JTT
 
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 11:45 am
Quote:
Hiroshima was America’s Original Sin

Sixty-five years after the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bomb is still very much with us, and controversy continues to swirl over the decision to obliterate the two Japanese cities -- sparked this time by President Obama's decision to send a U.S. envoy to Hiroshima, for the first time, for the official ceremony today.

Already some on the right are charging that this amounts to an "apology" for using the bomb against Japan. Warren Kozak, in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, has attacked the Obama move, equating it with President Reagan going to Bitburg and laying a wreath at graves belonging to SS members. In contrast, the overwhelming majority of the 130,000 killed in Hiroshima were civilians, mainly women and children.

David Bodanis, in his book E=mc², describes in chilling detail the sequence of events that took place on the 6th of August 1945 at 8:16am in the sky above Hiroshima.

He describes how the bomb, "whistling, spinning, an elongated trash can with fins", had taken 43 seconds to fall from the B-29 that released it and how, when it had tumbled to 7,000 feet above the ground, a barometric switch had turned, priming the second arming system.

Now radio signals pumped down from the bomb to the Shina Hospital directly below and bounced back up to a device on the bomb which "used the time lag it took the signals to return as a way of measuring the height remaining to the ground".

It had been calculated that the bomb exploding too high would dissipate most of its heat in the air and that exploding too low would dig a crater in the ground. At about 1,900 feet the height would be just right for maximum kill.

Within a few 10,000ths of a second of detonation it would have appeared as though "a rip in the sky had opened", with a fireball, hotter than the centre of the sun, radiating outwards and consuming everything in its path.

Farther away from the epicentre of the explosion an atmospheric backwash would have created briefly the vacuum of outer space, so that "lifeforms that survived the blast would begin to explode outwards".

From that inferno rose the first mushroom cloud ever, on planet Earth.

America remains the only country to use the atomic bomb on a population, so, in that sense, many see it as "original sin".

It was a terrible thing to do to civilians, mainly women and children, when the enemy was already beaten and trying desperately to surrender, demanding only that they keep their emperor.

You can’t help but think that, more than anything, the dropping of the "bomb" on Hiroshima and three days later another on Nagasaki was motivated by revenge for Pearl Harbour.

http://www.abridgednews.com/2010/08/hiroshima-is-seen-as-americas-original.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 6 • Views: 8,903 • Replies: 199
No top replies

 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 12:54 pm
@JTT,
Quote:

For 1st time, U.S. official attends Hiroshima ceremony
Originally published: August 6, 2010 6:11 PM
By CHICO HARLAN. The Washington Post

SEOUL, South Korea - With a U.S. delegation in attendance for the first time, a Japanese ceremony Friday commemorating history's first atomic bomb attack coincided with renewed hopes that President Barack Obama will visit Hiroshima or Nagasaki, something no sitting U.S. president has done.

In what Japanese officials described as a significant first step, U.S. Ambassador John Roos represented Washington at the anniversary event at Hiroshima's Peace Memorial Park, 65 years after a U.S. bomb leveled the city, killing roughly 140,000. Three days after Hiroshima, a bomb dropped on Nagasaki killed an estimated 80,000 people. Japan surrendered six days later, ending World War II.

By several measurements, this year's ceremony was the biggest yet: Representatives from a record 74 countries showed up. Britain and France participated for the first time, as did UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

In a speech, Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan described a "new momentum" toward nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. He attributed that to Obama, who in April 2009 spoke of a "world without nuclear weapons," and who four months ago hosted world leaders at a nuclear summit in Washington.

U.S. unease with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki commemorations has long prodded at a sensitive spot in an otherwise enduring alliance. And despite recent diplomatic wrangling over the relocation of a U.S. air base on Okinawa, Obama remains a popular figure in Japan. According to The Associated Press, Obama T-shirts were on sale Friday at the Peace Park's museum.

Obama has said he is open to visiting Hiroshima or Nagasaki. However, he declined an invitation last year, citing his busy schedule. His planned visit to Japan in November is likely to prompt another invitation - especially at a time when the average atomic bomb survivor is 76. "It is up to the United States to ultimately decide on it," Kan said, "and I would like to refrain from making any remarks that would lead to prejudgment."

Roos had visited Hiroshima once before, although not on the Aug. 6 anniversary. Roos did not speak at the event, but the U.S. Embassy in Japan released a statement in which he called for continued work toward nuclear disarmament "for the sake of future generations." The statement added that Japan and the United States "share a common goal of advancing President Obama's vision of a world without nuclear weapons."

The anniversary comes as Japan faces its own debate about the need for protection under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. The latest provocations from nuclear-capable North Korea have caused a spike in regional tensions. And although Japan has extensive ties with China, Tokyo is also wary of the rapid Chinese military expansion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nagasaki marks 65th anniversary of US atomic bomb
Updated: August 9, 2010 10:20 AM
By The Associated Press
SHINO YUASA (Associated Press Writer)

TOKYO - (AP) — The Japanese city of Nagasaki marked the 65th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bomb attack on Monday with a record 32 countries attending — but no American representative.

A moment of silence was observed at 11:02 a.m., the time when the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the southern Japanese city on Aug. 9, 1945, in the waning days of World War II.

Nagasaki was flattened three days after the United States detonated its first nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. About 80,000 people were killed in Nagasaki, while some 140,000 people were killed or died within months in Hiroshima. Japan surrendered on Aug. 15, ending World War II.

The Nagasaki ceremony began with a chorus of aging survivors of the atomic bombing and Mayor Tomihisa Taue calling for a nuclear-free world.

"Nagasaki, together with Hiroshima, will continue to make the utmost efforts until the world gets rid of all nuclear weapons," he said.

While the United States sent Ambassador John Roos as the country's first delegate to Friday's memorial ceremony in Hiroshima, it did not dispatch a representative to the Nagasaki anniversary.

The U.S. Embassy in Tokyo said Monday the ambassador could not attend the Nagasaki ceremony due to schedule conflicts. The U.S. envoy recently called the city's mayor to tell him he hopes to visit Nagasaki in the future, according to the embassy.

A Nagasaki city official said delegations from a record 32 countries, including nuclear powers Britain and France, attended Monday's ceremony.

The United States decided to drop the bombs because Washington believed it would hasten the end of the war and avert the need to wage prolonged and bloody land battles on Japan's main island. That concern was heightened by Japan's desperate efforts to control outlying islands such as Iwo Jima and Okinawa as the Allies closed in.

Apart from Roos, former President Jimmy Carter visited Hiroshima's Peace Museum in 1984, years after he was out of office. The highest-ranking American to visit while in office is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who went in 2008. Roos also visited Hiroshima soon after assuming his post last year.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nagasaki-marks-65th-anniversary-of-us-atomic-bomb-1.2190132


Personally, I have never felt that the bombing of Hiroshima was "revenge for Pearl Harbor". I do believe that it was done to hasten the end of the war, a war we were forced into by the Japanese. However, I also feel it was a morally reprehensible act, given that such horrific destruction was directed at a helpless civilian population. I feel that even more strongly about the bombing of Nagasaki, for which I have never been able to find sufficient justification in my own mind.

War and morality are often at odds with each other. And I also think our view of the situation now is tempered more with reason than was likely the case in 1945. We wanted that war over. And the dropping of those bombs did achieve that objective. The bombing of Hiroshima might have been strategically necessary at the time, to stop the war, but that does not mean it was fully morally justified. Nagasaki was in no way justified, not even to end the war. Just threatening the use of another bomb at that point should have sufficed to end the war without dropping another one. And lives, on both sides, were saved by ending the war.

I did not know until I read that news report this week that the United States had never sent an official delegation to the yearly memorial service in Hiroshima. I am glad that President Obama sent such a delegation this year. One should have been present at the service at Nagasaki as well. I hope that Obama will visit Hiroshima in the future, The memory of innocent victims of war should be honored and recognized. War, tragically, always involves the loss of innocent lives on all sides.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 01:29 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
I do believe that it was done to hasten the end of the war, a war we were forced into by the Japanese.



Quote:
Do Freedom of Information Act Files Prove FDR Had Foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor?
March 11, 2002
Robert B. Stinnett, Douglas Cirignano


An Interview with Robert B. Stinnett by Douglas Cirignano

On November 25, 1941 Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto sent a radio message to the group of Japanese warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7. Newly released naval records prove that from November 17 to 25 the United States Navy intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to his carriers. Part of the November 25 message read: “...the task force, keeping its movements strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow...”

One might wonder if the theory that President Franklin Roosevelt had a foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack would have been alluded to in this summer’s movie, Pearl Harbor. Since World War II many people have suspected that Washington knew the attack was coming. When Thomas Dewey was running for president against Roosevelt in 1944 he found out about America’s ability to intercept Japan’s radio messages, and thought this knowledge would enable him to defeat the popular FDR. In the fall of that year, Dewey planned a series of speeches charging FDR with foreknowledge of the attack. Ultimately, General George Marshall, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, persuaded Dewey not to make the speeches. Japan’s naval leaders did not realize America had cracked their codes, and Dewey’s speeches could have sacrificed America’s code-breaking advantage. So, Dewey said nothing, and in November FDR was elected president for the fourth time.

Now, though, according to Robert Stinnett, author of Simon & Schuster’s Day Of Deceit, we have the proof. Stinnett’s book is dedicated to Congressman John Moss, the author of America’s Freedom of Information Act. According to Stinnett, the answers to the mysteries of Pearl Harbor can be found in the extraordinary number of documents he was able to attain through Freedom of Information Act requests. Cable after cable of decryptions, scores of military messages that America was intercepting, clearly showed that Japanese ships were preparing for war and heading straight for Hawaii. Stinnett, an author, journalist, and World War II veteran, spent sixteen years delving into the National Archives. He poured over more than 200,000 documents, and conducted dozens of interviews. This meticulous research led Stinnet to a firmly held conclusion: FDR knew.

“Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars,” was Roosevelt’s famous campaign statement of 1940. He wasn’t being ingenuous. FDR’s military and State Department leaders were agreeing that a victorious Nazi Germany would threaten the national security of the United States. In White House meetings the strong feeling was that America needed a call to action. This is not what the public wanted, though. Eighty to ninety percent of the American people wanted nothing to do with Europe’s war. So, according to Stinnett, Roosevelt provoked Japan to attack us, let it happen at Pearl Harbor, and thus galvanized the country to war. Many who came into contact with Roosevelt during that time hinted that FDR wasn’t being forthright about his intentions in Europe. After the attack, on the Sunday evening of December 7, 1941, Roosevelt had a brief meeting in the White House with Edward R. Murrow, the famed journalist, and William Donovan, the founder of the Office of Strategic Services. Later Donovan told an assistant that he believed FDR welcomed the attack and didn’t seem surprised. The only thing Roosevelt seemed to care about, Donovan felt, was if the public would now support a declaration of war. According to Day Of Deceit, in October 1940 FDR adopted a specific strategy to incite Japan to commit an overt act of war. Part of the strategy was to move America’s Pacific fleet out of California and anchor it in Pearl Harbor. Admiral James Richardson, the commander of the Pacific fleet, strongly opposed keeping the ships in harm’s way in Hawaii. He expressed this to Roosevelt, and so the President relieved him of his command. Later Richardson quoted Roosevelt as saying: “Sooner or later the Japanese will commit an overt act against the United States and the nation will be willing to enter the war.”

To those who believe that government conspiracies can’t possibly happen, Day Of Deceit could prove to them otherwise. Stinnett’s well-documented book makes a convincing case that the highest officials of the government—including the highest official—fooled and deceived millions of Americans about one of the most important days in the history of the country.


http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 12:10 am
@JTT,
Quote:
From that inferno rose the first mushroom cloud ever, on planet Earth.


No mushroom cloud at the Trinity test?



Quote:
America remains the only country to use the atomic bomb on a population, so, in that sense, many see it as "original sin".


Bah.



Quote:
It was a terrible thing to do to civilians, mainly women and children, when the enemy was already beaten and trying desperately to surrender, demanding only that they keep their emperor.


Mainly women and children??? The adult male civilians had special anti-nuclear umbrellas??

In any case, those civilians were near a major military target just after we had dropped leaflets warning that it was on the list of targets to be destroyed in coming days. What did they expect would happen?

Japan was not desperately trying to surrender. They did not make any surrender offers until AFTER both A-bombs had been dropped.

Their demand was not just that they keep the Emperor, BTW. They wanted a guarantee that Hirohito would retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.

(Needless to say, we didn't agree.)



Quote:
You can’t help but think that, more than anything, the dropping of the "bomb" on Hiroshima and three days later another on Nagasaki was motivated by revenge for Pearl Harbour.


Actually it was motivated by the fact that Japan hadn't surrendered.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 12:20 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
Personally, I have never felt that the bombing of Hiroshima was "revenge for Pearl Harbor". I do believe that it was done to hasten the end of the war, a war we were forced into by the Japanese. However, I also feel it was a morally reprehensible act, given that such horrific destruction was directed at a helpless civilian population.


While there were certainly many civilians killed, Hiroshima was a large military center filled with tens of thousands of soldiers.



firefly wrote:
I feel that even more strongly about the bombing of Nagasaki, for which I have never been able to find sufficient justification in my own mind.


The justification is: Japan hadn't surrendered yet.



firefly wrote:
War and morality are often at odds with each other. And I also think our view of the situation now is tempered more with reason than was likely the case in 1945. We wanted that war over. And the dropping of those bombs did achieve that objective. The bombing of Hiroshima might have been strategically necessary at the time, to stop the war, but that does not mean it was fully morally justified. Nagasaki was in no way justified, not even to end the war. Just threatening the use of another bomb at that point should have sufficed to end the war without dropping another one. And lives, on both sides, were saved by ending the war.


We did threaten the use of another bomb. It didn't result in any surrender offers.

Had Japan made any surrender offers before the second bomb, it probably wouldn't have been dropped.

They are lucky they surrendered in time to avoid the third bomb.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 12:48 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
They are lucky they surrendered in time to avoid the third bomb.


Now you're just making things up, as you so often do. We are lucky that they decided to surrender without calling our bluff--we had no third bomb to drop on them.

In War's End: An Eyewitness Account of America's Last Atomic Mission , Charles Sweeney reports that after the Hiroshima attack, Paul Tibbets took him aside and told him: "It was vital that they [the Japanese] believed we had an unlimited supply of atomic bombs and that we would continue to use them. Of course, the truth was that we only had one more bomb on Tinian. Delivery of the third bomb was several weeks away." We could have dropped more bombs, but they would have come slowly, and would have revealed that we did not in fact possess an atomic arsenal. This would have been crucial not only for dealing with Japan, but for dealing with our Russian ally as well. There was no third bomb on Tinian, and no material on the way to construct one.
Lustig Andrei
 
  0  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 01:21 am
Setanta is quite correct -- after we nuked Nagasaki, we had used up all our ammo, so to speak.

As for the "morality" question of whether dropping the bomb was justified, my own feeling is that those were desperate times. Desperate times call for desperate measures. If we had not used the bomb and the war had dragged on for, say, another year and more and more American lives had been lost, I wonder what the reaction of the American people would have been -- yes, even the Liberals -- when they learned that we had had this weapon and failed to use it to end the war more quickly.

Arguments from a "moral" viewpoint are all ex post facto. Remember the historical context.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 01:49 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
They are lucky they surrendered in time to avoid the third bomb.


Now you're just making things up, as you so often do.


I've never done that.



Setanta wrote:
We are lucky that they decided to surrender without calling our bluff--we had no third bomb to drop on them.


In this very same post you quote Tibbets saying that they'd have the third bomb about three weeks after Hiroshima:

Setanta wrote:
after the Hiroshima attack, Paul Tibbets took him aside and told him:
. . .
Delivery of the third bomb was several weeks away."



In fact, Tibbits was a bit wrong about that. The third bomb was really going to be ready in a bit less than two weeks.

Absent Japan's surrender, the third bomb would have been dropped about August 17-18.

When Japan made their conditional surrender offer, shipment of the plutonium pit was delayed a few days to give them some breathing room, but even with the delay the third bomb would have been dropped around August 20-21.

That means Japan had about a week to spare before the next A-bomb when they surrendered.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 01:56 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:
Setanta is quite correct -- after we nuked Nagasaki, we had used up all our ammo, so to speak.


There was a lot more ammo about to roll off the assembly line.

The third bomb was due around August 17-18.

Then there were another three A-bombs planned for September. Another four in October (with maybe one of the October ones making it in September). Another five in November. Then a minimum of seven a month from December on.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 02:07 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
When Japan made their conditional surrender offer, shipment of the plutonium pit was delayed a few days to give them some breathing room, but even with the delay the third bomb would have been dropped around August 20-21.


One side effect of Japan's surrender is, on the very same day it might have been exploding over Japan, that plutonium pit was instead exposing foolish scientists in the US to lethal levels of radiation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 05:08 am
@oralloy,
Theer was no third bomb at the time Japan surrendered. Not only that, the plutonium for a third bomb had not been shipped to Tinian. If it had been shipped, then a bomb might, might have been dropped as early as August 20th. However, although authorities disagree about whether it was Oppenheimer, Groves or Marshall who vetoed the shipment, they all agree that shipement of the plutonium had been halted. Late August or early September whould have been the soonest a third bomb could have been dropped, if Truman had immediately authorized the shipment--something he didn't do.

Therefore, your statement that it's a good thing Japan surrendered when they did, so that we did not drop a third bomb on them is bullshit. There was no third bomb to drop at the time Japan surrendered.

EDIT: Leaving aside that i'll take Tibbet's testimony over yours any day, you're making more things up. At the end of 1945, there were only two bombs in our atomic arsenal, not the three you claim were available in September. Once again, you make things up, and i've seen you do it again and again--notoriously in the thread about bombing Germany in 1945, when you made things up about Dresden left, right and center. You'll always jump in to contradict established authority if it doesn't coincide with your screwy world view.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 05:19 am

Our nuclear attacks were a very good end to the 2nd World War,
on the 6th and the 9th of August, 1945. About 2 years ago, I had the high HONOR
of meeting Dutch Van Kirk, the navigator of the Enola Gay,
that nuked Hiroshima. I hold him in the highest esteem and told him so.
In my presence, many other people did also.
Many thanked him for saving their fathers' lives
and for giving their children, and grandchildren their lives.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 05:34 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
EDIT: Leaving aside that i'll take Tibbet's testimony over yours any day, you're making more things up. At the end of 1945, there were only two bombs in our atomic arsenal, not the three you claim were available in September. Once again, you make things up, and i've seen you do it again and again. . . .
As if u DON'T, u filthy LIAR.
U defamed ME,
FALSELY alleging that I had changed my description
of events in my early life and then u failed to back up ANYTHING.

U offered NO proof of your made up, fony allegations.
U did not because u COUD not, because thay were naked lies that U MADE UP.

After that, now, u have the BALLS to accuse him of doing what U do.





David
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 05:35 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Bite me, you puffed up delusional lunatic. Why don't you go fellate your hand guns, and leave the grown-ups to discuss serious matters?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 05:45 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Bite me, you puffed up delusional lunatic. Why don't you go fellate your hand guns, and leave the grown-ups to discuss serious matters?
Go stick your head down the toilet, u damned liar.
Your credibility is ZERO.
U just make up whatever u want, like defaming me,
with no evidence, just based on your subjective desires.
THAT is the setanta way; u are a true liberal with the truth.

ASSUMING that setanta ever tells the truth,
HOW can we separate that from his intentional lies??????

Is it POSSIBLE???





David
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 05:59 am
@JTT,
Dyslexia asked me four years ago why we dropped two bombs on Japan, I told him I always thought the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima to demand the Japanese to surrender and the second bomb on Nagasaki was to warn off the Soviets to stay out of the Japanese war. Surprisingly, he agreed with me.

BBB
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 06:00 am
It appears you're losing your temper? Could this mean a sudden, unhealthy rise in your blood pressure? One can only hope. Tell us about the commie next door and losing your virginity again, Mr. Wackjob, i could use a good laugh.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 06:01 am
@Setanta,
The amount of fissionable material available was divvied up between Hanford Wash (which ran a separation process to gather the Plutonium from Uranium hexaflouride) and at Oak Ridge , whgere by 2 processes that finally worked , we were able to produce enough U235 for ONE bomb.
after Nagasaki, we had exactly ZERO amount of critical mass 235 Uranium and very small amounts of Plutonium (The very shape pf the Pu bomb an "Implosion stylle" was the result of a committee decision to try to conserve all the available Pu so when we produced more at HAnford, we could have enough for a series of bombs if needed).
The way I understood from the HAnford History , is that we would not have had enough fisiionable Pu till about mid September (and then wed need to construct a third bomb as an implosion style (:FAT MAN STYLE")

I think this is pretty much broadly accepted knowledge from the Dupont history of the MAnhattan Project (Du Pont reluctantly ran the Oak Ridge Uranium facility as a "GO CO")

We pretty much bluffed our way to the closure of the war by making it appear we could have an unlimited supply of these bombs, so we really relied on the Japanese emperor to blink.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 06:05 am
how about, Lets We Forget, and move on
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 06:07 am
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:
how about, Lets We Forget, and move on
U DO have a good sense of humor.
I don 't agree with u, but u DO have a good sense of humor.





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Lest we forget
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/22/2019 at 02:40:08