Cruel and unusual or settin an example?

OTF, I am not sure I understand you correctly, are you asking why, if the a-bomb was dropped to show the Russians what the US had and was willing to use, why was the Bikini Atoll test carried out? That doesn't make much sense to me because the test was so long after the war and was (IIRC) a different type of bomb, more to the point it was after the Russians developed the A-bomb. The way I see it the first atomic bomb was at least in part to show the Russians what the USA was capable of, the later tests such as Bikini Atoll served the same purpos. Sorry if I have got you totally wrong on this...

 

no Stefan, you got it right, sorry for the miscommunication. Good point though, I mean why not drop an atomic bomb and set an example at the same time and later on, demonstrate a new and more powerful type of atomic bomb specifically towards showing the world what we had, not aggresive. Thanks for the input.

 

Don't want to re-open that worms can, but this statements is like a slap on my face!

The same said Hitler: "The Jews should be annihilated and they earned every bit of it! And the same goes for the Untermenschen in Russia and the Balcans!"

Of course the Japanese were Untermenschen for the Americans (and I see now, very annoyed, that some of them still are). You just have to read idiotic statements like the one above or watcha colour film of crewmen of USS Wahoo shooting hundreds of unarmed Japanese sailors in lifeboats.

 

The treaty of Versailles was one of the very reasons that Hitler got into power. Following this path will make the destruction come back like a boomerang later on. Maybe this should be remembered? Eh?

And I definitely cannot see any glory on destroying another country totally, to bring on the holocaust. That would have put the US on the same level with the nazis, definitely.

 

Agreed Generale & Stefan. Wilconqr, your name says it all doesn't it? First let me sum up your arguement:

This is what you said Wilconqr:

So I will paraphrase, the Japanese people had believed all their Government propaganda hook, line and sinker, they supported the war against the Americans who were trying to stop Japan's expansion into China and the Pacific. America got involved, they were attacked, and killed so many Americans that the American government should have annihilated all the Japanese population. Sum it up for you?

Ok Now Let me put a flip-side to it.

The American Government along with its allies have exploited the Arab nations for decades, capped the price of their only exports, petroleum products, enforced illegal occupations, supplied arms to Arab enemies INCLUDING WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION and placed heavy sanctions on perceived terrorists states. As an American, you enjoy the fact that you can speak out against the decisions of your government. Japan and Germany in 1940 could NOT. So, knowing all this:

Does that justify 9/11? Will that justify terrorists nuking, say the superbowl game? Why not just get a load of old Sov nukes and take out the entire state of OHIO.

Does that mean all Americans, your parents families and children have to pay the price (ie screaming death in a Nuclear inferno) for your government's actions whether they agree or not in the government's policies?

Of course NOT

You silly man.

[ 15. December 2003, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: BratwurstDimSum ]

 

Nuke a city and kill several thousands, or Storm the island by force, fire bomb all the cities and cost millions upon millions of casualties....hmmm...I'll take the lesser deaths that ended the war thank you.

 

That about sums it up. The world got sick of losing lives after 6 years of war.

 

And certainly, 130.000 people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a far better cost than some couple thousand American soldiers killed, along with some millions of Soviet soldiers killed, millions and millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians...

And I'm not saying that those 130.000 innocents killed deserved to die or had to... But they indirectly saved the lives of millions.

 

Come on Wilconqr the Fallout would most likely drift across the pacific and get you (and all of us).
As for killing inocent civilans because the actions of their goverment would be lowering your self to the war crimes of germany.

 

hey camz, wheres mildura, just wonderin?

 

Mildura is at the top of Victoria. Population is about 20,000 here is a Map of it.

 

This is a nice site about some ww2 planes that crashed around Mildura when it was a RAAF aerodrome
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/provinces/australia_mildura.html

 

That is a neat site camz, thanks.

 

Ack.....sorry about that but I am new to this forum and getting used to the features here.
What I intended to say was that in a meeting of the Interim Commiittee (which was appointed by Truman to study on how to use the atomic bombs) on May 31, 1945 asked this very question. Soon to be Sec of State James Byrnes later recalled the reason for not demonstrating the power of the bomb to the Japanese as such, "We feared that, if the Japanese were told that the bomb would be used on a given locality, they might bring our boys who were prisoners of war to that area. Also, the experts had warned us that the static test which was to take place in New Mexico (Trinity), even if successful, would not be conclusive proof that a bomb would explode when dropped from an airplane. If we were to warn the Japaneses of the new highly destructive weapon in the hope of impressing them and if the bomb then failed to explode, certainly we would have given aid and comfort to the Japanese militarists. Thereafter, the Japanese people probably would not be impressed by any statement we might make in the hope of inducing them to surrender."
As for the bomb being dropped on a purely military installation I think Gen. Curtis LeMay said it best when he stated, "We were going after military targets. No point in slaughtering civilians for the mere sake of slaughter. Of course there is a pretty thin veneer in Japan, but the veneer was there. It was their system of dispersal of industry. All you had to do was visit one of those targets after we'd roasted it and see the ruins of a multitude of tiny houses, with a drill press sticking up through the wreckage of every home. The entire population got into the act and worked to make those airplanes or munitions of war, men, women and children. We knew we were going to kill a lot of women and children when we burned a town. Had to be done."
The Committee concluded that they could not give the Japanese any warning and that they had to make a great phsychological impression on as much of the population as they could. This is why they agreed that the most desirable target be "a vital war plant employing a large number of workers and closely surrounded by workers' houses." Hiroshima and Nagasaki fit these requirements.
It should also be noted that Kyoto was initially listed as a primary target but eventually removed at the insistance of Sec of War Harold Stimson due to the city's long history of being a cultural center of Japan and its status as a former ancient capital.

 

Well, since the can of worms has been re-opened I'll add my 2cents worth. Japan got the same warning we had at Pearl Harbor. Would there be any differance had we flown a 1000 B-29s over with conventional bombs?

 

Just some notes on fallout and radiation in general....damn, being drunk doesn't make this easy....
Anyway, there are only 4 types of radiation from nuclear munitions: alpha, beta, neutron and, gamma.
Of these, only two are long lived: Alpha (a helium neucleus without electons) and Beta (a free electron). See what going throught the Navy's nuclear power program gets you....
So, all of the "fallout" is either a alpha or beta emmitter. See:
web page

Basically, if you are not stupid or unlucky simply wearing a simply dust mask and staying indoors as much as possible for a week or so after an A-bomb going off down wind will prevent you from being a casuality. I know this sounds simplistic but it is really the 90th percentile case. That is, in 9 out of 10 cases you survive simply doing this. Silly isn't it?

 

Kinda! I'd be the 10th case,taking my dust mask off to drink my cold Corona's.

 

Actually in my opinion the Japanese had more warning. The initial warning was the Potsdam Declaration. The last paragraph of which states, "We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction." Now without directly naming the atomic bomb they did tell Japanese what they could except should resistance continue.
As for the difference...I believe that there would not be nearly as big an uproar today had the US stuck to a strict conventional bombing plan. The results would have pretty much been the same with the exception of the radiation. Most people who speak against these bombings argue due to the fact that atomic bombs were used but they rarely decry the fact that 5 months previously Tokyo had been firebombed by B-29's with an almost equivalant loss of life when compared to Hiroshima or Nagasaki. In my opinion the results were the same. Hiroshima and Nagasaki just showed that the same result could be obtained at the risk of only 3 planes now instead of hundreds.

 

The bombs probably saved Japanese lives. Everything the Japanese had done up to the point of surrender suggests that they would have fought to the end, with every individual town having to be decimated to root out soldiers and militia, and civilians who didn't take up arms committing suicide.

Throughout the war the Japanese forces had shown themselves to be ruthless, horribly abusing any POWs or civilian prisoners they got their hands on was a joke to them. They were in many ways more fanatical than the most insane Waffen-SS unit, the only way you'd capture Japanese prisoners being if they were too wounded to off themselves. Was there a Japanese peace movement? Hell, there was even a small German peace movement, eg Niemoller and so forth. And yet while the Germans have spent the last 50 plus years bowing and scraping for their crimes, the Japanese government still more or less denies that the rape of Nanking, etc, happened, and high-up government officials actually visit a shrine to executed war criminals.


I'm sorry to go overboard, but I really get quite incensed (sp?) at the behaviour of the Japanese and the more or less open refusal of Japan's government to apologize, even though in America it is widespread to feel associated guilt for the dropping of the bombs.