We did warn the people of the bombing, before we dropped them.
@Thisperson98 The Allies dropped leaflets warned a number of cities that they were liable to be attacked by firebombing, not atomic weapons. Some people fled, but the Japanese government was heavily encouraging people to stay and continue war production and prepare for an invasion.
We never mentioned it because the civilians would have no clue what an atomic bomb was. We never said it was firebombing that would destroy the cities.
@Thisperson98 blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/04/26/a-day-too-late/They were already firebombing other cities. The people reading the leaflets would know this and that is what they would be expecting.
And, we did warn them the cities would be destoried days before, we never mentioned how. And even if we did, I doubt many people would know what an atomic bomb was.
@Thisperson98 I don't see what your point is.
The point being, we warned them about the destruction of the cities. We didn't mention how, because no one would know what an atomic bomb was.
@Thisperson98 We're going in circles here. So what if they were warned? Why do you keep posting this in response to mine and other people's opinions? The entirety of Japan was being attacked to destroy their industrial and military capability. There was nowhere to go. They were on their islands with the Allies closing in from all directions.
Japan has rural areas that wasn't being bombed.
@Thisperson98 whatever, dude. I don't see how this is relevant. When your whole country is being attacked, your own government is trying to keep the fight going and is conscripting civilians into support roles as well as arresting people found in possession of those warning leaflets, there's not much else you can do. You certainly can't expect millions of city dwellers to just disperse into the countryside which is absolutely not equipped to support or shelter them all *just in case* their city gets bombed next.
Actually the place was safe to live in after a decade or two. Radiation goes away very quickly.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
You forget that we have graduated from pure explosive power. The current new fad in nuclear explosions is to make neutron bombs which can penetrate basically any shelter or defense without actually destroying the buildings themselves and only killing everything inside.
@Crapulus "World record is 57 Mt."The "Tsar Bomba" according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_BombaThere's also "Tactical" nukes now such as the B61 series or specifically the B61-12 which has a adjustable variable yield between (.3 to 340 kiloton), one article call this "The Most Dangerous Nuclear Weapon in America's Arsenal": nationalinterest.org/.../the-most-dangerous-nuclear-weapon-americas-arsenal-13433
If they were already surrendering, why did they have to drop 2 bombs?
@that_dude_v2 Well thats the question isent it? Japan got a new government in April 1945 with the aim of ending the war and there had been talk about surrendering as far back as September 1944. The Americans also knew all this because they had cracked the Japanese radio communication etc..For reference the bombs were dropped the 6th and 9th of August 1945
People live there today, it is just background radiation now. And no, they refused the option of surrender.
Also there was talks about surrender, but they always decided to not to surrender.
@Thisperson98 My mistake. Its indeed true that Hiroshima and Nagasaki is currently livable because the atomic bombs were detonated in the air and sent almost all the radioactive debris scattering to the winds and comparably very little ended up on the site.That said Japan had on multiple occasions both directly and through neutral channels requested terms of surrender from USA on the one condition that the Emperor was not to be touched (something that was included in the final treaty as well). As such the ones slow to the table was USA and to a lesser degree Stalin.
I never heard of any surrender that was offered by the Japanese until after we bombed them. So can you give me a link?
@Thisperson98 You could either stroll down to your local library and get a copy of "Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam" on page 107 and 108 I think.. Or look at this archived news paper from the Chicago Tribune and reported by Walter Trohan in August 19 1945.https://archives.chicagotribune.com/1945/08/19/The US government has also admitted to it at some point but you will have to find your own sources for that one.They also tried to seek peace trough neutral third parties such as Sweden but again, I dont even know what a source for this would look like. Official statement from Japan or Sweden perhaps? No idea.
We thought about a demonstration, but we didn't have enough material to make a bomb for the demonstration. Also the Japanese people were told to leave the city days before they dropped it.
One drop of what? I guess you know nothing about nuclear chemistry and nuclear physics.
That is not the controversy.
well, it don't matter. they don't hate us for nuking them
So you are saying it would be a different matter if they did?
it would put a strain on the diplomatic relations and there would be more culture wars and economic wars and tensions. between the two
Yes but what about the ethical question of using nukes and what about how you used it on a defeated nation which was already planning on surrendering?
they were not going to surrender. also Japan admitted that if they had nukes, they would've use it on us so it's alright
That is just completely wrong. They had started planning for a surrender almost a year before the Atom bombs you know and I dont really care about the schoolyard mentality of "Well he would also have done it."
No they admitted that themselves. also no, they would have died for the emperor. everyone in their nation was trained to fight, even women and children. the US troops would not kill innocent children and women but they also risk getting stabbed in the back by their captives. they encountered this type of behavior on the surrounding islands and estimated that more people would die from the invasion itself rather than the atom bombs
Again, you are just wrong. The justification on using nukes on Japan because "They would have" is incredibly immature and you should base it on your morality or justifications and not theirs.You are also completely uninformed about the end of Imperial Japan. On January 20, 1945 The allies and Soviet union received almost the identical unconditional surrender from Japan as they signed after the atom bombs after August just to put up an example.
why develop a weapon that you don't use? nuclear bombs saved thousands of American lives. ofc it was a debate on morality, but invading and conquering Japan was going to kill more people than the nukes would have. also Japan did not surrender until after both nuclear bombs. I literally took history class this year about world war 2.
also, after the war, America did all the reperations and advanced Japan with new technology. that's another factor to them liking us. if we had not fixed up anything and just puppeted their government, there would have been more hostility between us
Look, I know you are young but can't you at least.. you know.. look things up before you claim something with this much conviction?I mean for starters you can look what actual historians found while researching this like Gar Alperovitz in his "Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam" or reporter Walter Trohan that published in Chicago Tribune and Washington Times. You are just plain wrong on this one.Also Japan was quite advanced already. I mean they built the biggest and baddest battleships in history for a reason so its not like they would not have gotten to where they are in the end anyway. The only thing USA truly changed was the culture.Also do you think we should continue to use nuclear weapons since we developed them? I mean we just made a fancy neutron bomb which there literally is no defense against since walls and bunkers are completely and utterly pointless.
Japan would have fought until the end. If I was president, I would not want to send more of my American troops to their death in landing on japan. taking the islands are a huge death toll on our infantry. now many people did say that nuclear bombs are just overkill, and I don't mind it. but if I were to use drone strikes on another country to make sure they surrender and to keep my men safe I would do it.also we helped Japan by giving them research agreements where they got the computer chip from. we also built it to be a capitalist country instead of a communist one and now Japan is one of the leading of technological innovations and an economic powerhouse. the further development of nuclear bombs is not about power of nuking other country due to MAD. it is actually heling improve our understanding if nuclear fusion and nuclear fission. we could essentially develop it into power plants, energy for spacetravel, etc.
I am taking US history class this year. I understand what happened for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. the peace terms were not signed until after the second bomb, but we're discussed after the first. they were slow in responding to the surrender terms so we nuked them twice. we offered a surrender to them after showing them the effects of the Manhattan project but they did not accept
What are you on about? Imperial Japan was a fascist dictatorship. It is the polar opposite of communism you know? They even brutally shut down a communist revolution.You clearly know very little aside from propaganda on this subject and honestly the ones slow to respond was not the Japanese but Americans.
keeping it from going communist? cold war? hello? russia wanted to make Japan communist too. ofc it was facist I didn't say it wasn't
Russia wanted to make everyone communist, including USA. Thing is it never really got involved with Japan since they were far more focused in Europe and especially Berlin/Germany. Japan was never in any danger of falling into communism.
really, what happened to Korea and china?
Korea was as a result of China and China was already an ally of Russia before.
when was the last time that you took a class or lecture or seminar about history?
I actually never have outside of the ground history course in school. What I learn is purely out of interest and not because I sat down to study a particular subject.
And you looked this up on the internet?
Well yeah? Where else would I look something up in 2017? I mean even if you say "the library" or something its actually mostly digitized as well and available online.
textbooks in the library, historical accounts and documentaries. I got my information from a textbook. you have to be wary of fake news online these days. don't be like trump by getting news from biased sources
And you dont think textbooks are online? Oh please. The very sources they use to write said text books are readily available as well without the bias or any errors from the people who wrote your little precious text book.As for Historical documents and texts? They are also available online along with all the research that has gone into them over human history. The internet is the most complete and reliable source of information we have today BY FAR. If it does not exist on the internet there is a good argument to make that its outside of humanities reach currently as a whole.Your argument that "Well you can't use the internet because it contains fake news and biased sources" is completely pointless since they also exist in Libraries and text books and it also does not detract from the truth buried within either. As such you need to put in a bit of work in fact checking claims but that is standard practice regardless of source.
no, the textbooks online are usually copyrighted so unless you have an elibrary, you can't access it. also the internet is much more prone to biased sources as anyone can edit it. publishing a book requires much more restrictions to prevent simple minded people from writing books
True, some information is restricted online but pure information and especially history very rarely is. Still accessible though if you really want it.Your assumption that the internet is more prone to falsehoods because its easier to do is absurd. I mean for starters the Bible or alternatively the Quran or Mein Kampf is still in print to this day. Anyone can make a book and even textbooks for schools are not safe from tampering like many in USA is currently or will feel in the future with their recent attack on science through the veil of "alternative science".In the end though its a mute point. Sources should always be checked and facts cross examined. That the internet is full of tosh just means you have to be diligent.
Yes but books require you to be published first. and then there is the requirements to be put in the nonfiction area of the library
You do realize that Newtonian physics, which has been disproved, is not moved to the fantasy section right? Also you can self-publish any book you want but that is besides the point because there are plenty of people conspiring to create false information regarding all sorts of stuff like for example climate change or indeed US propaganda *nudge nudge hint hint* your text books.
woah did you just say climate change is fake? you are clearly listening to the wrong people
Well if you would listen for one minute to what I was saying then perhaps things would be easier. I quite clearly did NOT say climate change was false or fake but that some people have a vested interest in creating false information regarding it... Like it was a topic.. which it is..
Well that's the thing about the internet, it's full of fake news from big bad companies that bribe people
You mean like this one?wndbooks.wnd.com/.../...EST_HOAX.cover_.FINAL_.jpgEverything you say also applies to books and books especially since most of these people are not very tech savvy so far.
But anyone can post on sites like Wikipedia and stuff. it takes much more reception for books to be bought in libraries compared to the internet. also you don't need to monetize the internet
Talk shit about wikipedia all you want but it actually whopped the ass of Encyclopedia Britannica in science and technology accuracy. Sure its a system that allows anyone to edit it but it also allows everyone to edit it.. its a system that is proven to work in the end which is all that matters. Most of the errors in Wikipedia is on political or company/people based pages and very very rarely on things that actually matter.Also the cost is not necessarily an issue when there are plenty of people willing to pay for it.
again, no need to monetize the internet
I can't quite get what you wanted to say with that video because if you wanted to demonstrate idiotic opinions spouted on the internet the priest collar should have given it away and I can't imagine you would actually want to use this against me because he talks about something completely different.. unless you dont even understand what I was saying to start with?
how nuking Japan was a logical decision and was actually better than the other options and that Japan was not going to surrender
Truman did not want to drop the bomb, but he did it to save lives
Then first of all that video does not address my argument and secondly its based on propaganda bullshit and has no basis in reality.
omfg, I've had it with you. you are a white ignorant redneck. I will stand behind my country and understand the decisions that it makes. I do not doubt that the US have done bad things, but I know for a fact that they tried to save lives in bombing japan. you are listening to the sources that always doubt our decisions, well fuck that. our decisions are hard. You could NOT have made a better decision
Well sorry for drawing a distinction between "USA did not accept Japanese surrender" and "USA did not accept Japanese surrender because it wanted to one up Soviet Union". Its not nearly the same.Also I have provide plenty of evidence to support my claim while you dragged in an idiotic priest with a youtube channel.
Japan didn't surrender! seriously FUCK OFF.
They DID. I have and can provide plenty of sources that PROVES they did.
THEY DID FUCKING NOT
Oh really? Prove it. Bring out another priest on youtube to solidify your point or something. Give me something tangible, something worth a damn, something that is more then just your words.
go do your own research you twit.
We did warn the innocent people in the cities we were planning on bombing.
@Thisperson98 no we didn't until before the second bomb and the warning didn't get to everyone i still hate my own country for doing what they did back then, and thats not how wars are fought.
That is false. We did tell them before, but we never mentioned the type of weapon. But we did tell them the cities would be destoried.
@Thisperson98 the a-bomb was new they wouldn't of known what it was
We didn't mention the bomb until after it was dropped, but we did say these cities could or would be destroyed in the next couple of days.
That's nothing compared to what the japs did in Unit 731
Actually there was no long term effects on the environment of either of the cities.
That is why we told them to leave the city before we dropped the bomb.
Actually there is no environment impact that can be seen today. Also we did warn the civilians before we dropped the bombs. We basically said evacuate these cities because we will destroy them.
Radiation affected the environment. At minimum the environment where people were, and we saw mutations. if we use nuclear weapons now millions will die afterwards aswell.
Actually the radiation only had a affect for less than a decade. And it was only local effects. Our nukes now, are thousands of times stronger than the ones we dropped on Japan, so don't compare our nukes we have now to the old ones.
Yes. that's exactly why it's controversial. because then it killed many civilians and radiation affected myany other, and with our bombs now it'll be much worse.
Actually radiation was reduced pretty quickly. Because they radioactive isotopes had a short half-life. And we did warn them that we will destroy the city before we bombed it.
I don't support use of Chemical, Nuclear, or any other Weapons of Mass Destruction.
I don't support their use either, but we didn't really have a choice. Because the estimates of the amount of casualties of both sides would be much higher if we didn't drop it.
I'm not sure. Soviets beat the million man army in Manchuria losing just 12,000 men.
Umm, we knew if we took slowly the cities, most of the civilians would fight us, which would be casualties on both sides. And a lot more, the estimates were around a million casualties on both sides. And a lot of those were civilians.
We didn't kill millions of people by dropping the bomb.