Hiroshima marks 79 years since atomic bombing as nuclear war fears rise

[MrAnderson]

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/08/06/japan/hiroshima-bombing-79-anniversary/

Quote

Raging conflicts around the world are “reinforcing the public assumption” that military force and nuclear deterrence are needed to solve global crises — a view Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui rejected Tuesday in a ceremonial speech marking 79 years since the city was devastated by an atomic bomb.

Quote

Citing former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and former U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s push to end the Cold War, Matsui stressed the importance of not being “resigned to pessimism” amid conflicts such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas war, adding that the world must take collective action and show that dialogue can overcome conflict.

Quote

During the final days of World War II, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, and again three days later on Nagasaki. The blasts killed hundreds of thousands and left many survivors — known as hibakusha — with lasting injuries and illnesses from radiation exposure.

August 6, 1945, 08:15 am local time, Hirosima. Some 78,000 people were instantly killed when the atom bomb was dropped and an estimated 140,000 people died altogether in Hirosima. Many others who survived suffered radiation sickness and severe burns while their health was permanently damaged and in the years to come they developed cancers and laukemias as well as a wide range of serious health problems. The city was devastated and almost completely destroyed.

 

https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/hiroshima-atom-bomb-nuclear-how-many-died-aftermath-casualties-what-happened/

Edited August 7 by MrAnderson

[Alchopwn]

Here's a joke...

Q:  How do you end WW2?

A: Call Enola gay.

Boom boom.

[Grim Reaper 6]

4 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/08/06/japan/hiroshima-bombing-79-anniversary/

August 6, 1945, 08:15 am local time, Hirosima. Some 78,000 people were instantly killed when the atom bomb was dropped and an estimated 140,000 people died altogether in Hirosima. Many others who survived suffered radiation sickness and severe burns while their health was permanently damaged and in the years to come they developed cancers and laukemias as well as a wide range of serious health problems. The city was devastated and almost completely destroyed.

 

https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/hiroshima-atom-bomb-nuclear-how-many-died-aftermath-casualties-what-happened/

I have been to Hiroshima to see the Atomic Dome and the museum. Little Boy was a reality small burst it had approximately a 16 kiloton yeild and It was made from highly enriched uranium 235. Even though it was a small burst it destroyed 90% of the city, Zone 1 was approximately a kilometer most everything was vaporized in this Zone. Zone 2 was approximately 1-2 kilometer with radioactive fallout extending many kilometers down wind from zone 2.

In Hiroshima, of a resident civilian population of 250,000 it was estimated that 45,000 died on the first day and a further 19,000 during the subsequent four months. (Another figure is 78,500 fatalities, with 5 to 15% of the short-term ones being from radiation.) In Nagasaki, out of a population of 174,000, on the first day 22,000 died and another 17,000 within four months..

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/non-proliferation/hiroshima-nagasaki-and-subsequent-weapons-testin

[MrAnderson]

4 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Here's a joke...

Q:  How do you end WW2?

A: Call Enola gay.

Boom boom.

It has been used as an argument and you can find it on various conversations online.

As if Japan had any chance of winning the war. It was a matter of weeks or months imo until the stopped fighting and surrender.

Another choice was to go to one of the little islands that are not inhabited and let the Japanese know the weapon exists and is teddy for use. With a simple demonstration anyone would have been convinced at that point.

 

[MrAnderson]

2 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

I have been to Hiroshima to see the Atomic Dome and the museum. Little Boy was a reality small burst it had approximately a 16 kiloton yeild and It was made from highly enriched uranium 235. Even though it was a small burst it destroyed 90% of the city, Zone 1 was approximately a kilometer most everything was vaporized in this Zone. Zone 2 was approximately 1-2 kilometer with radioactive fallout extending many kilometers down wind from zone 2.

In Hiroshima, of a resident civilian population of 250,000 it was estimated that 45,000 died on the first day and a further 19,000 during the subsequent four months. (Another figure is 78,500 fatalities, with 5 to 15% of the short-term ones being from radiation.) In Nagasaki, out of a population of 174,000, on the first day 22,000 died and another 17,000 within four months..

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/non-proliferation/hiroshima-nagasaki-and-subsequent-weapons-testin

It was a catastrophic event. From link I have used it said that 78,000 died instantly and 140,000 altogether (in Hiroshima).

It was unnecessary and very cruel. One of the worst crimes against humanity ever recorded.

Like I said above, there are a number of islands that are not inhabited and the Japanese could be given a simple demonstration of the capabilities of this new weapon by dropping it there. It would have been very convincing without the need to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.

[Buzz_Light_Year]

27 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

As if Japan had any chance of winning the war. It was a matter of weeks or months imo until the stopped fighting and surrender.

They were arming their civilian populace with sharpened sticks and clubs to defend against invasion known as the Volunteer Fighting Corps. NO they would not have gone quietly.

Japan still had sizable forces in Manchuria, Korea and Southeast Asia and whether or not those assets would've been brought back to the mainland is mainly speculation.

Some historians say that Russia's intentions for invading Japan was a larger factor in Japan's surrender than the atomic bomb itself.

[Grim Reaper 6]

1 hour ago, MrAnderson said:

It was a catastrophic event. From link I have used it said that 78,000 died instantly and 140,000 altogether (in Hiroshima).

It was unnecessary and very cruel. One of the worst crimes against humanity ever recorded.

Like I said above, there are a number of islands that are not inhabited and the Japanese could be given a simple demonstration of the capabilities of this new weapon by dropping it there. It would have been very convincing without the need to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.

I certainly disagree with you, due to the fact that the Japanese had already proven that they were willing die and never surrender. Because of this the cost in American lives would have most likely have been in the hundreds of thousands when the main island was invaded. The Japanese were no different than the Germans in the manner they treated prisoners of war. They also committed war crimes throughout China by the extermination of entire cities.

The only way to get their attention was to drop a bomb on a Japanese city, and even after that devastating event they still did not surrender, it took another atomic bomb to force a surrender and even then they only surrendered because they were given a guaranty their Emperor would not be arrested. I have no sympathy for them, and I will stand behind my convictions on this subject all day long. 
 

[MrAnderson]

9 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

I certainly disagree with you, due to the fact that the Japanese had already proven that they were willing die and never surrender. Because of this the cost in American lives would have most likely have been in the hundreds of thousands when the main island was invaded. The Japanese were no different than the Germans in the manner they treated prisoners of war. They also committed war crimes throughout China by the extermination of entire cities.

The only way to get their attention was to drop a bomb on a Japanese city, and even after that devastating event they still did not surrender, it took another atomic bomb to force a surrender and even then they only surrendered because they were given a guaranty their Emperor would not be arrested. I have no sympathy for them, and I will stand behind my convictions on this subject all day long. 
 

You may disagree with me and that's fine but it doesn't change the facts and the mass killings of hundreds of thousands of civilians, many of whom died instantly, and others who died in the next few weeks, months, years.

The fighting spirit of the Japanese and their culture not to surrender is not an excuse for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

[MrAnderson]

@Bavarian Raven what is that you find so funny? Can you explain to me please?

[Grim Reaper 6]

12 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

You may disagree with me and that's fine but it doesn't change the facts and the mass killings of hundreds of thousands of civilians, many of whom died instantly, and others who died in the next few weeks, months, years.

The fighting spirit of the Japanese and their culture not to surrender is not an excuse for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Japanese killed approximately 8 million civilians in China with no thought whatsoever what consequences it would eventually bring I call it Karma nothing else. There were no war crimes of crimes against humanity committed by the United States, like I said hindsight is 20/20 and the Japanese should have considered that before they attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor. Also before they committed crimes against humanity and war crimes across East Asia..

in my simple opinion the Japanese got off easy!

Japanese war crimes : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#:~:text=According to Werner Gruhl%2C approximately,held by Japan was 27.1%.

[Bavarian Raven]

16 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

@Bavarian Raven what is that you find so funny? Can you explain to me please?

That you call it a war crime. 
it was fully justified and in the end likely saved more lives (both sides combined) than killed. Never mind that if the Japanese (sonehow) got the bomb first, they’d have used it without any regard - just like how they slaughtered unimaginable numbers of Chinese etc. 

besides, many more people died from regular bombing runs /fire bombing runs. Dead is dead. 
 

plus, the USA didn’t start the war. They were attacked by Japan. So they had a moral duty to their citizens and soldiers to end the war as quickly as possible. 

[MrAnderson]

4 hours ago, Bavarian Raven said:

That you call it a war crime. 
it was fully justified and in the end likely saved more lives (both sides combined) than killed. Never mind that if the Japanese (sonehow) got the bomb first, they’d have used it without any regard - just like how they slaughtered unimaginable numbers of Chinese etc. 

besides, many more people died from regular bombing runs /fire bombing runs. Dead is dead. 
 

plus, the USA didn’t start the war. They were attacked by Japan. So they had a moral duty to their citizens and soldiers to end the war as quickly as possible. 

You think dropping two of these bombs is not a war crime? Who started what,bis irrelevant when civilians are indiscriminately targeted for extermination. Unless you think these bombs have the ability to differentiate between military personnel and civilians. What about the short and long term effects of the radiation and the devastation on the ground.

Japan didn't have any chance and it was a matter of weeks if not months for them to surrender.

These are weapons of mass destruction.

Edited August 8 by MrAnderson

[MrAnderson]

20 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

The Japanese killed approximately 8 million civilians in China with no thought whatsoever what consequences it would eventually bring I call it Karma nothing else. There were no war crimes of crimes against humanity committed by the United States, like I said hindsight is 20/20 and the Japanese should have considered that before they attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor. Also before they committed crimes against humanity and war crimes across East Asia..

in my simple opinion the Japanese got off easy!

Japanese war crimes : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#:~:text=According to Werner Gruhl%2C approximately,held by Japan was 27.1%.

I know and these are hideous crimes as they killed millions of civilians. A war crime is a war crime regardless of who commits it. All sides committed war crimes. If you can't accept it then we can agree to disagree but again I don't see how these two acts can be justified.

[Grim Reaper 6]

15 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

I know and these are hideous crimes as they killed millions of civilians. A war crime is a war crime regardless of who commits it. All sides committed war crimes. If you can't accept it then we can agree to disagree but again I don't see how these two acts can be justified.

The US justification is simple, by using weapons at our disposal we saved at least a hundred thousand American lives. The Japanese started the war with America so in my opinion they deserved what they have gotten. In my opinion the United States didn’t commit a war crime by using the Atomic Bomb on Japanese soil, in fact it most likely saved Japanese lives that a full scale invasion would have taken.

[jmccr8]

9 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

The US justification is simple, by using weapons at our disposal we saved at least a hundred thousand American lives. The Japanese started the war with America so in my opinion they deserved what they have gotten. In my opinion the United States didn’t commit a war crime by using the Atomic Bomb on Japanese soil, in fact it most likely saved Japanese lives that a full scale invasion would have taken.

HI Grim

I think that because they were in a race with Germany to create nuclear weapons it was also a demonstration to Germany that they could be next. 

[Ajay0]

Japan was  a more or less secluded nation till the nineteenth century which mainly kept to itself . Fear of the mongol invasions which they had successfully repelled probably created xenophobia within them.

American president Millard Fillmore used gunboat diplomacy to force the opening of Japanese ports to American trade, by sending a fleet of warships commanded by United States Navy Commodore Matthew Perry, in 1852, and blank shots fired as an intimidatory measure.

The Convention of Kanagawa, signed under threat of force, effectively meant the end of Japan’s 220-year-old policy of national seclusion, by opening the ports of Shimoda and Hakodate to American vessels. Foreign trade till then was maintained only with the Dutch and the Chinese and was conducted exclusively at Nagasaki under a strict government monopoly due to fears of threat of western colonialism.

The forced treaty was perceived as a national humiliation, and planted the seeds of the imperial Japanese empire and the second world war.

This blunt American effort at opening trade did not kill anyone, but it lead to a major disaster for America and the world later on leading to millions of deaths.

In retrospect, America could have perhaps opted for more diplomatic means and dialogue between them patiently, to promote mutual understanding and to allay the Japanese fears to open up trade between them. In a best case scenario, this could have lead to Japan being an firm ally and trading partner of the Americans later on, without any of the wars or bloodshed, and both countries could have benefited themselves economically and culturally.

[Grim Reaper 6]

14 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

HI Grim

I think that because they were in a race with Germany to create nuclear weapons it was also a demonstration to Germany that they could be next. 

Actually when the US drop the bomb on Japan the War in Europe was over and Germany had surrendered.

[Alchopwn]

On 8/7/2024 at 7:33 PM, MrAnderson said:

It has been used as an argument and you can find it on various conversations online.

As if Japan had any chance of winning the war. It was a matter of weeks or months imo until the stopped fighting and surrender.

Another choice was to go to one of the little islands that are not inhabited and let the Japanese know the weapon exists and is teddy for use. With a simple demonstration anyone would have been convinced at that point.

Since that time, it has become a bit of a moot point.  The fact is, the USSR conducted a lethal blitzkreig against the Japanese in Manchuria, as well as landings in the Kuriles and Sakhalin island.  The USSR under Stalin planned to invade Hokkaido next.

While the A-Bombs were unequivocally destructive, they were not what drove Japan to surrender, if you read official memoranda from the Japanese military and government of the period, it was a fear that the USSR would execute Emperor Hirohito if they conquered Japan.  The A-Bombs became a pretext for surrendering, not the true cause.

[MrAnderson]

2 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Since that time, it has become a bit of a moot point.  The fact is, the USSR conducted a lethal blitzkreig against the Japanese in Manchuria, as well as landings in the Kuriles and Sakhalin island.  The USSR under Stalin planned to invade Hokkaido next.

While the A-Bombs were unequivocally destructive, they were not what drove Japan to surrender, if you read official memoranda from the Japanese military and government of the period, it was a fear that the USSR would execute Emperor Hirohito if they conquered Japan.  The A-Bombs became a pretext for surrendering, not the true cause.

Regardless of what some official memoranda says (which I don't doubt they exist) the devastation from the two bombs was what made Japan to surrender. I think it was more than enough to show Japan the other side had the most devastating weapon ever existed and could be used again and again if needed.

[MrAnderson]

14 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Actually when the US drop the bomb on Japan the War in Europe was over and Germany had surrendered.

Precisely. And Japan had no chance of winning the war. They could only hold for a few more weeks or even months.

But the dark forces within the military industrial complex wanted to experiment with the new weapon. So they designed two bombs one powered by Uranium and other by Plutonium.

https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1945/trinity.htm

Edited August 10 by MrAnderson

[Grim Reaper 6]

2 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

Precisely. And Japan had no chance of winning the war. They could only hold for a few more weeks months.

But the dark forces within the military industrial complex wanted to experiment with the new weapon.

You just don’t get it do you, there would have been a loss of American lives double what the Japanese lost in both bombings. Truman made the right decision not to waste American lives, on an enemy who committed war crimes that were triple of what the Germans did in the concentration camps with the Final Solution. By making the comments you made above you condone the savage way the Japanese treated the people they conquered. In addition you’re also saying you don’t care how many American lives would have been lost invading the Japanese main islands. Thats pretty dam sad dude, really pretty sad!

[MrAnderson]

1 minute ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

You just don’t get it do you, there would have been a loss of American lives double what the Japanese lost in both bombings. Truman made the right decision not to waste American lives, on an enemy who committed war crimes that were triple of what the Germans did in the concentration camps with the Final Solution. By making the comments you made above you condone the savage way the Japanese treated the people they conquered. In addition you’re also saying you don’t care how many American lives would have been lost invading the Japanese main islands. Thats pretty dam sad dude, really pretty sad!

I know this argument but doesn't make any difference when the bombs indoctrinately killed civilians at a massive scale. That's the definition of a war and crimes against humanity. Obviously these terms have been used the way we know them after the conclusion of the Nuremberg trials but it doesn't change thr history.

The US did have a choice of demonstrating the devastation of these weapons on some of the uninhabited islands. The Japanese would have been convinced had they seen what the new weapon could do.

The second choice was to bomb areas in Japan with conventional bombs just like the allies did in Germany. Japan couldn't do much about it.

[Grim Reaper 6]

2 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

I know this argument but doesn't make any difference when the bombs indoctrinately killed civilians at a massive scale. That's the definition of a war and crimes against humanity. Obviously these terms have been used the way we know them after the conclusion of the Nuremberg trials but it doesn't change thr history.

The US did have a choice of demonstrating the devastation of these weapons on some of the uninhabited islands. The Japanese would have been convinced had they seen what the new weapon could do.

The second choice was to bomb areas in Japan with conventional bombs just like the allies did in Germany. Japan couldn't do much about it.

You’re welcome to apologize for the Japanese, but you also share the crimes they committed against humanity by doing so. In my opinion no American life was worth the cost of the invasion, as far as I am concerned they got off light they deserved far worse.

[MrAnderson]

2 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

You’re welcome to apologize for the Japanese, but you also share the crimes they committed against humanity by doing so. In my opinion no American life was worth the cost of the invasion, as far as I am concerned they got off light they deserved far worse.

I don't apologise for the Japanese or for anyone else. War crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed by all sides. It's evident in the history of our species.

Edited August 10 by MrAnderson

[Grim Reaper 6]

17 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

I don't apologise for the Japanese or for anyone else. War crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed by all sides. It's evident in the history of our species.

Well, I love armchair quarterbacks like you. You all have never had to make decisions concerning the lives of others so you’re not capable of understanding what it takes to do. Carry on, but save your indignation for others like yourself because then at least you will find someone who agrees with you and sympathizes with your point of view!

Good Luck!