Dropping nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not extremism?
469665
There has been a lot of revisionism about the nuclear bombs and, while I don't like the silly answers put forward by our conservative friends here, this revisionism simply does not hold up to scrutiny.\n\nJapan was beginning to look for ways to settle for peace without being held responsible for the war or their own attrocities committed, and had started to place some figure heads in high office, but the Japanese government was nowhere near ready to surrender unconditionally. After all, Germany was considering the same sorts of things in 1943 so long as they could keep their conquered territories and could keep their gas chambers, but I don't think anyone would have thought that was a good deal. This would have meant letting the Japanese continue to slaughter Chinese, Indonesian and Western slaves on a massive scale after the fighting ceased.\n\nThe figures given for the two bombs earlier are way out of line, the nearest estimates consistently show a death toll for both bombs totalling right around 100,000. While this is certainly a lot of people in two days, that must be looked at in perspective. This is fewer people killed than in the 2-day firebomb raid on Tokyo, fewer than in the 3-day firebomb raid over Hamburg. For more than a year, the Army Air Force had been bombing Japanese cities with populations of fewer than 250,000 people simply because all of the real cities had already been reduced to ashes (Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been intentionally left untouched so that when the A-Bomb was finally ready to be deployed there would be pristine targets and the full potential of the weapon could be experienced by the Japanese). Millions of people were without shelter just a few months before winter was about to start. What little Japanese merchant and intercoastal fleet there was had long since been destroyed and Japan was no longer able to move food or fuel from island to island.\n\nJapan had already shown in the island campaigns against Saipan and Okinawa that their military was more than willing to either manipulate civilians into committing suicide or else outright killing them rather than surrender to the Western Allies. There was no reason to believe that this would not have occurred in the home islands as well. What few air resources the Japanese military retained were being hurled at the American fleet in waves of Kamakaze suicide flights.\n\nWhy do we feel that it is wrong for people to die from irradiation, but is is all right for three times as many people to die from exposure, starvation, infectious disease and suicide?
312055
The second wworld war would have ended without the use of atomic bomb. but the war offered an opportunity for the U.S to test the bomb which it has produced. The use of that bomb made the Japanese to surrender unilaterally
600646
No I am not surprised that there is no terrorist attacks. Unfortunately I don't believe there ever was any. Better take a close look at who would have benefited from such an attach (not only benefit but have the means to carry out) and you will find that its not anyone who is muslim. Check out the documentary 9/11 Loose Change. They have hard facts.
1054539
Absolutely!\n\nChemical or biological attacks on major Western cities comes to mind.  If a biological attack on Paris killed 5 million people, should we sit and think about it?\n\nAs far as WWII is concerned, the war had to be ended, and Japan had to surrender.  The decision was taken to drop the bombs rather than risk an invasion of Japan will a million or more US casualties.\n\nWar is a very nasty business.  This is one of the mistakes we are making now.  In war, lots of people must be killed in order for the leaders (bin Laden, for example) to decide that it is time to stop murdering women and children.\n\nIf we make war to clean, then there is no motivation to stop it.
706545
Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima by the Enola Gay. Fat Man was supposed to be dropped on Kokura but was dropped on the secondary target Nagasaki by Bockscar.
319429
Does Hiroshima and Nagasaki mean anything to you? Those are the Japanese cities that were obliterated by the a-bombs just as WWII was rapidly drawing to a close. It just shows this country and many others that bombing Iran and North Korea with nuclear weapons are not the answer in dealing with them. A diplomatic solution is the only way to go. GWB should take this diplomacy lesson from Jimmy Carter.
786086
Pretty much.  But out of fairness, it is not limited to liberals,  when dealing with extremists they tend not to be satisfied with any explanation that doesn't justify their beliefs, not matter how wrong they are.
542908
(m)\n\nON THE 6th August 1945, exactly 56 years ago, an atom bomb destroyed Hiroshima. Nagasaki faced devastation three days later. The Imperial Headquarters requested Dr. Y.Nishina (famous for Klein-Nishina formula for Compton scattering of photons) to go to Hiroshima. He concluded that the damage was due to an atomic bomb. \n\nWhen the bombs were dropped, these cities had an estimated population of 310,000 and 250,000 respectively. About 90,000- 140,000 in Hiroshima and 60,000- 80,000 people in Nagasaki died immediately or within two to four months after bombing, resulting from collapse of houses caused by the blast and from heat rays and fires and radiation exposure. In the 1950 Japanese national census, nearly 280,000 persons stated that they "had been exposed" in the two cities. \n\nRadiation fogged X-ray films stored at the Hiroshima Red Cross Hospital. Exposed material became radioactive. Kimura and Tajima of the Institute of Physical and Chemical Research determined that the Hiroshima bomb exploded at a height of 577 m. They used an electric furnace and a carbon arc furnace to simulate charring observed on the surface of a wooden board of Japanese cypress and estimated that the bomb had a radiant energy of 4.6 million million calories. \n\nScientists could enter the bombed area only after 3 to 4 weeks because of frequent typhoons. They measured higher radiation levels due to induced radioactivity near the epicentre. Additional radiation levels were 10-15 per cent of the natural background. \n\nOn November 18, 1946 Harry Truman authorised the National Research Council to establish an agency "to undertake a long range, continuing study of the biological and medical effects of the atomic bomb on man". This organisation grew into the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC). ABCC continued to work till 1975 when Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) was set up as a bi-national endeavour. \n\nMany believe in the myth that birth defects are more common among the children of the survivors of the atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In my interaction with general physicians and other professional groups the one topic, which elicits maximum queries, is " genetic effects of radiation". Radiation can cause mutations in genes. Mouse and in fruit flies exposed to radiation suffer genetic mutations. The changes may show up in the offspring as colour of the coat, shape of the wings, etc. But such markers are not available in the human species. We require very sophisticated laboratory methods to demonstrate subtle changes in exposed individuals. \n\n\nPhysicians appointed by ABCC examined 76,626 infants conceived and born in Hiroshima and Nagasaki over a period of six years starting from the late spring of 1948. The researchers did not see statistically demonstrable increase in major birth defects in these infants. While the survey started, certain dietary staples were rationed in Japan. Pregnant women had special provisions. Because of this, the surveyors of new-borns could identify 90 per cent of the pregnancies that persisted for at least 20 weeks of gestation. \n\nPhysical examination of the new born and autopsies on as many stillborn infants revealed that neither the frequency of major birth defects nor the frequency of the most common birth defects differ significantly with radiation exposure of parents. The researchers examined some 21,788 infants shortly after birth and re-examined them eight to ten months later. The study covered 65,431 registered pregnancy terminations and appropriate control populations. \n\nIn a brief review, the Radiation Effects Research Foundation cautioned, "The absence of a statistically significant effect of ionising radiation on the frequency of major birth defects should not be construed as evidence that mutations were not induced by parental exposure to atomic radiation". The researchers saw mutations in every animal and plant species studied. \n
437854
I would have to say that it would be impossible to know the answer, Pure speculation...however, after reviewing the facts:\n\n1. Japan had made overtures via Sweden of negotiating a peace prior to Hiroshima.\n2. However, they did openly turn down the Potsdam demands for unconditional surrender.\n3. Like you mentionioned, Iow Jima and Okinawa showed their army's determination to fight to the last man, altho it may not have proven that the civilians would've done the same on Japan proper.\n4. The first nuclear detonation did not bring immediate surrender from the Japanese leaders.\n5. By using the bomb, we lost the moral argument after the war that the A-bomb should be controlled and never used.\n6. The bombing of civilians was recognized as barbaric before the war and in the Geneva conventions, and yet the allies began using incendiaries on Dresden, Tokyo causing major firestorms.\n7. By ending the war earlier, we did not give the Soviets a chance to mount an offensive against Japan and create a Soviet Bloc as they did in Europe.\n8.Oppenheimer, Fermi and others considered the alternative, increased American casualties vs ending the war sooner by using the weapons, and they recommended the use of the bombs. There were some scientists who recommended a demonstration to show the Japanese leaders the potential devastation, but they were overrulled.\n\nMy opinion is that we did save Japanese lives that would've exceeded the number killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, vis a vis the continued encendiary bombing of Japanese cities and loss due to "fighting" to the last man mentality that showed at Iwo and Okinawa.\n\nThe number of allied lives saved, i would guess, would be around 200,000, but that's only pulling a number out of the sky...the US stated hundreds of thousands, if not more.
577915
A nuke is better than sterlization. Just drop a bomb and many including Osama Bin Laden will be happy and pray for you to get 72 virgins in heaven.
143423
In the case of the United States dropping an atomic bomb on Japan, there was a World War going on with Japan using military power to take over countries all over the world.  The United States was a non-participant in these events until it was attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor, thereby declaring war on the United States and opening itself up to attack by United States forces.\n\nJapan had declared that there would be no surrender and it had begun arming all of its civilians to resist invasion.  The estimated death toll from a direct assault on the main island of Japan was in the millions based on extrapolation of the death toll from the capture of Okinawa.\n\nAs for North Korea, there has yet to be a declared war between North Korea and the United States and while there are scattered conflicts occurring throughout the world, there is definately not a war of the scale of World War II currently happening.\n\nThe decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japan was calculated to end one conflict, the one with Japan.  There was never any belief that these events would bring an end to all the war in the world. History has shown that there will always be another power to step in and fill the void when another power is removed or collapses. If Korea did follow your suggestion to attack the United States with nuclear weapons and was successful in toppling the United States, that would merely create a vaccuum for the next power to step into.\n\nIf your plan follows the same path as post World War II, that would merely place North Korea in the position of being the world's superpower and having them "bully" their way around the world, eventually leading to someone from another nation, perhaps a South American country, to post a similar question, this time being "North Koreans say, NK nuked US to end the war. Is it acceptable, Argentina nuke NK to end the war in the world?"
752597
Are you kidding?\nThis is the way I see it: There were 300,000 deaths right after Americans dropped those nukes. If those bombs hadn't been dropped Japanese casualties would be numbered by millions, and American casualties by hundreds of thousands.\nSo by doing what was done - Americans actually saved lives, and changed a whole Japanese nation to better.\n\nProve me wrong.
644977
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
774357
A very cowardly act for our president to commit and it was genocide i believe. At least those brave japanese fighters had honor and never targeted cities with innocent woman and children in it like we did.they caught us with our pants down in Pearl Harbor and it was a military target not a whole F****** city.We took the easy way out and i think it was very cowardly and wrong to ever drop a bomb not even targeting military targets but whole cities.Im ashamed of what we did to Japan in the past.
240185
Consider the following:\n\n1) The US, as it progressed closer and closer to the Japanese islands, faced increasing fanatical and suicidal resistance. The casualties lost by the US armed forces was immense, but even more so was the fervor with which the Japanese cast their lives away, to ultimately no valuable military purpose.\n\n2) Repeated overtures to the Japanese government prior to the drop of the bombs by neutral countries regarding surrender were rejected out of hand by all members of the Japanese government. Also, envoys of the US government in neutral countries, offering negotiating terms, were rebuffed repeatedly.\n\n3) Evaluations of the enemy resistance prior to the bombs led the US to believe that, should the US invade Japan, which would be the last logical step to concluding the Pacific campaign, the US would lose upwards of a million casualties killed and wounded, not to mention the utter destruction of the Japanese culture and people, who were considered by the Japanese war machine as totally expendable.\n\nThe US didn't drop the bomb out-of-hand; repeated warnings and overtures were made to Japan prior to the dropping of the bomb. Weeks before the bomb was dropped, B-29s took several days off bombing Japan and dropped leaflets to the Japanese people, urging them to pressure their government to surrender. These leaflets were dismissed as US propoganda and disregarded.\n\nAfter the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, again the US urged the Japanese government to surrender; these were also summarily rejected. Only after the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, as well as the Nagasaki bombing, did the Japanese finally capitulate.\n\nWhile the bombings were horrific in both physical damage and the human cost, the possible outcome outline above in US and Japanese casualties would be more horrific and reprehensible in the course of human history.
109890
The American government made the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, they generally do not release the blueprints. I can tell you that it was a gravity bomb, a gun-type fission weapon, with 60 kg (130 pounds) of uranium-235 encased in a bomb.See picture below.
823419
During WW2, there was a top secret project using the best minds of the world except for Einstein and a few others as they opposed the project called Manhattan Project.  Its goal was to harness the power of the atom and turn it into a weapon.  They did and the first bomb was fired in the Nevada dessert and was called the Trinity test.\n\nThe bomb was then tasked to be weaponsized and a B29 was specially fitted and modified to carey the giant beast of a bomb.  While the bomb was being constructed and designed and such, the military command along with the president were debating the outcomes of a land invasion of Japan.  After much delberation of whther the bomb should be used or hundereds of thousnads of troops be used in a invasion, it was decided to drop the Uranium based bomb on a designated city that had not suffered the same bombing campaign as the other cities had.  The first choice (the name of the city escapes me) was covered with clouds so the secondary target of Hiroshima was chosen and bombed.  The Japanese were stunned at the new weapon.  Emperor Hirohito wanted to surrender to the Americans but the Military did not want to lose face by surrendering.  in the turmoil of the that followed with the debates of surrender or not, Nagasaki was wiped away by a Plutonium based weapon.\n\nAt that time the Emperor won the fight and surrendered to the Americans.  They also did this to avoid retribution by the Russians whom they have faught for many years with prior.\n\nAfter the war was over, a tour was done by the American command and found out that they would have had overwhelming casualties had they attempted to land on Japan as they had 3 lines fo trenches, bunkers, and other assorted fortifications armed with soldiers and civillians.\n\nI hope this answered your question!