Ban Atomic Bombs...

Nagasaki indeed has less moral substantiation and more political overtones -- Japanese intelligence had already determined that we had only two bombs. Read more about what the emperor decided was the reason to capitulate and it makes the bombing of Nagasaki look like it was more that just a little hasty. Still, I don't like going back into history and doing "what if's" as a metaphor for what is happening in the world today. The bomb is now in the hands of many nations, some of them with very questionable agendas (India and Pakistan being one of the prime examples). A new move toward a more stringent pact with nations trying to get Nukes and those who have them through the United Nations is probably in order. I say probably because I'm not a politicians and find their way of thinking anethema even if pragmatically necessary.

It would be interesting today to read what Mencken might have written fifty years after the fact but he was expressing a moral dictum that suited the times. There's no guessing about how he hated politicians.

I guess the problem is EVIL. It is everywhere. And one of the big problems with it is that it's only recognizable if you are an American - actually, only if you are a Republican. Hardly anybody else sees Evil. Nobody else is really...good enough or close enough to God and Truth. And what does it take to put a dent in Evil...nukes are the trick.

blatham

You weren't, by any change, referring to that famous Lady Evil (Lady Evil, evil - she's a magical, mystical woman ...)?

Steve, I can't buy that. While neither victory nor even substantive resistance of the impending invasion were given any credence at all by Japan's Ruling Military, their particular sense of honor called for dieing For The Emporer to make the enemy's certain victory as costly as possible. Even following the Hiroshima Bomb, hardliners intended a sort of national Banzai Charge. The Nagasaki Bomb changed their minds. Several more devices were "in the pipeline" and on the way to the 508th Bomb Group, as was discussed earlier in this thread. Crew, plane, and target assignments had been made. Further operations proved unnecessary.

Fatman and Littleboy were transported under utmost secrecy to Iwo Jima aboard the Cruiser Indianapolis, which was shortly thereafter sunk by a Japanese Sub (a heartbreaking story in itself). Operating under identical security and secrecy rules, The Cruiser Helena (and possibly, though not certainly, others) crossed from the US to Iwo, arriving a few days after The Indianapolis had departed. Neither Cruiser took part in any other Fleet Activity in the Iwo Jima area, and neither interacted in any way with the Iwo Fleet. They snuck in and snuck out. Why do you suppose at least TWO Cruisers did this at roughly the same time?


The successful detonation of the smaller, lighter, somewhat easier-to-produce plutonium device influenced subsequent manufacturing focus. Uncle Joe was disuaded from sweeping more of Europe under the Soviet Rug than had been his intention. It is a myth that at that time there were only two bombs. There were a number available, and more were in production. Stalin was aware of this. The Japanese assumed it.



timber

Your opinion is wrong. Japan resisted surrender even after the bombs were dropped, even after the surrender was made. They had to take the propellers off the planes to stop the military from flying suicide attacks against the US. The last aerial kill of the war came ten days after the surrender when a B-32 Dominator shot down an attacking Japanese fighter. The Japanese did not want to surrender. In the end, the atom bombs were not enough to get the same unconditional surrender we got from Nazi Germany. They got to keep their Emperor.

Tantor

False. Nagasaki was a port that would have supported the military opposition to the Allied invasion. Nagasaki was also where the torpedoes were manufactured for the Pearl Harbor attack. I find a neat moral symmetry in the fact that same place that manufactured and launched the seeds of war would have that same war return on their heads a hundred fold.



False. We had three. The third bomb was being transported to the Pacific when the surrender came. It made it to Mather AFB before it was turned back. The bomb casing is now on display at the National Museum of the Pacific War in Fredericksburg, TX.



The Emperor specifically cited the atom bombs as the reason for surrendering in his radio announcement to Japan. Without the shock of this new weapon, we probably would have had to grind through the Japanese islands with conventional weapons. The Japanese military could credibly argue that they could bleed the invasion force with their strong land defenses and fleets of suicide aircraft and boats. They could not credibly argue that they could defend against further nuclear attack. The atom bomb attack provided the shock that prompted the Japanese surrender.

In war, you do not stop until you win. Taking half measures just stretches the fighting out and gets more people killed. For example, look at the war between Iran and Iraq. They were evenly matched and fought a long war with a million casualties. By contrast, look at the Gulf War, where Iraq was overmatched by the US. The US had much more lethal weapons which caused the war to be short, paradoxically causing less casualties.

Tantor

Blatham, I think you are on to something here. It's true that the rest of the world does seem oblivious to evil. We look at Saddam Hussein and see an evil dictator while Europe sees a trading partner. We see a madman who wants to build nukes to threaten the world while France sees a good customer for their nuclear technology.

The fact is, the rest of the world does not seem to recognize evil or even admit that there is such a thing. That is a big difference between them and us.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Tantor

Tantor

Well, actually, no. The US looked at Sadaam and saw a friend. They helped him out with armaments and intelligence and chemicals and said nothing while he dumped those good American chemicals on the Kurds. American perception of Evil - spot on every time.

blatham, I think Saddam was seen not so much as a "Freind" by The US, but more as a convenient Enemy of Our Enemy (at that time Iran). The support and assistance he received from The US was intended more to inconvenience Iran than specifically assist Saddam, I believe. . A fine distinction, but a pointed one.



timber

Tantor:

Still stand by my statement that the second bomb may likely have been unnecessary as it was only the military leaders who wanted to carry on the defense of the Japanese homeland. They were trying to convince Hirohito that we had only one bomb when they knew there were two! However, I wouldn't have wanted to make that decison -- Truman had to decide to to it or not to do it and sending the Russians a message was also important to him. Then, we will really never know if the second bomb was unnecessary -- that part of the history is still cloudy. Que sera, sera.

I said the Japanese only were sure of two bombs and again the military leaders were trying to convince Hirohito that we only had two (how they believe their credibility wasn't at stake, suddenly deciding to tell him that there were now two is beyond me -- must be some kind of Samarai arrogant stupidity). As I remember, there wasn't enough uranium or plutonium to make that third bomb functional -- just the casing existed. If you can find information disputing that, go for it. Irregardless, Japanese intelligence was convinced there were only two bombs (which could be chalked up to wishful thinking and/or unbelievably nieve supposition on their part). They again attempted to convince Hirohito that they could launch a counter attack that would demoralize us and we'd back off. Yeah, right -- they really thought he was that dumb?

I said that it makes it look like it was hasty to drop the bomb on Nagasaki and if it had been dropped a week later as was being contemplated, it would have had the same result. I believe Truman was convinced that it was imperative to stop the war and one American life saved was worth it.
Those killed at the two bombing sites were civilians, we would have lost a small percentage of soldiers in that week. Some are going to believe it was a fair trade, some not. I've always been conflicted on that point but I would not in retrospect condemn Truman for dropping the bombs.

There's a lot in book and on the Internet how the it was unnecessary to drop the bombs at all but they're contradictions betray them. They go off the deep end almost immediately by putting the casualties at a quarter of a million people which is, of course, a gross exagerration.

Still, it has little bearing today on what we do about the proliferation of atomic weapons -- they certainly aren't a deterrant for terrorism. They could be used for terrorism and obviously that should be stopped by any means diplomatic and military. I think we need a new more aggressive diplomatic plan and effort to control the proliferation.

The US is already a signatory to the Non Proliferation Agreement, which binds countries not only to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, but to disarm themselves. Over many years the US has completely ignored this second injuction.

Timber

Yes, precisely as I see it too. My post was merely in response to a particularly juvenile species of intellectual vacuity which preceded.

But, as Ignatieff points out in the NY Times piece... http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/magazine/05EMPIRE.html?pagewanted=all&position=top (which, by the way, I want to discuss further with you as I know you had some disagreements that I didn't have time to respond to...can you recall which thread that was?)...there are penalties that accrue for an imperial power when it chooses it allies inconsistently, that is, inconsistently other than in forwarding its own interests. It is a very good way to make enemies.

Here is another thoughtful piece: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/wwwboard/walts.html#bio

Steve -- precisely why I said we need a more aggresive plan. If we can't even follow the agreement, it doesn't appear like it's effective. So why would we expect other nations to follow our example? We can boast "we're number one and we're perfect so do what we say" until we're hoarse. Actions speak louder than words and especially if the words are ineffective rhetoric and sloganeering. It's the football stadium mentality of the mobocracy. Sharpening up our diplomatic link to each country is imperative in this shrinking world.

Yes Lightwizard, the earth has shrunk which means it must be made of cotton candy. And you know what that means.....

Algis<

I would be among the voters who would like to ban the atomic bomb. I do not believe in war; I do not believe in killing.

How can we be sure that an international ban on atomic bombs would be followed? It would be a case of the cat chasing its tail.

And God knows I was chasing mine...

"Ban Atomic Bombs..."

It must be the wish of almost all of the physicists.

Ban Atomic Bombs but bottle firecrackers.