home

Hiroshima

60 years ago today, the U.S. dropped a nuclear bomb called "little boy" on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. More than 55,000 people attended a memorial service in a Hiroshima park today.

There is a gripping series in Der Spiegel today about the history of the making the bomb and what led to the decision to drop it, and the effects. The series begins with the recollection of 16 year old Keijiro Matsushima who was in a classroom when the bomb hit. He survived. This is some of what he saw:

Matsushima, bleeding from multiple wounds, drags himself into the schoolyard under swirling, thick, dark clouds of dust. Many of his classmates are already lying outside, some spitting up dark blood. He sees grayish burn wounds through their torn clothing.

Downtown Hiroshima is completely destroyed in the blast. Horribly disfigured people emerge from the direction of the city, clumps of skin hanging detached from their swollen bodies, their reddish muscle tissue exposed.

Many are covered by nothing but their underwear, and their hair -- made frizzy by the intense heat -- protrudes wildly from their heads. To keep their wounds from touching, the victims walk with their arms outstretched. When Matsushima recalls the gruesome scene, he calls it a "procession of ghosts."

The devastation was enormous.

The devastation caused by "Little Boy" surpassed everything that American scientists, military personnel and politicians had expected. The nuclear explosion left behind death and destruction within an area of 13 square kilometers, or about five square miles. On August 6, there were about 350,000 people in the city, the country's eighth largest.

By the end of 1945, about 140,000 of those had died -- in horror-inspiring ways. The first victims were essentially vaporized in the epicenter of the fireball, at temperatures of more than a million degrees centigrade, or burned to death in a wave of heat hot enough to scorch trees a dozen kilometers away. Still others were crushed by the debris from buildings collapsing as a result of the massive wave of pressure. Those at a somewhat greater distance from ground zero were killed by direct exposure to radiation. Many were poisoned when they drank the radioactive rain -- turned black by dust and debris -- that began falling about 20 minutes after the explosion. An Australian journalist visiting Hiroshima in September 1945 dubbed the disease he observed -- hair falling out, bodies covered in reddish-purple spots, victims dying of internal bleeding -- the "atomic plague."

Three days later the U.S. dropped another atomic bomb called "Fat Man" on Nagasaki.

The exact number of victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will never be known. What we do know is that thousands are still dying today from the delayed effects of malicious radiation....Even the children and grandchildren of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will suffer the consequences of their parents' and grandparents' exposure to radiation. In many cases, their genetic material has been so severely damaged that they now suffer from leukemia, breast cancer and neurological disorders.

Here are some other sobering numbers:

More than 775,000 soldiers died in Napoleon's military campaigns between 1805 and 1815. One hundred years later, World War I claimed almost 15 million lives. Finally, Hitler's World War II sent 60 million people to their graves, including the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The bomb was originally built with Germany in mind as the target.

One of the most astonishing finds in recent years is a document containing the minutes of a May 5, 1943 meeting of the high-ranking Military Policy Committee, whose members decided that dropping the atomic bomb over Germany would be too risky. The explosive device could turn out to be a dud, thereby unintentionally providing the Nazis with valuable information to use in developing their own bomb.

Fear of the German bomb has prompted the Americans to build their own. But instead of Germany, they set their sights on Hitler's ally in Asia.

There's also a really interesting interview with atomic weapons historian Richard Rhodes. A snippet:

Rhodes....We killed almost 2 million Japanese civilians with bombing campaigns.

....SPIEGEL ONLINE: Why was the A-bomb dropped at all? What were the strategic goals the US was attempting to achieve?

Rhodes: By the time the atomic bomb was dropped, we had destroyed virtually every Japanese city with a population of over 50,000. The logic went something like this: "If bombing a factory with workers inside it wasn't a war crime, then why would it be a war crime to bomb the area around the factories where the workers live?" After that the bombing campaign was essentially to force the Japanese to surrender so that a land invasion would not be necessary and thus limit the loss of life. The atomic bombs were really just an extension of that. And in the end, it did shorten the war.

On Harry Truman:

Truman has won a rather rosy image over the years. But I think he was a great deal more like George W. Bush than he was like Franklin Roosevelt. He was an intellectually insecure man and he covered up that insecurity with a great deal of bluster and an almost obsessive attitude that "the buck stops here." That was the attitude he used when approaching the atomic bomb. But he also had a visceral and existential response to the mass killings when he got the news of what had happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After that, he was unwilling under any circumstances to use nuclear weapons.

Back to the present:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: How great is the danger that a nuclear weapon will be used again?

Rhodes: Everybody I talk to in the nuclear community is pretty comfortable that nation states are not going to use nuclear weapons -- even states like North Korea are clearly more concerned with the prestige factor than about actually using it. But everyone I talk to is greatly concerned about the very real possibility of a terrorist nuclear attack. Terrorist groups -- al-Qaida is one example -- would see a great amount of prestige if they were able to build and detonate a nuclear weapon in New York City or in Iraq's US-controlled Green Zone. In fact, everyone I take seriously in this field believes the possibility is 100 percent. The fact is, if you can get a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium, it's very easy to make a nuclear weapon that would explode with about the same yield as the Hiroshima bomb. These weapons are so small and so portable and so vastly destructive for their weight and size that there is no effective defense against them except abolition.

Bloggers have taken various positions on whether we should have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Update: The Hiroshima Coverup.

< A Question For the President | 1969: Mick Jagger Documents Allege Frame-Up >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#1)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    If there's a God, he must not let this happen for a third time.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#2)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    It is a sad, sad state of affairs that we even contemplate, much less devise, new weapons of atomic power. et al, please name one weapon any other country has deployed that reaches the standard of this WMD.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#3)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    If there's a God....? We've been on our own since the Garden of Eden.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#4)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    This story of Hiroshima cannot get enough examination. That examination must be rigorous for what it tells about the past, but more importantly it must illuminate how we deal with such destructive power in the future. I previously left the followin comment over at Majikthise and I think it still applies: I suppose somewhere lost in the discussion of Hiroshima is the morality of "total war." Shall the conduct of war be limited to miltary combatants? After the firebombing of Dresden and up to 100,000 dead German civilians, perhaps is should be no surprise that an even more destructive agent was used later. When we speak today of combatants illegal and otherwise, when we consider terrorists and their "ideology of hate," when we use dark means to advance our cause of light, are we not somehow doing all of this in the light of that fireflash in Hiroshima and its twin and inseparable moral shadow? If there are no innocents, can there be any guilt? A meditation on Hiroshima here.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#5)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    After midnite, we gonna let our quota down ♫ If you guys are done with your little "I'm morally better than others and you can always tell because I'm so disappointed in them" shpiel, then consider just a few facts, pls: 1. Okinawa alone cost 50,000Allied lives and several times more Japanese. Five or ten times that would have died in an invasion (see next pt). 2. As the Japanese forces retreated their homeland, they became stronger in that area. Local support was high. 3. The Imperial Japanese were deadly: tens of millions in China and elsewhere had been slaughtered. Not 100k killed in a bombing sortie, but tens of millions killed one by one, under a philosophy that explicitly viewed them as subhuman. This was NOT a force the US wanted to let survive the war intact, to rise again at the first opportunity. 4. An invasion of Japan would have directly killed hundreds of thousands or more Japanese, too. 5. Indirectly, several million addl Japanese would have died from famine and disease had a "normal" invasion taken place, as the railways and other infrastructure would have to have been bombed. Guys, I'm just doin' this offa the top o my head. There's w-a-y more that one can add with a few more moments reflection, or a quick perusal of a few books or sites on the topic. A little less posing might not necessarily be such a bad idea. The West actually has a lot to offer, y'know.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    ahh ras...the crown prince of knee-jerk reaction... Go back and read the previous entries. Who is criticizing "the west"? It's telling that you feel the need to defend a concept against an attack that wasn't even there. Feeling guilty, are we?

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    60 years ago we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since then, the world could not use the bomb because it would about bring total anihilation; a nuclear holocaust. Along those lines Rhodes says: "Everybody I talk to in the nuclear community is pretty comfortable that nation states are not going to use nuclear weapons....But everyone I talk to is greatly concerned about the very real possibility of a terrorist nuclear attack. Terrorist groups" Both of Rhodes statements, reflecting popular opinion, seem questionable to me. In October '04, Juan Cole a mid-east scholar, wrote that the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack seems ridiculous. He writes: "Terrorist groups do not have the capability to build football-arena size facilities to enrich uranium. And contrary to what Cheney keeps alleging, no government is going to give a terrorist group an atomic bomb. Governments with atomic bombs don't like to share with civilians, for fear of their own safety." I am concerned that Rhodes and "everyone in the Nuclear Community" may be wrong about Nation States not using Nukes. For the last several years the neocons have been working on developing small wuclear weapons, "bunker busters", among others. These elaborate nuclear machines can drill deep into the earth and deliver their payload wiith 'minimal harm to the environment'; it's like a James Bond Movie. We now have, for the first time in 60 years, nuclear weapons that can be used. Now the neocons seem aching to give these little suckers a spin. Cheney's Iran Contingency Plan, recently mentioned in the American Conservative Magazine, proposes just such a thing. Cole seems to think that this seems unlikely. Let's hope he is right, on both counts. I am worried.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#8)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    Good comments by Squeaky. Consider also: 1. The abandonment by this administration of the NPT and other treaties. 2. Failure to stop Pakistan (i.e.Khan) from spreading nuclear technology. 3. The sale of nuclear technology to other nations, such as India, who have refused to join the NPT. 4. A foreign policy that is in essence: "we have more nukes than you so bring it on" 5. Imperialistic actions by the US which make other nations more likely to want nuclear weapons for deterrence. An attack by a terrorist group would more likely be a "dirty bomb"

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#9)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    We should also remember that Japan was offering to surrender before we dropped the bomb. The sticking point was that they wanted to keep the Emperer. We couldnt agree to that because we demanded unconditional surrender.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#10)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    Ernesto writes:
    Who is criticizing the west?
    Surely you jest. All of the comments are in the context that we shouldn't have dropped the bombs. ras has it exactly right. More people, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, US, Australian, New Zeeland and English would have died if we had used only conventional weapons and invaded. Roger - There has been lots of writing and discussion over that point, and it is really the center of the question. The Japanese rulers knew what the terms were long before the bombs were dropped, yet continued deadly resistance at Iowa Jima, Okinawa and Guam. Squeaky - Terrorist groups do not, but Iraq did, and was trying to get back in the game. Do you have any doubt that Saddam would not have given the terrorist a nuke at the first opportunity? Iran is now in the game and we'll have to make a decision regarding them in the not to distant future. et al - If you would like to understand war from the view of the grunts and seaman, read James Fahey's "Pacific War Diary, 1942-1945." Pay close attention to the last chapters when he describes the suicide attacks, and the lay out of the coast of Japan, and the ease the geography afforded coastal defense.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#11)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    Jim, These battles were fought over whether to allow the Japenese to keep their emperer, or to surrender unconditionally. We eventuaslly got our unconditional surrender, and left the japanese emperer on the throne. There was a (very) good argument that Hirohito should be charged with war crimes, so I am not arguing that the US should not have demanded unconditional surrender, it just seems strange to fight so hard, suffer so many casualties, to leave the war criminal on the throne. Much has been written that the A bomb was dropped mostly as a test. While that view seems overly simplistic, there does seem to be an element of truth to it.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#12)
    by theologicus on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    The human race has been given a reprieve of 60 years. How much longe will we be able to outlive our folly? We Must Act Now to Prevent Another Hiroshima - or Worse Noam Chomsky

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#13)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    They were about to surrender anyway.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#14)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    Roger - The test "theory" is just a straw horse. The bomb was dropped to wipe out a city and demonstrate what we could do. As to leaving the Emperor on the throne, it was the best way to allow the populace to think they still had, although they did not, some control. BTW - I'll be in San Francisco this week, so I'll have a really good Japanese dinner for you. ;-)

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#15)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    Jim, Glad to see that you are eating healthy! And Yummy too. Still, with all that you also say about Hiroshima, it is sad that we couldnt have accepted the Japenese surrender BEFORE we lost so many US troops in places like Iwo Jima. I dont necessarily disagree that leaving Hirohito on the throne was a good realpolitic move, but we could have reached that decision sooner, and saved many lives on both sides. BTW- we dropped the bomb to show what we could do? Maybe not quite a test, but a demonstration? Some have suggested that there were other ways to do exactly that without dropping it on a city. Also, what do you think of the theory that states that Hiroshima was left alone throughout the war so that we could nuke an undamaged city? Better demonstration that nuking, say Dresden?

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#16)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    Thank god we had that atomic bomb and used it on the right people who had it coming, remember the japanese were on hitler's side and murdered millions of kids and woman and old people just for the fun of it. Long Live the Enola Gay, by the way the two atomic bombs killed 65,000 japanese soldiers, and if guys like my father would have had to attack that little island of evil nuts, today we would only see american japanese, get what i mean? oh yes lets hear from the nazis who love the other side now.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    It's commonly held that if a state doesn't detonate its nuclear weapons, they aren't being used:
    I am concerned that Rhodes and "everyone in the Nuclear Community" may be wrong about Nation States not using Nukes.
    Also:
    We now have, for the first time in 60 years, nuclear weapons that can be used.
    However, nuclear weapons are used, in the following sense: to project power and threaten other states. This is the same sense, though on a larger scale, that a robber might threaten to use a gun without firing it. Nuclear submarines confront each other. Planes test the limits of foreign airspace. The nuclear states are constantly testing each other. You don't need to fire a gun in order to use it. These weapons are being used all the time. Moreover, your position, if you have such devices, is that you are prepared to detonate them, and that in fact, if you are threatened, you will detonate them. Your position isn't, "they're just collector's items." Nor is it, "sure, we have the capability and readiness to wage a strategic war, but if the situation ever arose, we're just going to let them sit idle, even if we're threatened. We don't actually intend to go through with it--lighten up!" If bunker-buster nukes are developed, at the very least, they will be "used" in the sense that nuclear weapons are already being used. Having said that, it's hard to imagine detonating such a device in combat, without it escalating.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#18)
    by theologicus on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    By any means necessary: the United States and Japan Paul Rogers Open Democracy August 4, 2005 If Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not worked, the United States had a plan for winning the war against Japan that involved massive use of chemical weapons [against civilians]. ...But what would have happened if the Manhattan Project had not had its effect and the United States’s projected invasion of Japan had indeed gone ahead? The sudden end of the war precipitated by the two atomic bombs, and subsequent secrecy on the part of the United States, disguised for many years the fact that the US had prepared a remarkable back-up plan. This was the mass-production of enormous quantities of chemical weapons to be used against Japanese cities, that envisaged killing as many as 5 million people. This previously secret plan came to light with the declassification of sensitive papers after the end of the cold war, and was written up some years later in a paper for the authoritative Proceedings of the US Naval Institute by two military historians, Norman Polmar & Thomas B Allen ("The Most Deadly Plan", Proceedings, January 1998). It scarcely reached the public domain at the time, yet it says much about the approach to warfare that had developed by 1945, including a willingness to inflict mass civilian casualties on a scale far higher even than the carpet-bombing of Tokyo, Hamburg or Dresden or the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ...

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#19)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    Roger - I think it just another wild theory, mostly circulated to make the US look bad. As for the timing, they weren't going to give until the handwriting was in the rubble. Though maybe you might be out. We could do an international day. A Beligum breakfast - hard bread, chease and beer (eases you into the day), Chinese dim sum for lunch and then real Japanese for dinner (mellows you out for the later entertainment). ;-)

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#20)
    by wishful on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    How is comparing numbers of dead civilians/military personnel from two different methods of destruction, and choosing the potentially "less dead" option NOT moral relativism? Isn't that a no-no?

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#21)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    Long live the ideal of Victory over evil, the yellow nazis are as evil as the black and white rats that follow evil ideals of mass murder. but who is the evil in this new war?

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#22)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    Ras is right.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#23)
    by theologicus on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    To wishful: It is a standard element in the just-war tradition and in international law that civilians are not to be directly targeted. Violations of noncombatant immunity are, morally and legally, barbaric and fall into the category of crimes equivalent to murder.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    Does Iran Have Nukes? If you listen to Cheney and Bolton they do. Ray McGovern, fleshes out the disparity between facts and fiction (NIE vs. Cheney). He points to Tuesday's front page WAPO article, written by Dafna Linzer who reports that the NIE says no way: "early to mid-next decade," at the earliest. Eric Schmitt, NYT lackey, has replaced Jail Bird Judy with his front page version of Iran doings (from government sources), sound familiar. Do they think we are so stupid that they can do the same phony build up that they did with Iraq?...yes, we have PPJ here to enlighten a dumbfounded audience that Americans are in fact so stupid. Do these PPJ's not know or care that America supports and develops ruthless dictators and terrorists until they outlive their usefulness? Saadam was placed in Iraq by US in 1959, and supported by US until he invaded the dictatorship of Kuwait. The MEK, a international terror group in northern Iraq, funded by and supplied by the US during the Iran-Iraq war, are today, on the front-line of the war on terror, and still looking to take out Iran. Given the nod by the US, they are now freedom fighters, not terrorists. And then there is Osama, our man in Afghanistan, head of Al Quaida the database (the cia database), of Mujadeen freedom fighters, now terrorists. PPJ thank you for illuminating me about the 'real world', and the potential for an Armageddon.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#25)
    by drshaffer on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    There is NO justification for the use of weapons capable of such destruction.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    What a blowhard. Must be the water he is drinking, or something....

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#28)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    The real enemies of freedom need to be nuked and at once. the fact is in all wars the civilians who back evil and the ideals of real tradition war is to kill the population of the enemy nation state or the enemies lands that are fighting against the other population, all things are fair in war, we have never had a just war and killing is normal if that killing stop that war. many of you would love to see all white europe dead for your own cultural ideals, unlike the cultural ideals of the great western world. and who killed more civilians in world war two, the japanese empire do you know what the japanese did in china/far east/asia?

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    From
    all things are fair in war,
    and
    do you know what the japanese did in china/far east/asia?
    it follows that whatever the Japanese did in war, it was "fair." Most of Dawes' post is incoherent, though it does express the conservative cliche' that war is hell, meaning that you can say war is destructive, stupid, inhuman and wasteful, but don't say it's wrong. For Dawes, there is no need to justify the use of nuclear weapons, since he believes that "all things in war are fair." Why bother providing any justification in that case? It's irrelevant, on the basis of that principle. Dropping sunflower seeds or bombs would be equally "fair"--the principle that fairness applies indiscriminantly and equally to any action in war undermines any rational effort to justify those actions--at least on the basis of "fairness." That's the unsophisticated point of "war is hell."

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#30)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    Squeaky writes:
    Saadam was placed in Iraq by US in 1959, and
    Outside of having something to write on the screen, what does this portend? Are you saying that we knew in 1959 that Saddam was going to turn into an enemy? And yes, I am in favor of getting help whenever possible, and if I can get two of my enemies fighting each other, I am all for it. Blowback is a fanciful term meaning anything at anytime, but used mostly to try and discredit the successes of the past. Does Iran have nukes? Well, at least they are working on them. You write:
    PPJ thank you for illuminating me about the 'real world', and the potential for an Armageddon.
    Well, nothing is too good for my friends, but somehow I think such a task would be kin to Wheeling, WV or Flushing, NY. Shortwave – Fred D is pulling your leg. ;-)

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#31)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    Shortwave, Dawes is most decidedly not conservative. Peruse a few dozen other threads on this site and you'll see what I mean. Frankly, his answers on this thread surprised me, but I think what taught him this belief was his own family's involvement in that campaign. In this, he echoes most of the US military and who returned from the Pacific, and their families. They didn't ask why the bombs were dropped. They asked why the hell they weren't dropped before so many were killed in Okinawa and elsewhere. BTW, IIRC, the US only had, in those days, two h-bombs at its disposal. The feeling was that a demo blast, say on a nearby hillside or a remote military base, would not be enough to force an unconditional surrender, nor might a single blast that could be seen as a one-off, and they had a limited number of opportunities given the "arsenal" of the day. Truman only used the bombs very reluctantly, as evidenced by, for ex, his attempt at a conventional invasion in Okinawa first. Lastly, MacArthur made a point of being photo'd w/Hirohito. The image of the taller American, dressed casually (no tie, as the JP press immediately noticed) and standing matter-of-factly right beside the Emperor was very powerful symbolism in its day. No one had to tell the Japanese that the Emperor was only a figurehead now; they knew.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    Our failure to grapple fully with the ethical questions stemming from our use of mass violence against civilians has meant that we unwittingly endorse an act that some would consider state terror.
    Read more here

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#33)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    Ras, Nobody had H bombs in 1945. Hiroshima was a uranium A bomb Nagasaki was a plutonium A-bomb The H bomb was invented years later by the US, mainly by Teller (not of Penn and...)

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#34)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    I hate MacArthur he ran-away from the philippines in 1942.but what can i say he was a great general, sad, I think? or was he a great P.R. Guy? but really people the jap-a-nese had it coming, and sad to say it, so do we if we let bush rat run things the way he is. But maybe bush wants a new Hiroshima inside this empire? but remember death isn't a bad thing when you die for the emperor, got what i mean?

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#35)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    "I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to [Secretary of War Henry L. Stinson] my grave misgivings....I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save american lives." Dwight Eisenhower

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#36)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    ras, the H-bomb was made in 1952/3. but it was made by by the old guy teller, and remember hitler wanted teller killed, and by the way the japanses were working on a bomb in 1945 at the end of the war and had a plan to use it on The U.S.A, And not a military but a popultion center, and could have used the bomb on the USA By jan 1946.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#37)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    The Japanese bomb is an interesting twist in history. It was mainly stopped when the US captured the German U-boat carrying uranium to Japan.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#38)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    I feel confident in saying that in the upcoming and continuing wars for the control of the earth's limited natural resources, that this administration would have no qualms in using tactical nukes. It is just the next natural step in their continued campaign of shock and awe. They will continue to raise the stakes until someone is actually shocked and awed to a point where they will not fight back. They are responsible for rendering many of the treaties meaningless, for allowing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and for selling nuclear technology to countries who in the past have refused to join the NPT. By promoting instability and failed states they greatly increase the likelihood of a rogue state from getting weapons. But hey all is right with the world because the rapture index is up. Sick bastards.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    The Japanese people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki had it coming because of what they allowed their country to do. The German people at Dresden had it coming because of what they allowed their country to do. The Iraqi people had it coming because of what they allowed their country to do. The people in the World Trade Center had it coming because of what they allowed their country to do. Finally, the U.S. POWs at Hiroshima had it coming because of what they allowed their country to do. Get the picture?

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#40)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    Roger, Nobody had H bombs in 1945. Right you are. And I can't claim that I merely misspoke, either, cuz I didn't; I had just plain forgot. Thx for the correction/reminder.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#41)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    Ernesto writes:
    Get the picture?
    All them litte Eichmans,eh?

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    I will never judge or second guess Truman's decision, I know it didn't come easy. I just hope the whole world has learned that these weapons are too heinous to ever be used again. And for freak's sake we should stop making new ones!

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#44)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    I don’t care to debate the pros and cons of dropping the bomb; it seems to have deteriorated into an exercise in ‘the US was and is evil’ v ‘the US is infallible’. What I find most interesting is the sudden change in the Japanese national character. These folks transitioned from one of the most bloodthirsty and brutal peoples of the modern world to a nation of pacifists in a matter of a generation. Most of my colleagues are either Chinese or Korean. It has been interesting seeing them interact with the recent Japanese arrival; serious tension.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    My 6 year-old pulled out an old college world history text book of my wife's yesterday and asked me to read some of it to him. The first page was discussing the generally simultaneous rise of the Greek and Indian cultures and their ebbs and flows over the course of several thousands of years. It made me think about what a tiny drop in the ocean of history the US and the rest of the world over the past couple of hundred years has been. Our wars and human failings are so encompassing to us today and seem so overwhelmingly important, yet in a thousand years, or maybe even just 500 years, all that we spend so much time concering ourselves with today will be little more than a footnote in the course of history. Not sure exactly why this thread made me think of all this, except maybe that the rise and fall of the Greeks & Indians and probably every other historical power has been predicated on having better armaments and more military power than the next guy. And that within every such powerful culture there were those who railed against that power and feared for the existance of the human race. My guess is that it's likely that in time nukes will be far surpassed in killing potential by new weapons. My preference is that if more powerful weapons are to be developed, that the US is on the side of the haves and not the have-nots.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#46)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    Roger - What would have happened if Japan had thed A bomb? Ernesto - Did you attend the funerals? Or do you expect Bush to do it for you. DA - You saying it is so doesn't make it so. But I say again. The favored version is to use as a means of criticizing whatever the US did in the past. Tell us. Would you have fought Iran, or would you have let them defeat Iraq and take over the SA peninsula and be de facto rulers of the ME? Would you have aided the Afghan rebels or would you have allowed the Soviets to have won and gained hegemony over Iran, Pakistan and India, plus a warm water port. Criticize and complain, DA. That is your specialty.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#47)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    Jim, What if the US had not cut off Japan's oil supply? No Pearl Harbor. Japanese A-Bomb? You wouldnt be eating anything in San Fran, no restaraunts

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#48)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    Tell us. Would you have fought Iran, or would you have let them defeat Iraq and take over the SA peninsula and be de facto rulers of the ME?
    This is pretty funny given the rise of Shiite power in Iraq. The big winner in this diaster is Iran, who now has greater influence in the ME than ever before. The whole premise of Reagan supporting Sadaam was to indeed keep Iran at bay. By overthrowing Sadaam, those forces have now been set in motion. Oh the irony

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#49)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    Would you have aided the Afghan rebels or would you have allowed the Soviets to have won and gained hegemony over Iran, Pakistan and India, plus a warm water port.
    Of course this does not negate the fact that Reagan essentially propelled a ragged bunch of fighters into a well armed well trained force. And of course the further irony, just as the Russians got suckered into Afghanistan to fight a protracted war against well armed guerillas essentially bankrupting them, the US gets itself into a long protracted war in Iraq that it wont win and will bankrupt us, because of an attack masterminded by the same guy who came "to power" in Afghanistan.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    Roger... What if the US had not cut off Japan's oil supply? They would have been free to take over all of Asia. They still would have had to deal with the US eventually...so Pearl Harbor (or something similar) probably still would have happened.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#52)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    BB- That's what happens when we play "what if". Who's to say what would be different? It went down the way it went down. Maybe we could have done things better, but losing definately would have been much worse. Question though, besides Japans bad friends, what is so different from 1940 Japan and 2005 USA? Both militaristic, adventuristic, right-leaning regimes. Both trying to "spread" the wealth (democracy for us, the "all Asia co-prosperity sphere" for them). Forget the subtlties, what are the big differences?

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    Garden of Eden? God? Biblically speaking, god created the heavens and the earth on day one and some time later in the week he created adam and eve. Being that the earth is approximately 450 billion years old, it seems awfully strange that it took so long for someone to actually start recording things on paper. What is also really cool is that in 1950 there were an estimated 2.5 billion people on earth, now there are 6 billion. 450 Billion years ago GOD created the earth, and if one were to take a 2% growth rate over 449 billion of those years, my guess is that the number would be a wee bit higher than 6 billion. God could not have prevented this because there is no god.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    sorry 4.5 billion not 450.

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    PPJ- Torture OK? "And yes, I am in favor of getting help whenever possible"... Help for what? What kind of Help? Help for Developing Empire, Spreading Democracy, Dirty Wars? ...and it follows, evidenced by your callous post, that you would not care what kind of "help" as long as you and your croonies can never be held accountable. Is this what you mean by help: " Seymour Hirsh saw the video clips of young teen and pre-teen boys at Abu Ghraib screeching whilst being sodomised by US soldiers." A few bad apples, helping out the fatherland?

    Re: Hiroshima (none / 0) (#58)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    "we are not bent on world domination" HA HA HA HA HA HA!