisons as food was not present for POW's many times after our fliers were downed in their air war. We must have compassion for all who suffered greatly in this war and acknowledge that suffering is easily documentable on all sides of this great conflict. Read all the information and soon you will conclude that the A-Bombs however evil they may be....saved lives on both sides in this conflict.

 

How the Japanese find honor in such behavior is beyond me. Maybe we should have dropped four of five big ones on them instead of just two.

 

Only four or Five? I am sure that there are some veterans of the Pacific campaign that would have rather seen more. I had an uncle who was 24th ID and I asked him one time what he thought about the Japanese and their domination of the western electronics market. He very sagely took me into his work shop and showed me a small transistor radio. He said he bought in about 1950 and it was the only piece of Japanese merchandise that he owned and it had worked perfectly for the last 30 years. His only complaint was that it didn't glow in the dark. I am thinking he was a 6 or 8 bomb kinda guy.