BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: number 6
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 10:37 PM

"The tempest over whether WWII was a nuclear war or not is moot. It is certainly spurious to maintain that there was a four day 'nuclear war' within the greater conflagration of World War II."

Very elequent robomatic ... I believe the only ones who really can provide a conlusive answer to all of this are the remaining survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: robomatic
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 10:14 PM

Freda:

wikipedia is a continuously updated web encyclopedia, and as such its accuracy is a sort of "accuracy of the majority." As far as Einstein and Szilard are concerned, neither was directly involved in the bomb development and the decision to use it. Szilard has been credited with the basic conception of nuclear fission, and he wrote a letter for Einstein to sign to 'get the ball rolling' in 1939, I think, when it appeared that Germany might have a technical lead in bomb R & D. Neither of them actually participated in bomb development. That means that neither would be a part of the decision making process. There were, of course, many scientists who were in favor of using the bomb, including, at the critical moment, J. Robert Oppenheimer, the technical and scientific leader of bomb development at Los Alamos.

An important correction to the above post that Truman had two bombs. There was a third bomb released to the military. After the bombing of Nagasaki, the American leadership mandated the return of the bomb, a 'fat man' plutonium bomb identical to the Nagasaki bomb, back to civilian control. Obviously, it was never used.

The tempest over whether WWII was a nuclear war or not is moot. It is certainly spurious to maintain that there was a four day 'nuclear war' within the greater conflagration of World War II. At the time of first use, atomic weapons were merely considered new weapons, such as poison gas of WWI. It was from the people closest to the new developments that the argument came to consider these weapons of a new class altogether. These people knew something that no one else knew, that waiting in the wings was the potential development of a 'new' new bomb, 1000 times more powerful than the atomic bomb. When this concept was first tested, it eliminated the island it was mounted on.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: number 6
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 09:13 PM

As I have mentioned in other threads here at the Mudcat ... in the horror of war it's the innocent that pay the highest price ... did the great warlords of power ever give a humane thought to the housewifes and children of Dresden, Coventry, Nagasaki, Guernica, Shanghai and .....


sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Lighter
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 08:22 PM

Truman had just two atom bombs, and he bet correctly that their use would end the war quickly. Shortly befroe Hiroshima, he promised publicly that Japan's failure to surrender would result in "a rain of ruin the like of which the world has never seen."

Even though Tokyo and sixty other Japanese cities had already been leveled by firebombing, Japan refused even to discuss surrender. As a "god" and the "father" of all Japanese, Emperor Hirohito could have ended the war at any time with just one decree. In fact, the war couldn't have started without his acquiescence and approval. A quiet, introverted man himself, Hirohito was strongly sympathetic to the militarists from the beginning. He also seemed to believe that as the direct divine descendant of the Rising Sun, crude meddling in "mere politics" was beneath him. After everything else, it still took two atom bombs to change his mind.

Compare and contrast. The Italian military threw in the towel in 1943 because they were sick of losing an aggressive war that meant nothing to them. Mussolini's Fascists were kicked out of southern Italy, and the new government joined with the Allies in fighting Hitler. If Hirohito had taken responsibility sooner as the ultimate leader of the Japanese nation, the bombs could not have been dropped.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 07:07 PM

One of the prominent critics of the bombings was Albert Einstein. Leo Szilard, a scientist who played a major role in the development of the atomic bomb, argued "If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them."
Their use has been called barbaric as several hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed, and the choice of areas heavily populated by civilians. In the days just before their use, many scientists (including Edward Teller) argued that the destructive power of the bomb could have been demonstrated without the taking of lives.
It has been argued that the use of atomic weapons against civilian populations on a large scale is a crime against humanity and a war crime. The use of poisonous weapons (due to the effects of the radiation) were defined as war crimes by international law of the time. Some have argued that Americans should have done more research into the effects of the bomb, including radiation sickness and the terrible burns that followed the explosion.

The information I have posted comes from Wikipedia sources

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Peace
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 06:48 PM

The Second World War cost the lives of more than 55,000,000 people.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Peace
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 06:38 PM

It was indeed a nuclear war.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 06:22 PM

We did not have a nuclear war in 1945. We simply put a quick end to the 2nd World War that had already cost hundreds of thousands of lives and had the potential of taking upwards of another million lives.

No more war would be great, but our civilization has never realized this possibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 06:15 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Peace
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 06:11 PM

I think the official surrender was about a week later.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Peace
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 06:10 PM

The first nuclear war in history started on on August 6, 1945 and ended three days later at Nagasaki. If we have learned nothing else, please let it be that we do not want another nuclear war.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 05:23 PM

When I lived in Japan I made a visit to Hiroshima. The thing that sticks in my mind is not the horrific waxworks but the smaller items in the exhibition, the watch that stopped at the time oif the detonation, the twisted childs tricycle and other personel affects.

On the day I visited, which was during 'Golden Week' a week long holdiday in May there were many school parties. Several approached us and asked us our nationality. British I replied. They then asked what we thought about the bomb drop?

I had to agree it was a devastating demonstration of power, but when I asked these same students about the history of the Pacific War and why such a bomb was used they had no reply. Their school history books then and today do not cover the reasons or the actions of the Japanese forces in Asia or the war crimes committed against the Chinese, Thais, Phillipinos, Koreans.

This very fact still causes hatred of the Japanese in the region.

So while I agree that the bomb drop was an awfull thing the Japanese politicians should use the 6th August as a day of mourning not just for the Japanese who lost their lives but also to offer some kind of honour to those they tortured and pillaged and killed in their campaigns.

I am not anti-Japanese but I find the ambivalence to the suffering they caused at odds with the way the whole thing is turned into a guilt trip against those that fought them.

If you think that there are no right wingers left in Japan who want a return to Imperialism then go to the Yasukuni Shrine a week before the 6th August and witness the gathering of them. This group of people are still in denial and they include many of the Japanese Diet's politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 04:27 PM

mooman, what is YOUR point?

How many were killed by the Japanese Empire prior to the dropping of the A-bomb? How many countries had Japan invaded? How many additional Bataan death marches would it have taken to possibly alter your outlook?

robomatic does an excellent job of making the situation understandable. But, perhaps, not to those to have a deep resentment for the US, be they citizen or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 04:26 PM

"War, unfortunately, and a lot of 'pacifists' on here don't get, is muddy, violant, and barbaric at times."

Thats why pacifists oppose war. We 'get it' but we do not think that war is the answer to the problem. Violence begets violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Sorcha
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 03:58 PM

OK....I am not real sure where I stand on this. My dad was on the first ship in to Yokahama harbour after the bomb....he said they might have surrendered but never lived that way because of bushido.....

He also said that McArthur was a swell headed asshole.....
If we wanted to impress Moscow, why wasn't Patton allowed to go there?

Do you really think the kamikaze attacks would have stopped w/o the Bomb? (real question...not rhetorical)

Dad is dead now so I can't ask him....

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: mooman
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 02:29 PM

...that should have read 100s of thousands

Sorry.

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: mooman
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 02:27 PM

P.S.

Fact:   200 000+ perfectly innocent civilians were instantly killed or suffered subsequent slow death by radiation.

Untested supposition:   That this saved the lives of 100 000s of thousand Allied forces and Japanese forces and civilians.

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 02:00 PM

How about the fact that Freda is here.

Sacrifice a few to save many?

The civilation of this Planet has been doing this since the
beginning. Hitler, The Russian Gulag, Cambodia (Pol Pot era), etc. millions killed with far less reason. We possibly had a better reason
for the attacks on Japan.

Why are there such rabid attempts to denigrate the USA
in past years? This Country is far from perfect but does not the record of others. Africa is a present example.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: mooman
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 01:55 PM

That opinion is your perogative DougR.

I have, however, taken the trouble to read extensively on the topic. Perhaps they also were just naive authors. I also have spoken to a number of British navy personnel who were involved in the Pacific theatre (including my own father when he was still alive). But obviously the wrong ones.

Mea culpa.

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST,Robert Price
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 01:51 PM

robomatic i completely agree. Of course the bomb was a tragedy, but as a Non-American, i don't feel America owes any apology. War, unfortunately, and a lot of 'pacifists' on here don't get, is muddy, violant, and barbaric at times.

That bomb brought a long war to a quick close. It ENDED WAR.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: DougR
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 01:45 PM

Geeze, Piers, Mooman, you don't come across as pathological to me. Just naive.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 12:25 PM

Why Hiroshima? Why a civilian population? Why a second bomb on Nagasaki?

Any way you look at it, it was an atrocity.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: robomatic
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 10:57 AM

Freda:

All the people you are choosing as authorities:

Had no idea what the atomic bomb was.
Were not directly involved in the decision making including the facts behind the decision making. In particular, Eisenhour was fighting the war in Europe and no way knew the whole story on the Pacific. MacArthur was later to recommend the use of the bomb to win the Korean War.

I find your references to these folk and the others in your repeated post to be suspicious, unless you can cite sources.

As for a lot of the other responses, equating violence with violence, let's back up to whether or not you think Hitler deserved to be defeated with violence, whether occupied France deserved to be invaded at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. It had a working government at the time, after all, (several of them!)

The original post confused its casualty figures by citing the ultimate death count with the immediate casualties of the blast. I was astonished to see that the original post was a quotation of a hysterical poster from Australia. The Japanese had as their stated objective the colonization of Australia, and they tried.

The damage of the atomic bombs to the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was indeed terrible, but it was on the same scale as the damage to Tokyo from massive fire bombing raids wrought by an extremely 'advanced' and large bomber, the B-29, which was developed from a project almost as expensive as The Manhattan Project. These planes were pulverizing Japan and Japan had essentially no defenses. They had run out of the fuel supplies necessary to export their own violence. Their airforce was gone, their navy defeated, but their ability to assume defensive positions that could only be assailed at great cost was demonstrated all through the war, and there was no evidence that the home island would be any different.

As for the motivation of the US re: Russia, I refer you again to records of the decision making within the US that indicate the dropping of the bomb on Japan to end the war was gone into at many levels, and not everyone agreed. That's to be expected in a Democratic government.

There are a lot of good books on this subject. It's a worthwhile subject because it's one of the most important events of the Twentieth Century, if not the most important (the entire Nuclear story). It gave us the world we live in today.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 09:44 AM

speculation, opinion, evidence. hot air, a huge blast of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 09:39 AM

The #2 comment I refer to no doubt illustrates the possibility of many not being here without the bomb. Your father was in the military and you had not been born..................

The scope of this type of warfare was no doubt beyond the comprehension of 'old war horses' like Eisenhower and MacArthur.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 09:37 AM

Repeat:

The following senior US military leaders at that time were opposed to the dropping of the bomb, and stated that there was no military justification for it:

General Douglas MacArthur, Fleet Admiral William Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials); Major General Curtis LeMay ; and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 09:35 AM

A friend of mine overheard a middle aged woman say "they would not have attacked Pearl Harbour if we hadnt dropped the bomb on them first" I worry about our future when history is corrupted by hearsay. The bomb was dropped to end the War not for the reasons Freda says; any attempt to change that fact just belies history and documented fact.

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: jets
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 09:33 AM

As I have said before,I was on a ship heading for Italy to load tanks and heavy weapons for the invasion of Japan; when the Bombs were dropped. Need you ask how I felt.
The enemy was defeted but not willing to live in defeat Thus the bomb.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 09:28 AM

I go with General Dwight D. Eisenhower and General Douglas MacArthur, as quoted above, who were against the dropping of the bomb.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 09:10 AM

I think the #2 comment at the end of Shakeys 'source' speaks volumes.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 09:07 AM

Hiroshima bomb may have carried hidden agenda
21 July 2005 NewScientist.com news service

The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory. Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.

"He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species," says Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, US. "It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity." New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman's main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.

According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was "looking for peace". Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

"Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan," says Selden. Truman was also worried that he would be accused of wasting money on the Manhattan Project to build the first nuclear bombs, if the bomb was not used, he adds.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 09:01 AM

Japanese sources have stated that the atomic bombings themselves weren't the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, they contend, it was not the American atomic attacks on August 6 and August 9, but the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Stalin's August 8 declaration of war that forced the Japanese message of surrender on August 15, 1945. Certainly the fact of both enemies weighed into the decision, but it was more the fear of Soviet occupation that hastened imperialistic Japan's acceptance of defeat.

"No evidence has ever been uncovered that leaflets warning of atomic attack were dropped on Hiroshima. Indeed, the decision of the Interim Committee was that we could not give the Japanese any warning."

However, after the Hiroshima bombing, Truman announced "If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth." On August 8, 1945 leaflets were dropped and warnings were given to Japan by Radio Saipan. (The area of Nagasaki did not receive warning leaflets until August 10, though the leaflet campaign covering the whole country was over a month into its operations.) On August 9, 1945 at 11:02 (Nagasaki time) Fat Man exploded at 1950 feet near the perimeter of the city, exploding directly over the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works with a yield of 19-23 kt.

The decision to bomb Nagasaki only a few days after Hiroshima raises separate issues. Some people hold that most of the arguments for the use of the atomic bomb do not justify dropping the second one on Nagasaki. In his semi-autobiographical novel Timequake, Kurt Vonnegut said that while the Hiroshima bomb may have saved the lives of his friends in the U.S. armed forces, Nagasaki still proved that the United States was capable of senseless cruelty.

Sources for this and the previous post: Eisenhower, Dwight D. The White House Years: Mandate for Change, 1953-56. Garden City: Doubleday.

James, D. Clayton. The Years of MacArthur, 1941-1945, vol. II. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

United States Strategic Bombing Survey. Japan?s Struggle to End the War. Washington: Government Printing Office.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 08:56 AM

General Dwight D. Eisenhower advised the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, in July of 1945 that the Japanese were already essentially defeated, and therefore use of the bombs was unnecessary.

The highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater, General Douglas MacArthur, was not consulted beforehand, but said afterward that there was no military justification for the bombings.

The same opinion was expressed by Fleet Admiral William Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials); Major General Curtis LeMay ; and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.

Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years, "in 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. ..I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment, was I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives"

MacArthur believed the dropping of the bombs to be "completely unnecessary from a military point of view."

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 08:45 AM

60 years on, there are still preople who think they can slaughter people as a matter of public policy.

the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague, was set up in 2002 to investigate and prosecute people for genocide and war crimes. When the Court was established seven countries voted against it. They included China, Israel, the United States, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Only three years after the ICC came into being, it is already subject to the same kind of national pressures which have stopped the UN dealing effectively with crimes against humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 08:15 AM

Barbaric in its results? Yes. An understandable decision at the time? Yes. Something to avoid in the future? Absolutely. I won't rehash what I've said elsewhere except to say again when it appeared that surrender was imminent, Japanese Army officers actually tried to overthrow the government in order to keep the war going.

People unfamiliar with the code of bushido, the recognition of the emperor as an infallible god, and the belief that mass death is preferable to national humilition cannot understand the cultural frame of mind that dominated Japan 60 years ago, no matter what reservations individual Japanese may have had.

War is indeed Hell, and in ways that most people do not even imagine. One hellish aspect is that, when the stakes are high enough, nations will use whatever means they have to win. That includes atom bombs, the disproportionate answer to kamikazes, nerve gas and germ warfare (both of which the Japanese had used in China and would have used again). At war in Hell, you fight fire with fire.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Shakey
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 06:54 AM

My in-laws told me that Japan would never have surrendered without the Atomic bomb. What would they know? They were there. My father-in-law worked in the shipyards in Hiroshima, and traded days off with a co-worker or he surely would have died. As it was, they were gathering firewood, quite close to the explosion. I believe they lived near the next train stop from Hiroshima station (toward Tokyo) at that time. This is something like 5 minutes away by train. My sister-in-law, who would have been around 3 or 4 at the time, was knocked down by the blast. They found and cared for a badly burned young boy, who later died from his injuries. In my in-law�s opinion, the quick end to the war was the better outcome. The critics have a long way to go to convince me otherwise.

See here

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: mooman
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 06:36 AM

And I refer you to the numerous posts in earlier threads on this unfortunate subject that analyse the situation, including the status of the Japanese civilian population and military, and of the Allied position, in far greater detail.

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Shakey
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 06:31 AM

I refer you to the post by robomatic and point out that the Japanese were warned of the attack but chose to continue fighting.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 05:50 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: mooman
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 05:15 AM

I have posted on this topic many times before and am not going to go over all the same arguments again, and quite agree with Piers and Freda above.

To call the instant incineration and radioactive poisoning of well over 200,000 civilians anything but utterly barbaric portrays a lack of reason and, as Piers says, a symptom of some serious pathology.

I'm sorry if this offends some but I have to say it.

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Piers
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 05:00 AM

To attempt to justify the US attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki you must have totally lost the plot. The kind of delusions that suggest the insanity of war can be countered with war of yet even more insane proportions must be a symptom of some serious pathology.

I understand that we are exposed to incessant propaganda telling us we are in some way on the same side as those who start wars. But surely the actual experience of seeing friends and relatives sent to war and seeing people just like you fighting and dying on the other 'side' negates that. Along with the fact that whoever 'wins' the war the majority of society are in the same position they were when they started.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: robomatic
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 01:55 AM

It ended the war.

It demonstrated in no uncertain terms that waging the kind of war that Japan had waged on China, on England, on the United States, on Burma, on Indonesia, in the Phillipines and Southeast Asia, was to be a thing of the past.

It ended the worship of the Emperor of Japan as a god.
It ended the military domination of the government of Japan.

It forestalled further Soviet penetration into Japan.

It spared the lives of millions of American soldiers who would have been in on the invastion of the home island.

It spared the lives of millions of Japanese soldiers and citizens who would have been inducted into the Japanese defense of the home island.

The atomic bomb was the equivalent of two thousand-plane raids. Conventional attacks were in the ballpark of this amount of carnage as the firebombing of Tokyo will testify.

The use was of the atomic bomb was discussed and debated from the scientific community to the top levels of the government of the US.

The fact that we debate the issues to this day is a credit to the willingness of the participants to live by, review, and listen to the judgement of others after the fact.

Many of us who are the children of vets regard our existence as an outcome of the use of the two atomic bombs.

The use of the bomb as a weapon was justifiable.
The damage of the bomb was terrible.
It should be reviewed, it should be discussed, and the lessons we learn should be up for review as long as humans think of making war.

The United States owes no apology regarding the use of atomic weapons.

Remember, it took more than one. (We had three).

It ended the war.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 01:14 AM

We hate to do this, Doug, but we're afraid we'll have to mostly agree with you here.

We recently interviewed a man (since deceased) who was in the U.S. Coast Guard during WWII. He was with McArthur in the Philipines for which he got a bronze star. In 1945 he was moved to the Aleutian Islands, a staging area for the invasion of Japan. He said the military estimated there would be 300,000 American casualties in this invasion. His commanding officer ordered everyone to write at least one letter home and not to expect to survive the invasion.

Then, the bomb was dropped and Japan surrendered without an invasion. It was a horrible thing to do but the alternative was even worse.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: DougR
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 12:58 AM

True, Freda (and we have been over this territory many times before) and Harry S. Truman save coutless American and Japanize lives by authorizing the dropping of the bomb. Jeeze, get real you folks! Were you even ALIVE when the bomb was dropped, Freda? Did you run the risk of your Father dying in an invasion of Japan?

The dropping of those bombs, as horrible as it was to the Japanese citizens who suffered because of it, was one of the great decisions of World WarII.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: number 6
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 12:13 AM

Azizi .... Hiroshima is one of the many horrible things man has ever done in this world ... Hiroshima should have been the last of all horrific acts upon humanity ... it should have been the last.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Azizi
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 09:32 PM

I'm sorry-let me correct this sentence because I think it is important to do so:

.. Hiroshima is one of the most horrible things that ever happened in this world.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Azizi
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 09:30 PM

Freda, I hate to read and think about horrible things. And Hiroshima one of the most horrible things that ever happened in this world.
I have forced myself to read about this unspeakable act because it was the least I could do as a thinking, breathing, caring American.

If the USA as a nation has not apologized for dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we should have.

It's the very least we can do.

Please post stories from the book that you illustrated.
I will be prepared to cry.


Azizi

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: freda underhill
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 07:43 PM

On Saturday it will be 60 years since the bomb went off.

I'm interested in hearing people's memories and thoughts about Hiroshima. For me, my parents were in Japan after the war. My father was part of the allied occupying forces there. My mother joined him, and they went to Hiroshima to see the devastation there, when she was pregnant with my older sister.

I grew up in a house full of beautiful Japanese art works, it was only when I was older that I realised what had happened there.

Years later, I illustrated a book which included interviews with women from around the world. The author was a man called Floating Eaglefeather, a native american storyteller. One of the interviews was with a Japanese woman telling her story about her experiences there. Somewhere, at the bottom of a cupboard, I have that book and will post some of her story when i find it.

Subject: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: freda underhill
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 07:00 PM

Sixty years ago, on August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, incinerating 140,000 men, women and children. On August 9, a second American atomic bomb destroyed 74,000 men, women and children in Nagasaki. The bombs were dropped to test the effects of a nuclear device on a city and to intimidate the former Soviet Union. They were NOT dropped to end World War 2. This was an act of unbelievable barbarity.

ABOLISH ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS

On the 60th anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the people of the world are calling with renewed determination for the abolition of all nuclear weapons. The US, France, Britain, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan and India together still have more than 28,000 nuclear weapons. The Bush administration is not cutting its nuclear weapons. Instead it has developed more
sophisticated and powerful bombs and is now developing mini-nukes, bunker busters and nuclear weapons for space.

The threat of nuclear annihilation has been revived by George W Bush.

The US has shown it will inflict "pre-emptive" attacks and "preventive" wars on any state that threatens its interests, creating fear and insecurity, replacing the rule of international law with the law of the jungle, and fuelling the arms race. The US also claims the right to attack any country from space. The Bush administration has brutally and illegally invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq and continues to threaten Iran, North Korea, Syria and Cuba.

The Howard Government has given unconditional moral, political and practical support to all the recent US aggressive actions. This must stop!

TROOPS HOME FROM IRAQ NOW
US foreign policy has left many thousands dead, thousands more with broken bodies, and destabilised the Middle East.

Civilians and soldiers suffer the appalling effects of depleted uranium weapons, cluster bombs and land mines, and the destruction of water supply, sewerage and power.

The Australian Government has spent over $1.25 billion since 2003 on the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. This has brought Iraq neither peace, freedom nor democracy. It has made Australia and the world less secure.

THE COST OF WAR

The Howard Government's military budget has escalated to over $60 million a day. This steals resources from health, education, job creation, the environment, and services for the poor and disadvantaged. An extra $700 million — less than two weeks military spending — spent on public hospitals each year would overcome their critical problems.

from Hiroshima, sixty years on