72 years (and 13 hours) ago...

[Belsnickel]

I know there are differing opinions on the use of the atomic bomb in WWII. Today, though, 72 years ago and 13 hours (I started typing this at 08.15) the first atomic bomb was dropped in warfare. The destruction was massive and the effects are still seen today, impacting people both physically and emotionally. I don't consider Japan to be blameless, but there were many innocents that lost their lives that day and in the days since. This is a day of remembrance for those lives lost and should serve as a reminder for the destruction wrought by these weapons, so that their use may never be repeated.

[GMDino]

While a history fan I was never much into reading about the wars.  Just not my particular niche.  But I've always leaned more toward reading the European arena more when I did.  Until I went to the WWI Museum in New Orleans.

Jut fascinating!  Maybe because so much was new to me?  

However, while I sympathize with the innocents killed in the two nuclear bombings in Japan what happened was a direct result of the military leadership and country's leadership there.  Their tactics and statements made it clear that it was going to take something devastating to end the war.

[CKwi88]

The only reason it's not recognized as a war crime is because the allies won the war and get to write history.

I can understand how people rationalized it. and continue to do so. I just hope that looking back we can recognize that these weapons should never be used again.

[NATI BENGALS]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

There should be at least one Davey Crockett weapon system for for every infantry platoon

[*jason*]

(08-06-2017, 11:14 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: The only reason it's not recognized as a war crime is because the allies won the war and get to write history.

I can understand how people rationalized it. and continue to do so. I just hope that looking back we can recognize that these weapons should never be used again.

I'm not even sure dropping the second bomb on Nagasaki was necessary. An argument can be made that that one was aimed more at Stalin and the Soviets... But yeah; it was a fitting end to a war littered with war crimes.

[ballsofsteel]

Too bad We couldn't of dropped those bombs a few years earlier on those SOB's. Would of saved a lot of American lives.

[Belsnickel]

(08-06-2017, 12:17 PM)jason Wrote: I'm not even sure dropping the second bomb on Nagasaki was necessary. An argument can be made that that one was aimed more at Stalin and the Soviets... But yeah; it was a fitting end to a war littered with war crimes.

The Japanese leadership was not ready to surrender until after Nagasaki. We will never know for certain, but it is not likely they would have surrendered after the one. At least we didn't have to use any more of them.

[Bengalzona]

Here is to 72 years of nuclear bombs not being dropped on people. It is rather amazing that humans managed that.

[Stewy]

(08-06-2017, 02:46 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Here is to 72 years of nuclear bombs not being dropped on people. It is rather amazing that humans managed that.

agreed

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-06-2017, 02:46 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Here is to 72 years of nuclear bombs not being dropped on people. It is rather amazing that humans managed that.

[Belsnickel]

(08-06-2017, 03:28 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote:

In truth, the more I have been learning about Imperial Japan the more I get concerned about NK. The hypernationalist attitudes are very similar.

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-06-2017, 11:14 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: The only reason it's not recognized as a war crime is because the allies won the war and get to write history.

I can understand how people rationalized it. and continue to do so. I just hope that looking back we can recognize that these weapons should never be used again.

Well not really. The japanese people were warned about what was going to happen. But besides that there was no international law preventing the bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. On top of that there's also the fact that more people died from conventional bombs than did people from the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Also Japan committed many war crimes themselves especially against China. Go ask a Chinese civilian how they feel about the big mean ol' Americans nuking their dear friend Japan.

[*jason*]

(08-06-2017, 02:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The Japanese leadership was not ready to surrender until after Nagasaki. We will never know for certain, but it is not likely they would have surrendered after the one. At least we didn't have to use any more of them.

Yes but wasn't the hang up about the emporor? The US was demanding unconditional surrender, while the Japanese wanted Hirohito left alone. The Soviets declared war on Japan, Nagasaki was bombed, and the US eventually let the emporor stay. No? It's been many years since that course in college, but I remember being struck with the idea that the US didn't want Japan's surrender to coincide with Soviet entry into the Pacific theater.

[Belsnickel]

(08-06-2017, 03:59 PM)jason Wrote: Yes but wasn't the hang up about the emporor? The US was demanding unconditional surrender, while the Japanese wanted Hirohito left alone. The Soviets declared war on Japan, Nagasaki was bombed, and the US eventually let the emporor stay. No? It's been many years since that course in college, but I remember being struck with the idea that the US didn't want Japan's surrender to coincide with Soviet entry into the Pacific theater.

That was certainly part of it, but if I recall correctly there were quite a few more conditions involved that they were considering, as well. But the government of Japan did make it clear to the people that they would not surrender in the immediate aftermath of the Hiroshima bombing.

[Bengalzona]

(08-06-2017, 03:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In truth, the more I have been learning about Imperial Japan the more I get concerned about NK. The hypernationalist attitudes are very similar.

There is a major difference.

The Japanese worshiped their emperor, but he did not develop that cult worship into autocratic power. The war was basically conceived of and ran by Hirohito and a base group of military leaders. There was, at times, a bipolar power struggle between the Emperor and the generals (particularly in the final weeks of the war).

Kim Jung Il sits atop a web of generals who derive power only through his autocratic rule and cult of personalty (i.e. he is the glue that holds them together rather than being an obstacle they sometimes have to work around).

[Belsnickel]

(08-06-2017, 06:10 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: There is a major difference.

The Japanese worshiped their emperor, but he did not develop that cult worship into autocratic power. The war was basically conceived of and ran by Hirohito and a base group of military leaders. There was, at times, a bipolar power struggle between the Emperor and the generals (particularly in the final weeks of the war).

Kim Jung Il sits atop a web of generals who derive power only through his autocratic rule and cult of personalty (i.e. he is the glue that holds them together rather than being an obstacle they sometimes have to work around).

Which do you perceive as more dangerous?

[Bengalzona]

(08-06-2017, 03:59 PM)jason Wrote: Yes but wasn't the hang up about the emporor? The US was demanding unconditional surrender, while the Japanese wanted Hirohito left alone. The Soviets declared war on Japan, Nagasaki was bombed, and the US eventually let the emporor stay. No? It's been many years since that course in college, but I remember being struck with the idea that the US didn't want Japan's surrender to coincide with Soviet entry into the Pacific theater.

We spent most of the war trying to get the Soviets to open some kind of front against Japan. We eventually even sent them transport ships to transport their troops to the northern islands they did invade. But there was a long time between when the fighting in Europe ended (May 1945) and when the Soviets invaded the northern islands and Mongolia/Manchuria/Korea. In that time, they were consolidating power in Eastern Europe and rebuilding governments to their liking (i.e. the Iron Curtain). This, combined with their assistance to Mao Tse Tung, made us ultimately distrust their motives and seek to find our own answers to the ultimate Japan question.

[Bengalzona]

(08-06-2017, 06:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Which do you perceive as more dangerous?

Autocratic power is by far more dangerous. Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[samhain]

(08-06-2017, 03:40 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Well not really. The japanese people were warned about what was going to happen. But besides that there was no international law preventing the bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. On top of that there's also the fact that more people died from conventional bombs than did people from the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Also Japan committed many war crimes themselves especially against China. Go ask a Chinese civilian how they feel about the big mean ol' Americans nuking their dear friend Japan.

Imperial Japan gets by unnoticed to a lot of people due to the fact that they were carrying out atrocities at the same time that the Nazis were.  They Holocaust was such a wholesale and well-publicized event that the actions of the Japanese go by the wayside.  

Make no mistake, Imperial Japan was every bit as evil as Nazi Germany.  Read a book called The Rape of Nanking, and you'll understand.  Some of the things the Japanese did to the Chinese make ISIS look like kid stuff.  Just remorseless brutality (including crimes perpetrated against pregnant women, the elderly, infants) and literal killing in mass numbers purely for sport.  They bred soldiers to be brainwashed killing machines from childhood.

After reading this book, I have to say I changed my mind about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.  It was an extreme measure, to be sure.  It's something that should be avoided at all costs I the future, no doubt.  However, condsidering the crimes committed by Imperial Japan and their extensive efforts to cover these crimes up all the way into the 2000's, I have little sympathy for them as a nation with respect to that event.  Their ideology needed to be met with extreme violence (Much like the Nazis, perhaps even radical Islam) and rooted out, and it was.

[Belsnickel]

(08-06-2017, 07:36 PM)samhain Wrote: Imperial Japan gets by unnoticed to a lot of people due to the fact that they were carrying out atrocities at the same time that the Nazis were.  They Holocaust was such a wholesale and well-publicized event that the actions of the Japanese go by the wayside.  

Make no mistake, Imperial Japan was every bit as evil as Nazi Germany.  Read a book called The Rape of Nanking, and you'll understand.  Some of the things the Japanese did to the Chinese make ISIS look like kid stuff.  Just remorseless brutality (including crimes perpetrated against pregnant women, the elderly, infants) and literal killing in mass numbers purely for sport.  They bred soldiers to be brainwashed killing machines from childhood.

After reading this book, I have to say I changed my mind about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.  It was an extreme measure, to be sure.  It's something that should be avoided at all costs I the future, no doubt.  However, condsidering the crimes committed by Imperial Japan and their extensive efforts to cover these crimes up all the way into the 2000's, I have little sympathy for them as a nation with respect to that event.  Their ideology needed to be met with extreme violence (Much like the Nazis, perhaps even radical Islam) and rooted out, and it was.

I have to say, one of my biggest issues with Japan today is their refusal to acknowledge what they did. I love a lot of things about Japan, e.g., the food, the stationery and pens, the porn. Their inability to recognize what happened in their past makes it difficult for them to truly move on as a culture.