Hiroshima, 60 years ago

PGJPJ · 08-06-2005, 10:06 AM

I used to visit Hiroshima several times when I was stationed in Japan. There is a park right at ground zero called Peace Park. There is also a museum there. In the museum they had the stone steps of a bank where a guy was sitting and waiting for it to open. You could see his shadow burned into the stone where he waited. There were also pieces of glass that were embedded into metal and rock. It is really an amazing and horrific place.

Hiroshima is a huge city now. It's long since been rebuilt, and it's a great place to visit. It's good to be such good friends with the Japanese now. They are really a good people, it's hard to believe they were ever our enemies.

Anyway, the point is let's take pause today and remember Hiroshima 60 years ago. Hope no one ever has to use those weapons again.

Thanks!
PGJPJ

PapaHog · 08-06-2005, 11:28 AM

It is very scary that great nations today find it necessary to have these kind of weapons.

I pray God will see fit to not let this ever happen again to any people.

Abalone · 08-06-2005, 01:24 PM

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalp...76-e8dc748e31aa

The A-Bomb saved lives.

Abalone · 08-06-2005, 01:27 PM

Compare the way the world is today to what is was like before WWII. Are things any better ? Have we learned anything ?

Yep ! You better pray and pray very hard.

How long before Iran becomes a nuclear power ?

Thumper · 08-06-2005, 01:51 PM

Quote:

The A-Bomb saved lives.

Yep, and atomic weapons and their delivery systems have basically saved the world from WWIII for the last 60 years through the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Best thing that ever happened to the world.

Now all we gotta do is figure out how to halt the spread.

08-06-2005, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Yep, and atomic weapons and their delivery systems have basically saved the world from WWIII for the last 60 years through the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Best thing that ever happened to the world.

Now all we gotta do is figure out how to halt the spread.

Sometimes Jack you totally amaze me

Snapset · 08-06-2005, 08:15 PM

I can't argue against the theory that the A-bomb saved lives. If it was a one time deal, and the calculus was x number of japanese lives is worth the saving of y number of American lives, I would say it was a good decision.

However, we still are the only country that has used atomic weapons against another country. Whether The lives saved are worth the precedent we set will not be known until we have atomic weapons used against our country, and determine if our use was seen as justification for their use against us.

Lets keep this one civil folks.

STGRule · 08-06-2005, 08:21 PM

I'm watching a Discovery show right now. I know all the reasons it happened. I also know in my heart that I can't believe humans did this to other humans. Deep, deep down in my soul I hurt.

Silver Hilton · 08-06-2005, 09:17 PM

Amen, Ruth. I'm watching the History Channel, listening to a woman who turned over the charred corpse of her sister. They were our enemy, but it's not clear that she was.

Paddlefish · 08-06-2005, 09:28 PM

Somehow I awoke this morning remembering the anniversary date. It really, really, was a momentous wakeup and shock in 20th century history.

And yet, though the theoretical debate will continue, perhaps that single, horrific moment actually did save lives.

As was pointed out in the newspaper link above, far more people have been killed in instances of "conventional" warfare than in Hiroshima. My 11-year-old, thanks to the History Channel, knows all about the "carpet bombing" in Germany, where scarcely ANY city remained standing after WWII. While in Japan a couple years ago, I visited the beautiful and huge Edo Museum ("Edo" being the ancient, historical name for Tokyo.) It included photos of Tokyo in 1945. No nukes were dropped on Tokyo. However, the effects of many thousands of incendiary bombs dropped on a city of millions living in wood and paper houses is undeniable. The words "pool table" came to mind.

Such stories don't diminish the horror of the A-bomb drops in my mind. They do, however, make me more unhappily aware of the horrors which were inflicted even without the nuclear option. (Especially before the advent of the words "collateral damage" and the presence of live video cameras blanketing the earth.) Somehow, they just don't have Hiroshima's shock value.

Thumper is correct that the MAD doctrine apparently worked (in a sicko, backwards sort of way) for the US and the USSR for about 30 brief years. It made those two superpowers VERRRY careful about even slight missteps, knowing that they were each targeted with weapons which could quickly obliterate each other -- how many thousands of times over? (I'll never forget how absolutely scared my dad was when JFK decided to blockade Cuba in 1962. That was a fear I never again saw in his face.)

Sorry, though, I can't quite buy Thump's claim that nukes were the best thing to ever come along -- while praying in his next sentence that they don't get spread around to anybody else. :whazzup:

We have yet to see the results of putting the old Soviet weaponry on the underground equivalent of E-bay, but it doesn't have a good feel to it.

Joe Schwab · 08-06-2005, 09:29 PM

Oh yeah, and if we had not had the bomb, does anyone think we would have had the slightest chance to back Nikita down during the Cuban Missile crisis? We were less than 30 minutes from all out nuclear war. You can all rest assured that Russia knew we would use it again if they did not back down. The alternative? You don't even want to imagine.

So keep feeling smug that none of you ever will have to make that decision on behalf of the American citizens. And carry the guilt if you want to. Their leaders should be the ones carrying the guilt. Does U.S.S. Arizona ring a bell?

Flying Roast Beef · 08-06-2005, 09:57 PM

Quote:

it's good to be such good friends with the Japanese now. They are really a good people, it's hard to believe they were ever our enemies.

They attacked us.

Salty Walty · 08-06-2005, 10:06 PM

Germany and Japan also had Atomic Weapons Programs. Do you think either of those Countries would have thought twice about using them on us or our Allies? It is easy to look back and second guess what we did.

Fish Wheels · 08-06-2005, 10:18 PM

It was a race to build the bomb, and we won. As I heard a quote by one of the remaining flight crew from the Enola Gay the other day, "it was an act of war to end a war".

PGJPJ · 08-06-2005, 10:43 PM

Oh yes, it was a race to build a nuclear bomb. And the Germans had a shipment of nuclear material on it's way to Japan after we destroyed Germany's last remaining delivery systems that could effectively be used to target an allied nation. Japan intended to build a dirty nuclear bomb for use on San Francisco.

WWII was an extraordinary war for sure. We did what we felt we had to do. The tragedy now is that we have in the hands of mankind the power to destroy the world with the push of a button.

Lets hope that mankind will soon reach our golden age of enlightenment. Where we have no use for these types of weapons.

FishinMission · 08-07-2005, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Germany and Japan also had Atomic Weapons Programs. Do you think either of those Countries would have thought twice about using them on us or our Allies? It is easy to look back and second guess what we did.

If you all watch the history channel you'd know the above quote was true.

And if you think those weapons , when developed, wouldn't be used on us....well

Indeed...we've all lived under the cloud of nuclear destruction.....remember to hide under your desk in school in the event of a nuclear attack? Like that would save you.

It was a different era back during WWII and nuclear explosions weren't the ONLY terrible events that happened.

Shall we review the numbers killed in the German concentration camps for example?

Too bad the next nuclear event (I'm convinced) will probably happen here in the US.

Have a nice day.

Mark

Abalone · 08-07-2005, 05:48 AM

So let me ask you this:

Do you think the United States could win a conventional war against China ?

What other options would we have ?

Karl von Clausewitz wrote that war is the continuation of politics by other means.

We should celebrate Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Replay all the destruction and loss of lives to remind ourselves how really Horrible War IS.

Thumper · 08-07-2005, 06:08 AM

Seems strange, I know, to maintain that nuclear weapons are "the best thing to have happened to the world", but the numbers (even according to PBS!) seem to bear this out.

http://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/11government8.htm

Over 100,000,000 military and civilian deaths occurred due to war during the 20th Century. 99% of those deaths happened before 1945. That's 99% in the first 45 years, and only 1% in the last 55 years. Guess why.

"Mutual Assured Destruction" (MAD) works, and indeed is still working. About a billion human beings today owe their existence to the presence of nuclear weapons.

And now the challenge is indeed to confine those weapons.

Jennie@ifish · 08-07-2005, 06:17 AM

Said Oppenheimer: "The time will come when mankind will curse the names of Los Alamos and Hiroshima."

I guess not all mankind, but I think most of mankind.

I still think it was the worst invention. The creators considered suicide, once realizing the potential danger.

I can relate! I surely would have, also!

The most interesting historical series I think I have seen, to date, is the Oppenheimer series on the history channel. Interesting dude.

Jen

backlash442 · 08-07-2005, 06:22 AM

It was a war. Japan started it and the US finished it. Although that is being a bit simplistic. Dropping of the atomic bomb (it was not a nuclear weapon) saved lives on both sides. My mom for one (Japanese) was glad the war ended. Otherwise she may have starved to death. She never forgave Hirohito for not stepping in earlier to try and end the war.

Almost a million civilians died in the fire storms caused by the dropping of incindiary weapons on Japanese cities. You don't hear much about that. I knew a survivor of the Tokyo fire storms and her scars were as real as any of the atomic bomb survivors.

The atomic bomb was a shock and awe weapon. Even after the first one was dropped the Japanese didn't think it could be duplicated. The second one changed their minds. Or at least Hirohito's. Some in the military wanted to continue fighting.

Personally I believe if atomic bombs hadn't been dropped the world would have never truley understood the horrors that go with the use of that type of weapon (radiation and it's fallout and after affects). Destruction is total. There was something tangible in which to draw a visual impression. No statistics were needed. World leaders had something to compare against what they now had in their arsenals. The weapons they possessed were 10, 20 a 100 times more powerful. Don't forget by today's standard or that of the Cuban Missle Crisis what was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tiny. Weapons now are thermo nuclear devices were a 1 mega ton bomb is about 25 times more powerful than the ones dropped on Japan. I think the former Soviet Union had some in the 20-25 mega ton range. People knew that the start of a nuclear war was going to be the end of the world as we knew it. Heads of State knew that too. Unfortunately we are now in a different era. It's the dirty bomb or smuggled nuke that we have to be worried about. However, the North Koreans don't give me a great deal of comfort either.

Thumper · 08-07-2005, 06:25 AM

Quote:

I still think it was the worst invention. Jen

Most would agree with Jennie. But it is easy to Google up the numbers of deaths, military and civilian, due to war for any period during the last 2,000 or so years. And those numbers indicate that as military technology has progressed, the death rates due to war have actually decreased.

There was nothing more dangerous in history than Homo sapiens armed with only a club or a rock.

Abalone · 08-07-2005, 07:51 AM

"She never forgave Hirohito for not stepping in earlier to try and end the war."

That's the problem with ending a war. The leaders know their time is up. They don't think about the millions of people that died at their hands. All they know is the war is over and they will lose power, be arrested and hanged.
It will be the end of them in any case. They have nothing to lose but a few days left on Earth.

The leaders of a loosing war will fight to the bitter end if nothing else, just to live a few more hours.

The rest of the millions suffering don't matter.

War is the World gone mad. There is no rational way to explain it.

Hitler should have called off after they lost the intitiative in France. But that would be assuming he was a rational man.

backlash442 · 08-07-2005, 08:29 AM

"Do you think the United States could win a conventional war against China ?"

Depends where it was fought. Last one was a stalemate (Korea). Although if McCarthur would of had his way he would have nuked them back to the Ming Dynasty.

sunshinefisherman · 08-07-2005, 10:23 AM

Not only have we not learned anything; we have forgotten what we knew then.

What we knew then:
<ul type="square">[*]That war is not pretty but needs to get done to remain free.[*]That we do not need to know every detail of every plan.[*]Total war.[/list]
What we have forgotten:
<ul type="square">[*]That the Vietnam war was lost in the press[*]That average Americans can be duped into serving the purposes of the enemies of this nation though their protests.[*]That war is not a popularity contest[*]That the opposite of war is not peace, it is all too often slavery.[/list]
I believe that President Bush's biggest mistake in Iraq was allowing a hostile press access to the battlefield.

I support the use of greater force in Iraq to overwhelm our adversary. Instead of house to house fighting, cordone off Falluga, leaflet the town with a notice saying �In 48 hours the city will be bombed. Anyone wishing to leave may do so after being photographed and fingerprinted.� Then drop a Nuke or a Neutron bomb to serve as an example to anyone who would try the patience of the US.

Don't like my opinions? Move to France!

8-guage · 08-07-2005, 12:12 PM

Boy oh boy, that's pretty extreme Sunshine. A NUKE BOMB????
That's an awful, awful solution.
I agree that protestors can weaken our resolve and divide us as a country but, not that they all empower our enemies. On the other hand, to just take and follow orders in the name of patriotism is to become one of the hearded sheep of which I have no intention and am happy there are others who believe the same.
I believe the biggest mistake president Bush made in Iraq, was to INVADE IRAQ in the first place!
Boldly exercising our brute strength and power is not the entire answer.
Bless you

08-07-2005, 12:16 PM

I'm reminded of this old Indian proverb:

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument"

So I won't even try

freespool · 08-07-2005, 12:30 PM

Quote:

That the Vietnam war was lost in the press
That average Americans can be duped into serving the purposes of the enemies of this nation though their protests.

As a veteran of three tours of duty in Viet Nam, and on behalf of my 58,228 fallen comrads, those comments are extreamly offensive to me.

salmon hugger

Abalone · 08-07-2005, 12:56 PM

Freespool !

"As a veteran of three tours of duty in Viet Nam,"

And may I say thank you Sir..

Veteran of the Vietnam war 1968 to 1972. Yankee station U.S.S. Ticonderoga CVA-14. My last day on board I flew from the flight deck to Danang Airport.

War sucks !

freespool · 08-07-2005, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Veteran of the Vietnam war 1968 to 1972. Yankee station U.S.S. Ticonderoga CVA-14. My last day on board I flew from the flight deck to Danang Airport.

War sucks !

Abalone, thank you for you sacrifices, without brave folks like you, we would not have this wonderful country we call America.

salmon hugger

rimrock · 08-07-2005, 02:37 PM

Quote:

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument"

So I won't even try

Indeed. :tongue:

Jennie@ifish · 08-07-2005, 03:08 PM

...because I don't see this thread going anywhere really good, I'm going to take a moment to make a little good of it.

Freespool, Abalone... Thank you from the bottom of our free little hearts!

Cool Texan · 08-07-2005, 03:13 PM

Watched a special on TV about this last night...made me incredibly sad to see what happened to so many people. I truly hope those weapons are never used again.

happybrew · 08-07-2005, 05:49 PM

For an interesting look at war deaths throughout history,

this site

has some very extensive statistics. Interesting enough, the Belgians of all people killed around 8 million in Congo. The battle of Leningrad in WWII claimed 850,000. It's very sad, the whole war thing.

happybrew

2LEYS · 08-07-2005, 06:08 PM

Here is a song written by Ozzy Osbourne.

Ozzy Osbourne
Thank God For The Bomb

Like moths to a flame
Is man ever gonna change?
Time's seen untold aggression
And infliction of pain
If that's the only thing that's stopping war

Then thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Nuke ya, nuke ya

War is just another game
Tailor made for the insane
But make a threat of their annihilation
And nobody wants to play
If that's the only thing that keeps the peace

Then thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Nuke ya, nuke ya

Today was tommorow, yesterday
It's funny how time can slip away
The face of the doomsday clock
Has launched a thousand wars
As we near the final hour
Time is the only foe we have

When war is obsolete
I'll thank God for war's defeat
But any talk about hell freezing over
Is all said with tongue in cheek
Until the day the war drums beat no more

I'll thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Nuke ya, nuke ya

BCF · 08-07-2005, 07:38 PM

David Lilienthal might disagree with you on your statement about how much better the world is for the creation of the atomic weapons programs.

Do a search. He wrote a book "Change ,Hope ,and the Atomic Bomb." you might find it interesting.

Also another good read, by David Berganini "Japanese Imperial Conspiracy". A well done telling of the history of Japan.The **** of Nanking and other events leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the events that shaped the war they waged. Also The creation and the delivery of the the atomic bombs.

I truly question how we will ever establish a peaceful world with some of the thinking I'm reading on this thread.

BCF

Thumper · 08-07-2005, 08:20 PM

Quote:

David Lilienthal might disagree with you on your statement about how much better the world is for the creation of the atomic weapons programs ... I truly question how we will ever establish a peaceful world with some of the thinking I'm reading on this thread.
BCF

Ah yes, the David Lilienthal who formulated the Lilienthal-Acheson Report. The document, published on March 28, 1946, suggested that international control of atomic energy might work "if the element of rivalry between nations were removed." This could be done, the document proposed, by assigning "the intrinsically dangerous phases of the development of atomic energy and weapons to an international organization responsible to all peoples."

What a great idea.

We merely need to communize nuclear weapons to ensure that they will never be used.

But no matter. We in fact live in your "peaceful world" precisely because of nuclear weapons. As the NRA would say --- "A (nuclear) armed society is a polite society." It has worked very successfully for 60 years. Now we'll see if we can get another 60 years down the road. Time will tell.....

8-guage · 08-07-2005, 08:28 PM

Well said BCF.
"I truly question how we will ever establish a peaceful world with some of the thinking I'm reading on this thread."
We surely will not, is the clear answer. The thinking on this thread isn't uncommon.
The same people who think this way are also posting threads like: "Self-defense, To kill or not to kill - a poll"!!!!! (and this isn't regarding hunting mind you!)
We are what we think (as individuals and as a society)and obviously not many are thinking upon Patience, Longsuffering, Compassion, Forgiveness, Sympathy, Understanding, Peace, Love and Hope, (the fruits of the spirit.)
It's more I, ME, MINE, I, ME, MINE, I, ME, MINE . Just like George Harrison said.
Lord, bless us all.

BCF · 08-07-2005, 08:36 PM

That's right Thumper, the David Lilienthal that President Truman appointed the head of the Atomic Energy Commission during the war. Yes I would say he knew of what he spoke.

He was also head of the TVA prior to that . I'd say he was a true patriot and not a "******" as you imply in your statement.

Not everyone is against you. And even lefties have rights.

BCF

2LEYS · 08-07-2005, 08:41 PM

It is the same arguement the NRA uses. If you have the choice to rob 2 houses, one you know has guns and the other doesn't, which one are you going to break into?

If one country has nukes and the other doesn't, which are you going to invade.

The bomb is an ugly scary thing, but you have to admit that the world is a better place because of it. Like Thumper said, 99% of war deaths in the 20th century happened before the bomb dropped. It is a HUGE deterent

BCF · 08-07-2005, 08:46 PM

I want to add something else Thumper which really is what I wanted to get across to you about what some of Lilienthals' thinking had to say.

That our spiritual development was/is not advanced enough to be able to deal with weapons of such advanced technology. That we are in a state of shock at the devastation we can/have caused with our weapons.

And because we are in shock we only reach for more or bigger weapons to free ourselves from the bondage of war. We can not develop another way of thinking as long as they exist.

Your turn BCF

BCF · 08-07-2005, 08:53 PM

The world has a population of six billion people. Are you /we really prepared to kill a third of that number. I'm not.

In Japan the spirit of empathy is taught in school to all the children of the nation. Stealing is virtually unheard of, lost wallets get returned to their owners. It is a point of honor to think of how "the other"person would feel if they were deprived of something they cherished.

Just think about another way.

BCF

rimrock · 08-07-2005, 08:58 PM

Since the nuclear bomb is such a greater deterrent and it is saving lives, why not arm every country in the world with one? This might be the model for world peace we have been missing all along...

08-07-2005, 09:06 PM

Quote:

I truly question how we will ever establish a peaceful world with some of the thinking I'm reading on this thread.

Fortunately the they don't have their fingers on the button

Here is a statement by a man that saw the horrors of war first hand

"We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment"
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

freespool · 08-07-2005, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Stealing is virtually unheard of, lost wallets get returned to their owners. It is a point of honor to think of how "the other"person would feel if they were deprived of something they cherished.

Buddhists are a very honorable people, we could learn from their example.

salmon hugger

8-guage · 08-07-2005, 09:12 PM

"Buddhists are a very honorable people, we could learn from their example.

I fully agree with that statement Freespool.
And their God is nature and their doctrine is PEACE.

BCF · 08-07-2005, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Ah yes, the David Lilienthal who formulated the Lilienthal-Acheson Report. The document, published on March 28, 1946, suggested that international control of atomic energy might work "if the element of rivalry between nations were removed." This could be done, the document proposed, by assigning "the intrinsically dangerous phases of the development of atomic energy and weapons to an international organization responsible to all peoples."

What a great idea.

We merely need to communize nuclear weapons to ensure that they will never be used.

But no matter. We in fact live in your "peaceful world" precisely because of nuclear weapons. As the NRA would say --- "A (nuclear) armed society is a polite society." It has worked very successfully for 60 years. Now we'll see if we can get another 60 years down the road. Time will tell.....

Here is another look at that same report Thumper because it does matter.

"the primary message of the report was that control of atomic energy through the inspections and "police"operations was unlikely to succeed. Instead the report proposed that all fissile material be owned by an international agency called the Atomic Development Authority, which would release small amounts to individual nations for the development of peaceful uses of atomic energy."

That is really different than what you put out here on the internet.
Frankly it would have been a whole sight better than the escalating and bankrupt weapons race the world is currently engaged in now.

Thumper you out there?

BCF

happybrew · 08-07-2005, 09:27 PM

I think it is easy to sit back and armchair quarterback what happened back then, not that that's a bad thing. We can learn from our earlier actions. But from a moral standpoint, I think it is important to look at it based upon what we knew at the time.

Nuclear weapons were new. Limited tests had been done, and nobody really knew for sure exactly what it would do. It had never been used in battle.

We had just undertaken the brutal task of subduing **** Germany, which had not surrendered. The ****'s fought to the death. The United States hadn't even experienced the worst of it. We had halted our advance to let the Russians take East Germany. The Russians, for a variety of reasons, Stalin one of them, had lost an even larger number than we had in a much longer advance. We knew of what it took to finish off a determined enemy from the experience of the Russians.

With **** Germany defeated, troops who had fought from North Africa into Germany were about to be shifted to the Pacific for the final push on Japan. This was horrible for morale. The lesson from the French in the First World War was that poor morale led to greater casualties.

Between the United States and Japan, 150,000 people had just lost their lives taking Okinawa, which wasn't really even considered Japan proper. At the time, it would be considered what Puerto Rico is to the United States today, culturally distinct in a number of ways, but part of the country. Women and children had been trained to fight. This was to be total war to the end.

The United States made a calculated decision. It was determined after the experience of Okinawa and the end of the Third Reich, that huge numbers of soldiers and civilians on both sides would die. The atomic bomb would demonstrate to Japan that it could not win, and that it could not hurt the U.S. like the U.S. could hurt it. It was determined that this would be the lesser of two evils.

Should we have negotiated a peace? Hard to say. We thought it unlikely that Japan would negotiate a peace, and the fact that Japanese were committing suicide to take American lives is a measure of their resolve. Given that nearly 400,000 had died in the **** of Nanking, and horrible things had been done..., just look at it given what they had known.

I saw a book once, and I wish I hadn't. It was a photo documentary of what the Japanese did in Nanking, what the Japanese themselves photographed, being proud of what they did. Piles of corpses. Beheadings. Rapes. Rapes of beheaded corpses. All with troops around, smiles on their faces. Piles of corpses. Dead children, beheaded by Japanese troops. Did I mention rapes and corpses? I wish I had never seen it. It was horrible. The American military was aware of what had been done. We knew about 400,000 dead there. We had witnessed Okinawa firsthand, in blood.

According to the History Channel, http://dsc.discovery.com/anthology/s.../history2.html, 200,000 people were killed by Unit 731 conducting germ warfare tests.

Would we negotiate a peace with that enemy? Should we? What would they do after they rebuilt, with us out of the way? They still had China, Burma, Korea, Vietnam...

This doesn't even begin to touch what had happened. It was awful. Nobody else had the bomb. Proliferation was not conceivable at the time. It looked like the lesser evil. We will never know what would have happened had we not used it. We only know what did happen, before and after.

I pray for an end to all war. It's a horrible thing to ask our young men to do. It's a terrible thing for anyone to endure. But we can only look at what we know. They could not know that Iran and North Korea would be looking at the bomb. They could not know that sixty years later we would fear terrorists obtaining it.

Imagine this: The American Revolution didn't take place because they knew the Civil War would happen.

Europe doesn't overthrow their monarchies in 1848 because they know World War One will occur in seventy years if they do.

Christ refuses to die on His cross because he knows that people will use his name to wage war.

Revisionist history notwithstanding, decisions are based on what is known at the time. Unintended consequences always occur. That is what gives later statemen something to do.

If I were president then, knowing what they knew then, I probably would have used it. If I were president today, knowing what we know now, probably not. But we play the card we are dealt. Perhaps we can do better in the future.

happybrew

BCF · 08-07-2005, 10:07 PM

I'm not arm chair quarterbacking anything. And I'm certainly not revising history. In David Berganini's book "Japanese Imperial Conspiracy" documents show those brutal war crimes in Nanking. And yes we here in the United States certainly did know about it. Why? Because we were the primary supplier of oil and fuel to Japan. The invasion of China by Japan could have in fact never happened without the oil supplied by the US oil companies. We knew about the atrocities but we were making a lot of money and we choose to ignore them. It wasn't until the Japanese moved past China and into the European colonies that we stopped the supply of fuel. And this was only after an agreement between Roosevelt and the European countries. They would handle Hitler and we would handle Japan. We had no intention to go to war with either. Simply stop supplying Japan with oil.

Japan seeing that they could never keep any of their newly gained territory attacked the U.S.. Their idea being that to cripple our Pacific fleet would leave us vulnerable and therefore we would capitulate to them on demands to re-open the oil supply.

The misconception that the citizenry of Japan was trained in military fighting and ready to fight to the death is just false. That is revisionist history. As is that Hirohito was unaware of the goings on of his Generals prior to the attack of Pearl Harbor. He was not the humble Marine biologist tucked away in a laboratory unknowing of the movements of his generals.

Many military analysts of the day thought the bombs were not necessary to bring an end to the war. But alas we will never know the answer to that question. What we do know is that the bombs had never been used on a "live" test. And we wanted to know their true capabilities.

That is why one was uranium and one was plutonium. One was dropped from instruments and the other by visual confirmation of the target. It is all documented.

I feel it was a racist and inhuman act. And has devastated mankind's thinking.

Two wrongs don't make a right, no matter how badly we want to avenge the atrocities done to us by our enemies.

BCF

BCF · 08-08-2005, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Revisionist history notwithstanding, decisions are based on what is known at the time. Unintended consequences always occur. That is what gives later statemen something to do.

If I were president then, knowing what they knew then, I probably would have used it. If I were president today, knowing what we know now, probably not. But we play the card we are dealt. Perhaps we can do better in the future.

happybrew

Well said happybrew,

I was to tired to make that clear last night when I posted. Your response was heart felt, insightful and well thought out. I really appreciate the real dialog. As we are all imperfect human beings, we stumble along trying to make sense of the choices before us and having to live with the consequences of our decisions after.

Thanks BCF

Thumper · 08-08-2005, 05:41 AM

Quote:

I feel it was a racist and inhuman act. And has devastated mankind's thinking.

Two wrongs don't make a right, no matter how badly we want to avenge the atrocities done to us by our enemies.

BCF

I guess we can agree to disagree. I believe that the use of these weapons ended the war far more quickly, thus saving millions of lives. And I am convinced that the presence of nuclear weapons in the world has saved billions of lives, as discussed above.

It is interesting that Stew cites Eisenhower and BCF cites Liliethal, both in their beliefs that nuclear weapons have terrorized the world. Eisenhower strongly supported the U.S. development of nuclear weapons and he had little regard for Lilienthal. In fact Lilienthal resigned in disgust from Eisenhower's Atomic Energy Commission in 1950 after Eisenhower pursued development of the hydrogen bomb. Eisenhower had little use for Lilienthal's advocacy of internationalizing nuclear weapons technology and control. Thank God Lilienthal did not win that battle.

You appear to favor Lilienthal's approach, and thus would have preferred that in 1946 those weapons and their technology had been placed in the hands of an international authority. I can't buy that.

It's OK to disagree. Fun discussion.

FrogPond · 08-08-2005, 07:16 AM

I for one am glad the war ended...I think it is safe to say that I would not be here today if it had gone on much longer. My grandfather survived the Pearl Harbor attacks, but many others didn't. Yes, that may seem a little selfish...but after all I am talking about MY LIFE!!
I am VERY thankful that there are men and women who volunteer for the roles that protect our republic. Our leaders have difficult decisions to make every day. I am glad they have the guts to make those decisions. It would be a very hard job.

War has two objectives...to break things and kill people.

War is a tool. The nuclear bomb is a tool of war. I trust our leaders and protectors to use their tools in ways that keep me and my republic safe and prosperous.

Kevin M. Kelly · 08-08-2005, 08:27 AM

Here's .02 for a different view point.

I'm probably one of the very few Ifish members who have ever actually worked with nucs.

In my last job in the Navy, I was the Weapons Officer on USS Tecumseh (SSBN628) In that job, I was the person who actually "Pressed the Button" or more accurately,"Pulled the Trigger" to launch Poseidon missiles. This was one of those jobs that you never forget.

The only thing that kept me going in that job was knowing that if I ever had to actually shoot the missles, then my family, wife and child would have previously been turned into cinders by others before we got the launch order. When President Reagan changed from this defensive posture to one where the U. S. could launch first, I had serious doubts about whether I could have pulled the triger.

I knew what the results of a launch would be and set a routine for myself that included a prayer. It went something like this: "Lord, I know you have a plan for everyone and everything, if you turely don't want this to happen, stop me now."

Capt. Hook, you aren't quite correct, some of us would have had to make that decision. And yes, I know that I would have carried that guilt to my grave, probably sooner than later.

sunshinefisherman, I personally don't like your opinion, but that is one of the basic beliefs of this country, that every one is entitled to their opinion, and yes, I have spent years defending this right.

The arguments about Hiroshima, both pro and con will continue forever. It, along with many other controversial events are part of both World and U. S. history that shouldn't ever be forgotten.

Please excuse my ranbling, I just thought a different view point would be appreciated.

Abalone · 08-08-2005, 08:33 AM

If we are attacked at some point by a Nuke I hope I will be standing at ground Zero.

8-guage · 08-08-2005, 09:02 AM

Yes, Abalone, if that ever happened, I would try to CATCH it!

freespool · 08-08-2005, 09:37 AM

Quote:

I'm probably one of the very few Ifish members who have ever actually worked with nucs.

Kevin, thanks for putting your experiences out there. Unless you have seen what a real nuclear weapon looks like, you just can not grasp the gravity of what these very distructives devices.
I too, worked on nukes while in the Navy. I was part of the nuclear weapons dilvery funtional test crew. Our job was to test all the wiring and black boxes on the aircraft that pertained to nuclear weapons dilivery.
One thing that I will never forget is the site of a nuclear weapon, even after over 30yrs, it still puts a chill up my spine.

salmon hugger

Abalone · 08-08-2005, 09:52 AM

I accidently walked into the hanger deck one day as it was secured by armed marines. I saw a big fat Chrome looking thing. I sorta figured it my be a one.

There's a lot of them out there floating around.

TheKing · 08-08-2005, 12:54 PM

"In Japan the spirit of empathy is taught in school to all the children of the nation. Stealing is virtually unheard of, lost wallets get returned to their owners. It is a point of honor to think of how "the other"person would feel if they were deprived of something they cherished.

Just think about another way.

"Buddhists are a very honorable people, we could learn from their example.

I fully agree with that statement Freespool.
And their God is nature and their doctrine is PEACE. "

You should really look at context before making such a broad statement. This would be dealing with material possesions. That is not what is being dicussed here. If you look up historical records and see how the Japanese treated the Chinese during WWII you would naver make that statement again. Specifically if you sutdied their culture today and see that what brought on the atrocitiy has not culturally been altered in all these years. My two grandfathers both fought in WWII and where both subjected to the humanity of the Japanese on S. Pacific islands after Mac's pullout. Understanding this Japanese humanity is what drove us to consider and then use the atomic weapons.

BCF · 08-08-2005, 03:36 PM

[quote]

Quote:

You appear to favor Lilienthal's approach, and thus would have preferred that in 1946 those weapons and their technology had been placed in the hands of an international authority. I can't buy that.

It's OK to disagree. Fun discussion.

I will agree that we disagree. But you continue to paraphrase Lilienthals position incorrectly Thumper.

He did not want the weapons internationalized.
He wanted the atomic technologies administered by an international authority.

And only small amounts of fissile material was to be released to select nations approved by that authority and for peaceful uses only. NO WEAPONS. Energy only. This is very different than what you continue to say he wanted for the future of Atomic Energy.

And yes I know it is OK to disagree with you.

BCF

Thumper · 08-08-2005, 03:48 PM

Quote:

I will agree that we disagree. But you continue to paraphrase Lilienthals position incorrectly Thumper.

He did not want the weapons internationalized.
He wanted the atomic technologies administered by an international authority.

And only small amounts of fissile material was to be released to select nations approved by that authority and for peaceful uses only. NO WEAPONS. Energy only. This is very different than what you continue to say he wanted for the future of Atomic Energy.

BCF

Same thing. As we are seeing in North Korea and Iran, there are merely a couple of enrichment procedures that separate peaceful applications from production of weapons-grade materials.

Do you really think that the Soviet Union would have refrained from developing nuclear weapons if the world agreed that the UN could (presumably) lock up the technology? If you believe that, I would be shocked.

When this arms control proposal was developed, the world was only one year from WWII. The proposal actually went to the UN, but thank God the Soviet Union vetoed it because of their concerns that the USA was treated preferentially.

What a mess the world would have been in if the Lilienthal concept had been approved.

One thing seems clear --- we would all be speaking Russian today, if our culture even survived the nuclear onslaught. Bad, bad idea.

Joe Schwab · 08-08-2005, 04:12 PM

Kevin, While I admire your service, (I did 8 years myself 1962 -1969 Air Force) I too sat in the weapons control room among the brave Officers who would have to push the buttons if Kruschev did not back down during the Cuban crisis. What I'm saying is "most" people think there are some monsters sitting there eager to push the button and they despise or smugly look down on them for doing their job.

I saw nothing but brave men, some openly weeping in anticipation of what they knew they would have to do.

So the alternative would have been to let the Russians establish their nukes within spitting distance of our shores? How humanitarian of us!

America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment"
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Stew, do you understand the jist of that statement? He said "how we use". Not how we sit back and put our collective heads in the sand.