Canada RULES!

hmmm, it sounds as the calm before the tempest...

I should have noted this before, but I will do that now. I wanted to think this over a bit before I responded.

Nukes. Yeah, the US might not have used one in 50 years(in a combat situation--nuclear testing went on for awhile after WWII) but the use was poorly thought out and most unnecessary. We did not have to bomb Japan and if you think nuking anyone is a desirable state, take a long, hard look at the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, once Fat Man and Little Boy completed their work. To top it off, the US still owes the people of Bikini big time, since these people were displaced from their home and sent to a far inferior island, where they still exist to this day. I am most afraid that the US is going to pay for its ill-advised use of nuclear power at some point in the future. These things have not been forgotten.

I also reccommend for your perusal a documentary called Trinity and Beyond. This covers all of the nuclear tests performed by the US following WWII(plus some WWII footage). Once you see the awesome power of these things, then you tell me if it still looks like a desireable state. Make no mistake, if some country is ever stupid enough to really let go with these dreadful things, there will be no turning back and no second chances. I don't want to live in that world, and anyone who does is flat-out a fool.

I hate those things, but they are here now and must be dealt with. Personally, I wish every last one of them would be taken offline and neutralized, but I don't think that will happen until some genius figures out a new and better way to finish off a few million lives.

About the bombing of Japan: I believe this was unneccessary and actually aimed at the USSR. Sure, Japan was still fighting, but its armies were defeated and its cities were smashed. Japan was on the point of surrender and since the Nazis were defeated (and they were the real threat, make no mistake about that) the overpowering need for a nuke was lessened. Now the first nuclear bomb explosion happened on July 16, 1945 at Alamogordo, NM. This one might be defended. After all there had been a lot of time and money sunk into the Manhattan Project and you might as well see if the thing will work.

Now the Washington thinkers rationalized that Japan had to be bombed because they would never surrender unless they were actually invaded and that then the death toll would be higher. Does this sound really reasonable? It doesn't to me. My god, the Japanese are not stupid people and it does not take a rocket scientist to see that the fat lady has sung. But we forget that the real enemy of the US at the end of WWII were the Soviets, our allies (or at least this was the perception--it may not have been factual yet).

I have an interesting argument by Asimov on this subject but it is rather long, so I will not post it unless the general consensus is to view it (which is cool, whichever is preferred). I know that it rambles a bit, but it couldn't really be helped, I guess. Certainly I mean no offense to anyone else with my opinion, so please accept it in the spirit of friendly debate, as it was intended.

Have a nice day,
EU

Being British I don't know much about Canada but surely having it full of French can't be good.
I should know France is only 30 miles from our cost and since the channel tunnel weve been invaded by the frog munching Frenchies (and they always beat us at soccer).
Other than I think Canada is a nice country.

Joncehttp://web.tiscalinet.it/giuntina/fa...ani_smiles.gif

It's not full of French around here. Just in Quebec.

etherealunicorn, I don't have time to discuss the nuke thing with you right now, so I'll summarize my opinion on it so you can prepare for when I write up a full response tonight... my opinion is that while I support disarmament today, the nukes WERE necessary to put an end to the war. Details shall follow later tonight, hopefully.

I won't say that my opinion is the only one, certainly.

Looking forward to it

I have some details too...

First of all, the Japanese are not one to surrender easily. After the Nazis surrendered, Japan was stil fighting hard. There were two possibilities for the US to end the war.
1)Send in troops, cause thousands of American and Japanese casualties, extend the year several more years.
2)Nuke them, no American casualties, war ends quickly.
I think anyone would choose choice two. Sure, maybe the effects of radiation poisoning were bad, but atomic bombs were new and not much was known about the effects. I agree with IP that the only way to end the war was the nuke.

I agree with unicorn.

It is one thing to end the war with fewer american casualties; quite another to do it by killing civilians, even though the cities had army structures within them.

A demonstration of the power of the bomb without casualties (or very few) would have done.
Make a dent in Mount Fuji or something...

But hey... wouldn't have had their guiney pigs to test the effects on radiation burns etc... if they had done that. They had to have subjects to study, in case one day the soviets had the bomb and attacked the US; they had to have some medical expertise...

OK, a few facts:

1) Japan was not 'at the point of surrender'. They had declared their intention to fight to the last man, woman and child RATHER than surrender, to take as many of the allies with them as possible before they were defeated. A demonstration would NOT have convinced them, and would only have alerted them to our intentions and given them a better chance of intercepting our planes.
2) A conventional assault was also being planned at the same time the nukes were being prepared. It was estimated that it would require approximately 1,000,000 allied casualties to invade and conquer Japan by conventional warfare, with 2-3,000,000 Japanese casualties occurring in the process.
3) By using the nukes instead, we reduced our casualties to effectively zero, and Japan's to less than 300,000. At the same time, Japan realized that we could take out all of them if necessary without them taking ANY of us with them, so there was absolutely nothing to be gained by continuing the war. So LOTS of lives were saved ON BOTH SIDES by Truman's decision to go with the nukes, and the war ended much sooner than it otherwise would have.
Nuclear weapons and their effects are indeed horrible beyond description. I don't like the fact that they were used. I wish there had been a better alternative. But the thing about war is that there frequently ARE no good alternatives, only less bad ones. Dropping the nukes was the least bad alternative available in August of 1945, and doing it was the right thing.
In 1995, on the 50th anniversary of Hiroshima, a local radio talk show host here in Wisconsin devoted his program to a discussion of the event. One of the callers was a former soldier who had been in the Pacific theater in 1945, and who was going to be part of the invading force had Truman chosen the conventional warfare option. The invasion was going to occur in waves. This soldier had been scheduled to be part of the first wave. The Army was anticipating 100% casualties in the first THREE waves, with some soldiers finally starting to get through the Japanese defenses on the fourth wave. In other words, had Truman chosen not to drop the nukes, this man, and many others like him, would have come home in boxes. There are many people alive today - the American soldiers whose lives were saved, and their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren - who would not be here had Truman not made the decision he did. It was moving to hear this man tell his story, and it reinforced even more my belief that the nuclear bombs - as horrible as they are - were in fact the right way to go in that situation. And I hope and pray that such a situation will never happen again.

Oh boy, this is a topic I get really upset about. I'm embarrassed and even feel guilty knowing we dropped those atomic bombs. Us, the US, a world leader, and the only nation to ever make use of their atomic bombs. How shamefull is that? Extremely. We took the cowards way out, and there's no way around that. First of all, destroying military instillations was worth a try, something we wouldn't give it. The worst part is though that we didn't just drop one nuke, we dropped two. That wasn't necessary. Quickbeam, you list the casualties as 300,000. First of all, that's too many, but sadly these things happen in war. Unfortunately, that's not all the casualties. Think of all the people who, because of the radiation, are living out a misserable existance and being treated often worse then dogs. Think of what it's done to our environment, just think how many more people the aftermath of the nukes may kill. And don't try to tell me we didn't know. We didn't care! America wanted to get this over with, and I'm sure they could have learned so much more about the nukes and realized how dangerious they were if they actually put the effort in!

Tater, that is much the way I feel about it, but you put it more succinctly.

I think that the ghosts of those 2 bombs are going to come back to haunt us one day. I don't know why I feel that way, but I have that nagging suspicion.

I will have to go over that Trinity info again before I can give the information that I would like to here, so bear with me if I have little to go on for now.

As I understand it, though, Einstein and some of the other researchers who worked on the theory of the things had deduced from the mathematics what the end result of a detonation would be, right down to the radiation effects and suchlike. I don't know if this is so or if this knowledge ever made it to those who decide on where and when a weapon is to be used, but if it IS true, then those people showed a grievious disregard for the consequences.

About a year ago I saw part of a program in which a film team went back to Bikini to film. Unfortunately I managed to miss most of this but I did catch some footage shot in the waters of the lagoon and I thought "these people have really got some big brass ones". Here they were, no wetsuits and certainly no radiation gear, swimming in water that absorbed god only knows how much fallout from all of the tests that were done there. Every level of the food chain on this once-lovely atoll is poisoned and will probably stay that way for a long time. I would not have set one toe in that water or indeed on that atoll without heavy protective gear.

I cringe to think of a world in which we all may have to face such a thing. I don't think that even now we fully comprehend the magnitude of the effects of these detonations. People have a way of taking the short-term view of things but this can often be more harmful in the long-term.

In this light, I think disarmament is a good thing. However, to use an analogy I ran across in a book: I have a nice six-shooter, worthy of any Texan(lol). And if I take three bullets out, you might feel that since I have less ammunition I am safer to be around (despite that this analogy makes me look like a real freak, I am staying with it ). However, if I point it at you with only 3 bullets in the weapon, do you feel safer?

"Every level of the food chain on this once-lovely atoll is poisoned and will probably stay that way for a long time"

I'd think forever.

Tater and unicorn, are you paying attention? You seem to be intent on hugging trees, but you don't realize what would have happened if the bombs werent dropped. Millions more American and Japanese would be DEAD. Yes, I feel guilty that we are the only country to have used a nuke, but it was necesary. It's one of those things you don't want to do, but you have to in order to make things work out.

Sorry, I just don't buy that

Just to clarify:
I said less than 300,000. The estimates of the total casualties of the two bombings vary. According to my source, Estimates for Hiroshima range from 80,000 to over 200,000, and Nagasaki from 39,000 to 74,000. I took the high estimates and kind of rounded it up just to pre-empt any accusations of underestimating the casualties. Even the highest estimate is still dramatically lower than the the casualties that would have occurred in a conventional invasion, and I didn't want anything to distract from that point.
I respect the feelings of those of you who disagree on this issue, but you really need to get past the emotion-based revulsion over nuclear weapons. I share that revulsion, but I refuse to allow it to prevent me from using my intellect and logic.
Try to think of it this way: forget about the nukes for a moment and imagine that the two options for casualties (3-4 million combined, vs less than 300,000, all of the enemy) both involved conventional warfare. Which one would you choose? Obviously you'd take the option that would result in far less casualties. Now ask yourself: why should the analysis be different when that option involves nuclear weapons? Minimizing the casualties is the important thing. HOW that is accomplished shouldn't matter.
One more point, for those of you who insist that we should have conducted some kind of demonstration first, or targeted only military installations. As you have correctly pointed out, we didn't just use one bomb. We used two on two different cities. Why? Because even after the first one, the Japanese STILL weren't convinced to surrender! You must realize that in light of that fact, the idea that anything less than what we did could have persuaded them to give it up is terribly naive.

Japanese naval defense was out.
Ditto aerial defense.
The americans were successfully making air raids, like what was done in germany.
I wouldn't want to doubt what you said about the planned waves of attack on japan, but the air raids were too successfull to be replaced by an army/marines attack.

anyways... the truth is that we will never know what would have happened if a demonstration had been done instead of the actual civilian drop.
It seems they only had two bombs at the time (uranium based for hiro, and a plutonium based for naga). How bout a demo with one bomb, and the other as backup for an attack? Well, they were concerned about the possibility of a malfunction...

the debate will ever go on i guess...

(and that's not the first debate at Entmoot that will ever go on...)

I think that when Tater said that 300,000 were too many, I think he meant that that was too many people to lose their life in that way....or any way for that matter, not that your figures were inaccurate.

I can never seem to decide where I stand on this issue. I agree with both sides, but maybe more so towards the side of necessity. I agree that it shouldn't matter HOW the goal was accomplished....except for the environmental consequences. But then again, I feel like a monster if I think that way....if I think that "HOW" doesn't matter. I guess it's damned if you do....damned if you don't. Like always, I am at a lost when it comes to this debate. One thing however, that creeps into my mind is Pearl Harbor. I obviously wasn't alive back then, but my parents were and I have asked them about it. They remember it all too well. Think about what it would be like if another country attacked a part of the United States...say Puerto Rico, a US territory not unlike Hawaii at the time. Hell, the Japanese almost wiped out our Navy in that area and brought us into the war by that attack. Sure the US wouldn't have stayed out of it for long (we never can), but they bombed our soil. (No comments on the fact that we took those islands over from someone else.) Does this justify using the A-bomb? Does it make us any better than Hitler? I just don't know, and I don't think that I ever will.

Hitler was a completely evil person who slaughtered millions in an attempt to conquer the world and wipe out an entire race. We dropped those bombs in an effort to put a final end to the war that Hitler started. That effort was successful, and resulted in far more lives saved than lives lost. There is NO way a rational person could suggest that our use of those bombs put us in the same category as Hitler.
It's all right to have questions and reservations about what the US did with the A-bombs. However, you CAN know that we and Hitler are not anywhere close to being on the same moral plane. Please try to move beyond the emotion, and at least release yourself from that part of your burden, dear friend Anduin. It grieves me to know that you suffer over this more than necessary.

Busted! I must admit that I don't really think that way, I was just asking more so for effect. Bear in mind that it was 2:30am and I was a little better than coherant at the time. I was trying to finish the post and that came to mind. Sorry, I should have been more responsible and not have exaggerated. I do however thank you for your sincere concern, dear friend Quickbeam.

Back to the Pearl Harbor thing......out of curosity, ask your parents, grandparents what they remember about Pearl Harbor, ask especially anyone that was in the Navy at the time or in the Navy at all. I am just curious because my Dad was a career Navy man and served through WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, and he was pretty passionate (as is my mother) about that attack and about the wars that we fought in general. Tater, I especially extend this task to you and anyone that was not around during any of the wars that our country fought in which the draft was initiated. Try to get a feel for what our country was like during WWII when brothers, fathers, and uncles were called to duty, gas was rationed, air-raid drills were practiced, metal was s****ped, factories were replenished with mothers, daughters, and aunts. It was unlike anything that I or you could possibly fathom. Now think what you would give at that time for the whole thing to just end.....for your life to return to normal and for your families to come home....for YOU to come home.

My grandfather was in the Navy for over 20 years. During the war, he fought in several battles against the Japanese in the Pacific. If the nuke hadn't been dropped, he might have been one of the first waves to invade Japan, and I never would be here today.
After the war, my grandfather was a lawyer for the Navy. He was station in Japan for three years (where my mother lived and my aunt was born), and in Rhode Island (where they still have a house we visit every summer). And later, he worked in the Pentagon (where my mom got a summer job when she was in high school).
I know for a fact my grandfather was proud to fight for this country and probably agreed with the dropping of the bombs. Tater, do you have any relatives who fought in WWII? If so, I think you should talk to them. Same to you, unicorn.

Truman made the correct decision. It was not honorable for the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor unprovoked either. They brought us into it. Now another side discussion is: did FDR have prior notice of the attack and choose to ignore it to give us an excuse to go into the war?

Better that we used the atomic bomb than they used it on us. In war, the object is to kill as many as possible of the enemy while sparing as many of your soldiers as possible in order to win. I believe the use of the bomb achieved this goal.