What is Digg?311 Comments
- Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -25/+109mrASSMAN,
The President did not "murder" a half million people.
1) American and Japan were openly involved in a declared war.
2) The United States gave the Japanese Government numerous warnings about what they were going to do and what they expected to happen in an attempt to mitigate the civilian casualties. The Japanese government ignored these warnings.
3) The Japanese are far from blameless in this matter. Chinese Villages, Manilla, Bataan Death March, any of the P.O.W. camps...the list of Japanese offenses is very, very, long.
Do not use the word "murder", it is inappropriate in this context. - Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -39/+94Why do you feel guilty? The United States did what was necessary to bring the Pacific war to a swift conclusion.
Had we not had the bomb and been forced into a ground invasion many multiples more people would have died, on both sides. The U.S. made the best of a ***** situation. - tonage, on 10/12/2007, -28/+82- Surreal........scary. I wasn't born yet and I have twinges of guilt.
Of course you do. As Americans, we are expected to feel guilty for every problem in the world now and in the past. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+35I'll take Wounded Knee and Trail of Tears as the worst moments in American history long before the A-Bomb.
We were at war. You use your weapons in war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major industrial center for Japan's war machine. It would be like them hitting Detroit and Pittsburg.
Its a horrible thing. I wish it never happened and pray it will never again. But, I'm not going to appologize for it. - TheWalkingDude, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27More detailed account here: http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Hibakusha/index.shtml
or here: http://www.inicom.com/hibakusha/index.html
It's worth the time to read it - I did more than two years ago, and I still think about it. Fire tornadoes randomly tearing through streets, black rain and people desperately drinking it, the kid who only got burnt on the bottoms of his feet so he crawled home to his mother, the surprisingly fast appearance of maggots in wounds, walls melting in vibrant colors - it sounds more like a twisted acid trip. From the video (at a distance) it seems so uniform, but the eyewitnesses describe more chaotic, bizarre, randomness. - anvilon, on 10/12/2007, -13/+34A quick google turned this up.
Why Truman Bombed Hiroshima
http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/hiroshima/ytruman.htm
The bomb saved millions of lives - both Allied and Japanese. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant of what really went on in the Pacific Theatre in WWII. - monolith, on 10/12/2007, -7/+27My grandmother was outside of Hiroshima when it was bombed. I've read correspondence from then in Japan. My grandmother was prepared to die to defend Japan from invasion. I've said this before on digg... but finding my old comments is like needle hunting.
The US had to make it perfectly clear to the Japanese that they were going to loose in a very bad way. It had to be perfectly clear to the Japanese that they could surrender with honor. I'm none too clear about what the leadership thought, but the people of Japan were willing and able to die to the last man, women and child to end the war with honor.
Two bombs just might have actually SAVED THE JAPANESE from extinction.
And Assman, for you to call it murder, just shows that you are an idiot. - Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25Metabolife,
This moment WAS shameful, but not because we killed people. It's shameful because the Japanese simply would not surrender when they were clearly beaten. They intended to continue the conflict regardless of the cost to their civilian popuplation.
Had we been forced into a ground war to take the country of Japan far more then 347,000 people would have died. The United States Military was predicting upwards of a MILLION casualties, for the U.S. alone.
The atomic bomb was the best of a short list of terrible options. - justice7, on 10/12/2007, -13/+32the question is, did Hiroshima and Nagasaki have any Militaristic value associated with destroying them? Or were they just the "easiest targets"? Imagine if the americans had deployed the first bomb on a military target, or off the coast of japan as a warning to its immense power... would it have had the same effect without the casualties?
Of course, in times of war decisions have to be made -- i'm not saying it was the wrong decision. What i'm saying is.. could it have been avoided if a different decision was made? - muleking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Its so interesting how we went from dropping the bomb to not being able to get enough of their quirky gadgets, cars, and delicious sushi.
Nice comeback Japan - dkarlson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21Whatever, dude. Read this: http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=30 It changed my views on our actions in WW2. You forget that we were also AT WAR.
- DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21"The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan."
Well, they got that right. - evileddie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17The single worst act of era of the WWII period (prewar) was still the Rape of Nanking committed by Japanese soldiers
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/nanking.htm - muleking, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Japan didn't even surrender in the time between the two bombings, the may have been in disarray, but still they still had a centralized command that could have surrendered.
Japan had no intention to surrender, they're culture had them fighting till death in places like Iwo Jima and Okinawa when they had no way for a tactical victory. - Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20@ Furthermore, merely detonating an atomic bomb far away from a city and making it known to the Japanese would have forced them into submission
No it wouldn't have. If you'll recall we had to nuke them TWICE to get them to surrender. If they wouldn't quit after the first taste, what makes you think a demonstration would get them to quit? - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Buelldozer said "Why do you feel guilty? The United States did what was necessary to bring the Pacific war to a swift conclusion. Had we not had the bomb and been forced into a ground invasion many multiples more people would have died, on both sides. The U.S. made the best of a ***** situation."
Actually, it was a bit more than that. If you study a bit of world politics and other events going on we would notice about several million Soviet soldiers preparing to invade Japan.
Japan had put feelers out through the Russian embassy shortly before the Soviets declared ware on them and even after wards since the Soviet T-34 tanks were overrunning and defeating all Japanese resistance in Manchuria and Korea.
The Soviets quietly never passed this overtures for peace to the Japanese seeing that they were making major pre-invasion plans (boats and whatnot) in Vladivostok. Their goal was to export Communism to as many countries as possible at the time.
However, seeing the Americans had keep the A-Bomb a secret until they actually dropped it. The Soviets were caught off guard and the Japanese surrendered to the Americans instead of the Soviets.
Truth be told... It was a tragedy on all sides. Yes the Americans dropped it and I don't think they really knew how powerful it was (except for those at the Los Alomos test site) and the Japanese failure to attempt surrender earlier due to political infighting and the Soviets desire to not help with the peace process.
Personally, I don't think any of us should feel guilty for what any of our ancestors have done (including the Germans) because if you aren't alive then, it isn't your fault. (On the same token you should defiantly not feel proud of the things they have done).
But you should feel compassion and understand these events are tragedies. - threemagic, on 10/12/2007, -12/+26Yes, they did was necessary.. would you rather the war continued and have many, many more innocent people die? No.
Unfortunately, war is necessary as well... - HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Check your own history. Rather than being close to surrendering, they were preparing their civilians to fight. Please don't tell lies.
- jpwhitmore, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Imagine if we had decided not to drop the bombs and instead invaded Japan with massive casualties. What do you think the public would have done when they found out we had a weapon which could have kept their son's from dieing invading japan? They would have ripped Truman's head off.
- CingleMolt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18@justice7 et. al.
As I recall, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were manufacturing sites for Japanese weapons and such. So, while not direct military targets, they were none-the-less strategic.
Also, in regard to the idea of dropping the bomb off shore as a scare tactic, note that the Nagasaki bomb was dropped three days after the Hiroshima bomb. If three days were not enough to surrender after the destruction of the first bomb, do you think a "warning" bomb would really have done much to persuade the Japanese? - Petronski, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18"Metabolife," you're really very ignorant of history. You need to do some reading.
- Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19Actually it is often considered that Hiroshima was actually intended to scare the Russians. It has been proved (search Google for Hiroshima sought surrender if you think I'm making this up) that the Japanese tried to negotiate peace through the Russians, who did not pass the message on to the US (the Japanese were generally against surrender, but they were in an extremely desperate situation by this stage, with no chance of victory). Furthermore, merely detonating an atomic bomb far away from a city and making it known to the Japanese would have forced them into submission, however the public back lash may have prevented them dropping the bomb.
Also, and there is no proof for this, many historians believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the US's way of warning Soviets- which wanted to expand to the east, dangerously close to America - that if they tried such a plan a similar fate would await them (i.e. the beginning of the Cold War). It does paint a fairly bad picture of the US government I guess, but a war with Russia would have been guaranteed to kill far more than the bombs. - honavery, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I recently visited Hiroshima and it was a very sobering experience. It is quite amazing how the city has bounced back, it is a thriving metropolis (over a million people).
They have left one structure in the city as it was, they call it the A-bomb dome. Nothing has been changed other than structural supports so the building doesn't collapse. The museum there is also very good. If you ever get a chance, I highly recommend it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18"All I know is that these two bombs saved my grandfathers life."
Yeah? Well one of them killed mine. - Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17So definiteform,
You completely cede the point that using the weapon actually SAVED lives over other options, but still continue to second guess the action?
I never said I was happy with the use of the weapon, I merely said it was the best of a short list of crappy options.
Japan WAS NOT going to surrender to a ground invasion, millions were going to die in conventional warefare if we tried it. We COULD NOT allow the Japanese to fail to surrender, if we had they would have rebuilt their war machine and come at us again. This is how their military of the time worked.
Perhaps when you're done feeling superior and attempting to insult me you could spend a few minutes in quiet reflection; perhaps you could sort out your obviously confused and contradictory thinking on this matter. - Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Most likely it was the shock wave. Overpressure close to a nuclear blast is nothing to sneeze at. High pressure applied to the human body has some interesting effects.
- neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9there are houses right around the hypocentre in Nagasaki. Its kinda freaky that they live that close, but Im guessing with the pheonix trees the radiation dissapated a lot quicker than expected.
- tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Wrong, wrong, wrong. My grandmother was a Japanese national, they were preparing all male citizens for a last stand against the United States after the fall of Iwo Jima.
- YesWorld, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Interesting link, dkarlson, thanks.
A similar story was also submitted a few days ago:
http://digg.com/science/WW2:_America_Warned_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki_Citizens - TheGalacticFork, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9We gave them democracy and they told us, "You guys are dumb, we'll show you how to do it right" and look how far they've come in 70 years....
- keithmcbride, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18its debatable whether or not the invasion would have been worse. the US greatly over-estimated the remaining power that the Japanese army had. Japan tried to make itself seem like they were doing very well in the war, but secretly they had almost completely run out of resources.
what people don't know is that the US used fire-bombing quite often during the war, and those attacks cost almost as many lives as the atomic bombs did. it wasn't like they went from man-to-man combat to the atomic bomb, they had used large scale bombings already, the atomic bomb was just the next logical step - Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Mejogid,
Yes. They were "wavering" so heavily that 5 MILLION leaflets dropped from the sky explaining what was about to happen, 15 minute radio announcement all day every day for three WEEKS, plus three DAYS after the Hiroshima was destroyed they still hadn't surrendered.
I don't know what fantasy land you live in, nor what history books you've been reading, but Japan was NOT "heavily wavering" and "about to surrender". Their own actions, or inactions as the case may be, prove it. - neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Go there and talk to the people. Really they give tours, and actually make themselves available. Id probably rate it as one of the best days to spend in Japan. Its a powerfull thing to see nomatter the politics behind it. Go around the atomic dome on a school day, you are bound to run into a tour group with a survivor.
Oh you better hurry, as they are getting pretty old! - endgame, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8WOW....that was a very interesting story. I wonder why everyone seemed to "black out" right when they saw the BIG flash?
- fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9As much as this was a tragic event, I believe that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have actually prevented World War III. Consider, people are a very image-driven species. For example, when we read about famine we often do little, but when we see pictures of starving people we usually always respond more. If this bombing had not occured then the devastation caused by nuclear weapons would just be theoretical and most people would not really understand what damage they would cause. By having these images of the very real destructing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in our minds, I believe it made it much harder to 'pull the trigger' and start a nuclear war. Perhaps the legacy of the death of these people was to be the preventers of general world-wide nuclear destruction. If so then their deaths were not in vain.
- definiteform, on 10/12/2007, -18/+25"Why do you feel guilty? The United States did what was necessary to bring the Pacific war to a swift conclusion.
Had we not had the bomb and been forced into a ground invasion many multiples more people would have died, on both sides. The U.S. made the best of a ***** situation."
You'd make a good candidate for president Mr Truman. Note: it was the Japanese military causing the havoc, not the citizens. Sure, the propaganda spread throughout the country caused them to support the military...but hey, the USA had its own propaganda machine (and still does today). The loss of human life is what makes him feel guilty. You would be a good killing machine in the military. I am neutral about the bomb..maybe it comes from learning Japanese.
I will concede, the bomb's casualties are far less than an invasion's casualties. I asked my Japanese instructor about it...and she had a hard time keeping herself together in class. Still, I would not have dropped it. We were winning so much ground and Japan had no one to fly their planes and had no navy. - NakedSnake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@ dswinscoe:
If you notice in your definition, terrorism is defined as "an individual or group". If you study terrorism a bit, you'd probably notice the recurring theme in international law, UN definitions and other such documents that terrorism is perpetrated by "non-state actors." This means that the government of a country cannot perform an act of terrorism; governments perform acts of WAR.
Being in a state of openly declared war between two nations, your fancy definition does not apply, and merely makes you look like an idiot. - wvdavis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I notice a lot of people here debating what happened then. Whether or not it was the right thing to do. At what point does the WORLD learn from the past?
“War begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap”. ~ Ronald Regan - VoxMagis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10My only issue on any of this is that there is no LUCK involved (as the original post mentions) in preventing this from happening again.
My personal opinions:
1 - We made the right choice to drop the bombs.
2 - It is a good and honorable thing to debate that choice, within reason.
3 - I pray that we never see this happen again, but in 'real world' thinking, I'm fairly sure we will.
4 - Everyone should work for two things for their own piece of the world - Non-proliferation and a secure defense. Regardless of what a physicist said, you CAN both prepare for and prevent war. - Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12The Japanese government had NO intention of surrendering; the concept that they had lost was unimaginable to them.
Japan, at the time, did not lose at warfare. Through divine right and inspiration they "always" won. That was the popular cultural meme. - linkwray, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13I'm thankful the atomic bombs were dropped, not because the saved upwards of 1 million American lives, but because they were probably responsible for having saved ONE American life...my grandfather's.
- templest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"With any luck this type of thing will never have to be witnessed again."
You're forgetting one *tiny* little detail: You live on planet Earth. - chicksdigme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The Japanese invaded China and massacred millions of Chinese people. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War#Chinese_Casualties), two atomic bombs in Japan doesn't really do justice to the people that the Japanese killed. And still today, Japan shows no remorse. So I guess we didn't drop enough bombs there.
- diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"There is a difference between 'most powerful' and 'greatest', and 'in the world' and 'in the world today'. I'm not against patriotism or anything, but some people here sound like they're on the government payroll."
No, not on the payroll, just a proud American Citizen.
I'm kinda sick of people telling me that it's arrogant to say that America is the greatest country on earth. If you don't think so, then why are you still here? Is there another country that you think is greater? If so, go there, we really don't mind. I think this is a problem in the USA today, people who think that it is a bad thing to think America is the greatest. We have the most freedom on earth, the greatest military, a wonderful constitution, public debate over policy, a real say in who our leaders are, etc. America has been blessed over any other country in history, so yes, I still say without shame or arrogance, that America is the Greatest Country on Earth! - six6to8eight, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7There is absolutely no way the 3rd woman in the article could have been 300 meters away from the hypocenter. She, and the building she was in, would have been vaporized instantaneously by the blast.
It must be a translation error or something. - neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7They are greatfull, as a matter of fact japan has the highest internaitonal favoritisim to the usa. I take it you have never been there, have you?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+21Dont feel too guilty, kid. Your grandfather may have been in the first wave of a land invasion. He most likely may have been killed, and you would have not been born as a result.
- delinka, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@justice7
These were definitely calculated military targets. I don't recall the complete list, but I do remember Mitsubishi factories that were producing weapons and vehicles for the Japanese military were among the targets and were destroyed in one of the attacks.
As for everyone else: I feel saddened by the loss of life, but I don't feel guilty as an American. As has been said, we were at war (Real War, declared by the U.S. Congress) and these events were necessary to bring that war to a swift conclusion. Awakened a sleeping giant? Understatement of the 20th century. - diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7What do you want us to do? Who should we apologize to? Should we make a formal apology to the Japanese government?
Sorry you hate the USA so much. Oh well. Surely you weren't expecting us to bend over and grab our ankles so you'll like us again, did you? Sorry, not gonna happen. We do what we do because it is in the best interest of the USA. If you don't like that, we're not about to start asking your opinion on what's best for the USA. If you don't like us, tough. - Dolphinese, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13People seem to forget that the US didn't just nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They torched a large number of cities through fire-bombing.
"Firebombing of Japan: ... the Air Force began a devastating campaign of nighttime, low-level firebombing of Japan on the night of March 10th, 1945 in Tokyo. In that single night, 334 B-29 bombers burned to death nearly 100,000 civilians in Tokyo. In the ensuing five months, the U.S. would firebomb 66 additional Japanese cities, killing nearly a million Japanese civilians, injuring over 1.3 million, and causing nearly one quarter of the Japanese urban population to evacuate their homes."
http://b-29s-over-korea.com/firebombing/firebombing4.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II
http://www.ikjeld.com/linker/index.php?cat=375
http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/japan/fire.html
http://www.errolmorris.com/film/fow_glossary.html
Japan did indeed wake a Sleeping Giant. A remorseless, vengeful and cold-hearted one at that. Hiroshima was necessary to show seriousness. Hiroshima was necessary to give a message to the entire world, not just Japan: The Second Great War Ends Today. Hiroshima was necessary to prove that the US had the might and the will and the courage to wield it.
Nagasaki was not necessary. The US did not need to firestrike sixty-six cities, with indescriminate attacks upon civilian areas, at the expense of millions of lives.
While cycling around France some years ago, I met a man at a youth hostel who was originally from Senegal. My French was (and still is) a bit rusty, yet he said something to me that I shall never forget.
He said, "War makes everything zero."
What he meant, in so few words, was this: War is the opposite of progress, the opposite of civilization. It combines senseless destruction with ruthless slaughter. And when the war is over, the nations have to literally rebulid themselves. Buildings. Families. Economy. Society. People have to conquer fear and the vast overwhelming waves of revenge. They have to mourn for their children and cry for their parents. It's so stupid.
People often fail to realise that just because it isn't happening in your own backyard does not make it less real for the people who suffer. Tell me something. Where the ***** does it end?
Germany and Jews? China and Japan? US and Japan? US and Vietnam? US and Cuba? US and Russia? US and the Middle East? US and space-based weaponry?
You cannot offer your hands to help somebody else if you are holding a gun.
(I am also a Canadian.) -
Show 51 - 100 of 309 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is