I have heard many views on this subject. One can be pro, con or indifferent. (I don't believe being indifferent on this is a viable option). What I will say may anger some people, or a lot of them. The argument that "Japan was all ready defeated" simply does not ad up the facts. Peace overtures were made, for one reason the Army Air Force was running out of targets. All were unequivocally rebuffed, despite Japan all ready being decimated. We did demand unconditional surrender. At some point "feelers" indicated the Japanese may just surrender if they could keep the Emperor. We said "no promises". In the end we allowed this as well as not prosecuting him for war crimes. It's all ways been unclear just how much he was running the war, or if the power as we believed was in the hands of Prime Minister Tojo. Tojo was of course executed. He sure appeared to be running things...The argument it was a cruel weapon that killed mostly civilians is half right. It did kill mostly civilians. As for cruel, I think all weapons designed to maim or kill are cruel. Often not emphasized was the incredible damage and suffering done by "conventional" weapons. In one night at least 100,000 were killed in Tokyo by fire bombing. People either burned to death or if merciful were suffocated by the ensuing fire storm. I can't recall off hand the total killed/maimed by conventional bombing, but it was huge. The "wild card" concerning atomic weapons was the ensuing and long term, or short term death by radiation.
I strongly believe the cost in lives from an invasion of the Japanese home islands would have cost more lives on both sides. The atomic bombs provided maximum super shock then conventional weapons had. The last point may seem a bit odd, but I believe it. Ask your self what image's do you see in your mind when you hear "atomic bomb, or Hiroshima? I don't see the test of the first bomb in the New Mexico desert. I see the stark and horrendous effects the bombs had on real human beings, not the 100 foot tall tower on top of which the very first bomb was tested. The latter point I think is most important because human beings are not as moved by statistics then they are by pictures, testimony, etc. I am convinced we would have had WW-3 with out those same images.Even so, we came very close on a number of occasions. The Russians would have had the bomb by 1949 even if we never used them. There spy network concerning the Manhattan project was extraordinarily effective.( by the way the Rosenberg's were easy scape goats, I mean hey, they were Jewish and left leaning) Yes they did spy for the Soviet Union, but there contribution was almost nill compared to spy's like Claus Fuchs, a German communist. So I believe nuclear war would have happened, again without those pictures...Even so, there were SO MANY times we came so close...There was also an American service man who's name I cant recall. The information they provided was more then enough, alone. Fuchs provided critical physics and explosive primer data, the American material and operations data. It is tragic we need such horrible pictures to create a lasting memory, but in the end I believe thats what they did.
QUOTE (hawksecho+Dec 9 2007, 02:40 PM)
I have heard many views on this subject. One can be pro, con or indifferent. (I don't believe being indifferent on this is a viable option). What I will say may anger some people, or a lot of them. The argument that "Japan was all ready defeated" simply does not ad up the facts. Peace overtures were made, for one reason the Army Air Force was running out of targets. All were unequivocally rebuffed, despite Japan all ready being decimated. We did demand unconditional surrender. At some point "feelers" indicated the Japanese may just surrender if they could keep the Emperor. We said "no promises". In the end we allowed this as well as not prosecuting him for war crimes. It's all ways been unclear just how much he was running the war, or if the power as we believed was in the hands of Prime Minister Tojo. Tojo was of course executed. He sure appeared to be running things...The argument it was a cruel weapon that killed mostly civilians is half right. It did kill mostly civilians. As for cruel, I think all weapons designed to maim or kill are cruel. Often not emphasized was the incredible damage and suffering done by "conventional" weapons. In one night at least 100,000 were killed in Tokyo by fire bombing. People either burned to death or if merciful were suffocated by the ensuing fire storm. I can't recall off hand the total killed/maimed by conventional bombing, but it was huge. The "wild card" concerning atomic weapons was the ensuing and long term, or short term death by radiation.
I strongly believe the cost in lives from an invasion of the Japanese home islands would have cost more lives on both sides. The atomic bombs provided maximum super shock then conventional weapons had. The last point may seem a bit odd, but I believe it. Ask your self what image's do you see in your mind when you hear "atomic bomb, or Hiroshima? I don't see the test of the first bomb in the New Mexico desert. I see the stark and horrendous effects the bombs had on real human beings, not the 100 foot tall tower on top of which the very first bomb was tested. The latter point I think is most important because human beings are not as moved by statistics then they are by pictures, testimony, etc. I am convinced we would have had WW-3 with out those same images.Even so, we came very close on a number of occasions. The Russians would have had the bomb by 1949 even if we never used them. There spy network concerning the Manhattan project was extraordinarily effective.( by the way the Rosenberg's were easy scape goats, I mean hey, they were Jewish and left leaning) Yes they did spy for the Soviet Union, but there contribution was almost nill compared to spy's like Claus Fuchs, a German communist. So I believe nuclear war would have happened, again without those pictures...Even so, there were SO MANY times we came so close...There was also an American service man who's name I cant recall. The information they provided was more then enough, alone. Fuchs provided critical physics and explosive primer data, the American material and operations data. It is tragic we need such horrible pictures to create a lasting memory, but in the end I believe thats what they did.
Here you are falling into a common trap. People rewriting history, especially you may notice, it always tends to make America look bad.
Who tells you those things and why? (Why use of Atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was bad or wrong). You have to look at their personal agenda. It should be pretty obvious.
I strongly believe the cost in lives from an invasion of the Japanese home islands would have cost more lives on both sides. The atomic bombs provided maximum super shock then conventional weapons had. The last point may seem a bit odd, but I believe it. Ask your self what image's do you see in your mind when you hear "atomic bomb, or Hiroshima? I don't see the test of the first bomb in the New Mexico desert. I see the stark and horrendous effects the bombs had on real human beings, not the 100 foot tall tower on top of which the very first bomb was tested. The latter point I think is most important because human beings are not as moved by statistics then they are by pictures, testimony, etc. I am convinced we would have had WW-3 with out those same images.Even so, we came very close on a number of occasions. The Russians would have had the bomb by 1949 even if we never used them. There spy network concerning the Manhattan project was extraordinarily effective.( by the way the Rosenberg's were easy scape goats, I mean hey, they were Jewish and left leaning) Yes they did spy for the Soviet Union, but there contribution was almost nill compared to spy's like Claus Fuchs, a German communist. So I believe nuclear war would have happened, again without those pictures...Even so, there were SO MANY times we came so close...There was also an American service man who's name I cant recall. The information they provided was more then enough, alone. Fuchs provided critical physics and explosive primer data, the American material and operations data. It is tragic we need such horrible pictures to create a lasting memory, but in the end I believe thats what they did.
Here you are falling into a common trap. People rewriting history, especially you may notice, it always tends to make America look bad.
Who tells you those things and why? (Why use of Atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was bad or wrong). You have to look at their personal agenda. It should be pretty obvious.
deadbeat,
What aspect of hawksecho’s post do you disagree with?
What aspect of hawksecho’s post do you disagree with?
I'm no expert on WWII, but I can't imagine that the nuclear powers that be would have had the same reluctance to use nuclear force if not for the example made by Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The shock value of using nuclear weapons so soon after the technology was developed couldn't have been a bad thing, in the long run. It took a world full of people who thought of war as soldiers, tanks, battleships, dogfighters and bombers, and gave them a picture of war so horrifying that it made us all ask "Is it really worth it?"
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 9 2007, 07:41 PM)
I'm no expert on WWII, but I can't imagine that the nuclear powers that be would have had the same reluctance to use nuclear force if not for the example made by Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The shock value of using nuclear weapons so soon after the technology was developed couldn't have been a bad thing, in the long run. It took a world full of people who thought of war as soldiers, tanks, battleships, dogfighters and bombers, and gave them a picture of war so horrifying that it made us all ask "Is it really worth it?"
You are correct in that what you describe. It was one of the peripheral benefits of using the “atomic devices” on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, the primary purpose was to cause Japan to surrender (and subsequently save the lives of Allied Forces).
You are correct in that what you describe. It was one of the peripheral benefits of using the “atomic devices” on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, the primary purpose was to cause Japan to surrender (and subsequently save the lives of Allied Forces).
To Deadbeat: I am not trying to rewrite history and make America look bad. The use of the Bombs was first a military decision, to end the war as fast as possible. I am confident some one else would have used it if they got it first. The reason I brought up the argument is the hypocritical statement "only the US has ever used nuclear weapons on cities," we did because we got there first. The issue of good or bad is often used as an argument against there use, which is ridiculous. I think we were right to use them when we did, under the circumstances we did. As for who "tells me" this stuff, actually no one specificly, ideas are all over the map on this one. Most importantly I can read. There is a hge amount of historical information on this subject for any one who wants to check. I also have a BA in history with my specialty being the impact of technology on history, which I lecture at the university level from time to time.
All,
>The shock value of using nuclear weapons so soon after the technology was developed couldn't have been a bad thing, in the long run. It took a world full of people who thought of war as soldiers, tanks, battleships, dogfighters and bombers, and gave them a picture of war so horrifying that it made us all ask "Is it really worth it?"
Shock and aw,
So in today's world, what sort of weapon would it take to induce such shock as to cause an enemy to unconditionally surrender after only 2 strikes?
>The shock value of using nuclear weapons so soon after the technology was developed couldn't have been a bad thing, in the long run. It took a world full of people who thought of war as soldiers, tanks, battleships, dogfighters and bombers, and gave them a picture of war so horrifying that it made us all ask "Is it really worth it?"
Shock and aw,
So in today's world, what sort of weapon would it take to induce such shock as to cause an enemy to unconditionally surrender after only 2 strikes?
QUOTE (hawksecho+Dec 9 2007, 11:08 PM)
To Deadbeat: I am not trying to rewrite history and make America look bad. The use of the Bombs was first a military decision, to end the war as fast as possible. I am confident some one else would have used it if they got it first. The reason I brought up the argument is the hypocritical statement "only the US has ever used nuclear weapons on cities," we did because we got there first. The issue of good or bad is often used as an argument against there use, which is ridiculous. I think we were right to use them when we did, under the circumstances we did. As for who "tells me" this stuff, actually no one specificly, ideas are all over the map on this one. Most importantly I can read. There is a hge amount of historical information on this subject for any one who wants to check. I also have a BA in history with my specialty being the impact of technology on history, which I lecture at the university level from time to time.
My bad, obviously you are well informed. I was not insinuating that you were rewriting, just that the available info sources we have are no longer trustworthy.
It just alarms me the current trend seen far too often to not view things that happened in the past through the lens of the time it occurred. It has become acceptable even for journalists to spin news and history, there is so little you can trust for truth, your only hope it seems to me is a large variety of sources to winkle out all the details.
I watched a lovely movie about Iwo Jima last night, and it portrayed America during the war in a far different light than I have ever seen in my 47 years. It was about the guys that planted the flag at the top of Mount Suribachi, the famous picture.
They were probably accurately portrayed personally, more or less, but the atmosphere of the public was presented as "depressed" and "tired of war" and threatening to stop paying War Bonds so the US government might have to capitulate.
Never have I heard that about WW2, but I could be wrong.
People of today just seem to be taking pretty liberal license with the history of even recent events, and now rewriting WW2?
Also, if you are an educator, you must be aware of the deep liberal bias in the education system. This would be a typical way I have seen that sort of thing demonstrated.
My bad, obviously you are well informed. I was not insinuating that you were rewriting, just that the available info sources we have are no longer trustworthy.
It just alarms me the current trend seen far too often to not view things that happened in the past through the lens of the time it occurred. It has become acceptable even for journalists to spin news and history, there is so little you can trust for truth, your only hope it seems to me is a large variety of sources to winkle out all the details.
I watched a lovely movie about Iwo Jima last night, and it portrayed America during the war in a far different light than I have ever seen in my 47 years. It was about the guys that planted the flag at the top of Mount Suribachi, the famous picture.
They were probably accurately portrayed personally, more or less, but the atmosphere of the public was presented as "depressed" and "tired of war" and threatening to stop paying War Bonds so the US government might have to capitulate.
Never have I heard that about WW2, but I could be wrong.
People of today just seem to be taking pretty liberal license with the history of even recent events, and now rewriting WW2?
Also, if you are an educator, you must be aware of the deep liberal bias in the education system. This would be a typical way I have seen that sort of thing demonstrated.
"If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose righteousness." - (Theodore Roosevelt)
To Deadbeat: I am a part time educator, and full time business owner.
Hi All,
Excellent topic, Hawk. I have very strong feelings on this (being a Veteran and very interested in WWII). I agree with much of what you said as in the bombs may have saved alot of lives in an Invasion. I really think, considering Japan's propensity to fight to the death, that 'alot' of lives should be more like millions. From what I understand, all of the Invasion plans being worked on for Japan included at least 500,000 Allied soldiers, this being just the landing force.
I also feel that there was a need to demonstrate the awesome power of these (now relatively weak) nuclear weapons to at least help discourage future misuse of them. I feel for the Japanese people, as I know them today, but we must remember who the Japanese Empire really was: an over-aggressive land and power hungry regime with all it's citizens brainwash to that end.
I still sign off as always, though.
Peace,
Ron
Excellent topic, Hawk. I have very strong feelings on this (being a Veteran and very interested in WWII). I agree with much of what you said as in the bombs may have saved alot of lives in an Invasion. I really think, considering Japan's propensity to fight to the death, that 'alot' of lives should be more like millions. From what I understand, all of the Invasion plans being worked on for Japan included at least 500,000 Allied soldiers, this being just the landing force.
I also feel that there was a need to demonstrate the awesome power of these (now relatively weak) nuclear weapons to at least help discourage future misuse of them. I feel for the Japanese people, as I know them today, but we must remember who the Japanese Empire really was: an over-aggressive land and power hungry regime with all it's citizens brainwash to that end.
I still sign off as always, though.
Peace,
Ron
Wow...dismissing indifference to begin with....
A couple of facts
1) Without the use of atomic bombs we were doing an adequate job of destroying Japanese cities
2) When we fire-bombed Tokyo, we killed more people than either Nagasaki or Hiroshima
3) The estimates commonly cited in reference to military causalities are obviously skewed. The army proposed a very low number and a quick victory, while the navy proposed the complete failure of a land invasion
In light of all of these facts, it is important to realize that the question is not "should we have dropped the A-bomb those two times", but rather "should we have indiscriminately bombed non-military targets"
You can argue that all you would like, but the Atomic bomb was just an alternative to the fire bombing...with the same death toll. We probably did it more to send a political message to Russia than to win the war.
A couple of facts
1) Without the use of atomic bombs we were doing an adequate job of destroying Japanese cities
2) When we fire-bombed Tokyo, we killed more people than either Nagasaki or Hiroshima
3) The estimates commonly cited in reference to military causalities are obviously skewed. The army proposed a very low number and a quick victory, while the navy proposed the complete failure of a land invasion
In light of all of these facts, it is important to realize that the question is not "should we have dropped the A-bomb those two times", but rather "should we have indiscriminately bombed non-military targets"
You can argue that all you would like, but the Atomic bomb was just an alternative to the fire bombing...with the same death toll. We probably did it more to send a political message to Russia than to win the war.
QUOTE (paul h+Dec 9 2007, 07:36 PM)
Shock and awe,
So in today's world, what sort of weapon would it take to induce such shock as to cause an enemy to unconditionally surrender after only 2 strikes?
I would imagine a nuclear weapon would still be plenty.
So in today's world, what sort of weapon would it take to induce such shock as to cause an enemy to unconditionally surrender after only 2 strikes?
I would imagine a nuclear weapon would still be plenty.
Hi All,
Hi Puck,
Your info on the Russian situation is only speculation, I've studied it.
The point to me is that 1) the AXIS bombed civilians indiscriminately and 2) Without that kind of statement made to put pressure on Hirohito, all indications were that he would have given every last military life he had available.
I'm not a war monger and I don't ever want to see another used, but , in the situation(ie:World War), options are limited.
Be aware also that there were German u-boats found after the war headed toward Japan with nuclear material on them for Japan to try to make a bomb once Germany was overrun.
Peace,
Ron
Hi Puck,
Your info on the Russian situation is only speculation, I've studied it.
The point to me is that 1) the AXIS bombed civilians indiscriminately and 2) Without that kind of statement made to put pressure on Hirohito, all indications were that he would have given every last military life he had available.
I'm not a war monger and I don't ever want to see another used, but , in the situation(ie:World War), options are limited.
Be aware also that there were German u-boats found after the war headed toward Japan with nuclear material on them for Japan to try to make a bomb once Germany was overrun.
Peace,
Ron
QUOTE
Hi Puck,
Your info on the Russian situation is only speculation, I've studied it.
Your info on the Russian situation is only speculation, I've studied it.
Of course it is speculation....I never claimed it was fact...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hi Puck, Your info on the Russian situation is only speculation, I've studied it. |
Of course it is speculation....I never claimed it was fact...
The point to me is that 1) the AXIS bombed civilians indiscriminately and 2) Without that kind of statement made to put pressure on Hirohito, all indications were that he would have given every last military life he had available.
Alright...but the point remains the same...
We could have killed more people(including civilians) by fire bombing.
The atomic bomb WAS NOT more deadly than conventional bombing....
If there was something morally wrong with use of Atomic weapons...then there was something wrong with fire-bombing
QUOTE
Be aware also that there were German u-boats found after the war headed toward Japan with nuclear material on them for Japan to try to make a bomb once Germany was overrun.
What?
Now that is completely false....
Germany surrendered long before Hiroshima occurred, and the germans didn't send ANY u-boats after the surrendered.
You really miss the point of my entire post though.....
Atomic bomb kills 45,000
Fire bombing kills 80,000
If using the atomic bomb was morally wrong, then so was fire bombing.
The atomic bomb may have been a demonstration of power....but generals typically measure power by the number of people you can kill in a single attack. We could kill plenty whichever way we wanted.
In other words, if you are going to debate the use of the "a-bomb" you might as well debate our entire bombing policy. It seems silly to debate over the "use of the a-bomb" when it didn't cause any more harm than traditional weapons.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Dec 10 2007, 10:09 PM)
The atomic bomb WAS NOT more deadly than conventional bombing....
....
Atomic bomb kills 45,000
Fire bombing kills 80,000
Of course it was.
The conventional bombing of Japan was undertaken by a large number of bombers and they would drop many thousands of bombs in a single raid.
The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was by one plane dropping one bomb flying at an altitude the Japanese aircraft of the day could not reach.
The DIFFERENCE between the two was clearly not lost on the Japanese.
As to the losses of a mainland invasion, of course there are different estimates, but its HIGHLY UNLIKELY that they would have been LESS than Okinawa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa
We lost over 12,000 men on Okinawa while the Japanese lost 66,000 soldiers and over 140,000 civilians.
As far as sites go, because of the bombing, Japan had dispersed their war materials production into many small factories hidden among residental areas.
Arthur
....
Atomic bomb kills 45,000
Fire bombing kills 80,000
Of course it was.
The conventional bombing of Japan was undertaken by a large number of bombers and they would drop many thousands of bombs in a single raid.
The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was by one plane dropping one bomb flying at an altitude the Japanese aircraft of the day could not reach.
The DIFFERENCE between the two was clearly not lost on the Japanese.
As to the losses of a mainland invasion, of course there are different estimates, but its HIGHLY UNLIKELY that they would have been LESS than Okinawa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa
We lost over 12,000 men on Okinawa while the Japanese lost 66,000 soldiers and over 140,000 civilians.
As far as sites go, because of the bombing, Japan had dispersed their war materials production into many small factories hidden among residental areas.
Arthur
QUOTE
The conventional bombing of Japan was undertaken by a large number of bombers and they would drop many thousands of bombs in a single raid.
The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was by one plane dropping one bomb flying at an altitude the Japanese aircraft of the day could not reach.
The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was by one plane dropping one bomb flying at an altitude the Japanese aircraft of the day could not reach.
So it was a more effective strategy...but not a more deadly attack.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Dec 10 2007, 11:11 PM)
So it was a more effective strategy...but not a more deadly attack.
The atomic bomb was by FAR a more deadly weapon but a single atomic bomb of the era was not more deadly than thousands of bombs dropped by a squadron of planes.
We ended the war on a bluff.
We had no more bombs.
We had no more Plutonium to build anymore bombs.
Thus it was vital to make the BOLDEST statement of our capability with the two bombs we did have.
Arthur
The atomic bomb was by FAR a more deadly weapon but a single atomic bomb of the era was not more deadly than thousands of bombs dropped by a squadron of planes.
We ended the war on a bluff.
We had no more bombs.
We had no more Plutonium to build anymore bombs.
Thus it was vital to make the BOLDEST statement of our capability with the two bombs we did have.
Arthur
good adoucette...argue till the end
I started reading this topic earlier and decided not to post, as I really don't know enough about this to hold a very solid opinion. But tonight, watching an old Richard Feynman video (The pleasure of finding things out) I came across something that I thought was relevant to this thread. Feynman, of course worked on the Bomb at Los Alamos. He briefly discussed why he got into the project (in fear that Germany might develop develop the bomb first and he wanted to try and help that not to happen). What I found interesting is that he said, what he did that was immoral, was that when Germany surrendered, he was so consumed with completing the project, finding the answer, etc... that he didn't give even a thought to the fact that he no longer had the reason he started out with for working on the project. He doesn't mention whether after consideration of new reasons he would have stopped, but just that he should have reevaluated his reasons for working on it.
Its interesting hearing that opinion from someone who worked on the Manhattan Project.
Its interesting hearing that opinion from someone who worked on the Manhattan Project.
This is more of a philosophical topic than a physics topic per say, but I guess that's blatantly obvious. Anyway, I believe I heard a WW2 vet saying once that it would have taken a million American soldiers to take over Japan had we not used the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb is sometimes over-hyped... it's just one way of causing mass destruction-- I'm sure that sounds callous, but it's not my intent (I'm just being honest). I mean, if it's not the a-bomb, then it's the h-bomb, or chemical weapons, or biological weapons. I digress... hell, some chemical weapons nowadays aren't even top secret-- in fact, my friend was partnered with an idiot who accidentally made "something bad" in chemistry class (and suffered for it). The class was evacuated when the teacher noticed a smell and that the guy responsible wasn't doing the lab-- no one was permitted re-entry for several days. Any who, point is that new weapons are being made everyday. First it was Greek fire, now it's atomic weapons. Sure, we can blow ourselves to bits, but I doubt we will. Even if we do manage to destroy ourselves, it's our fault for being solipsistic apathetic bums.
Lesson learned? The world is consumed in this finikin facade when in reality they don't give a toss (if people *ahem* Americans cared, they'd read the news from credible sources and not watch FOX news). I hope the dolts from the LHC posts don't swarm this one too. The world isn't going to end tomorrow, there's no boogie man, and Einstein was right (contrary to the belief of certain dimwits).
Lesson learned? The world is consumed in this finikin facade when in reality they don't give a toss (if people *ahem* Americans cared, they'd read the news from credible sources and not watch FOX news). I hope the dolts from the LHC posts don't swarm this one too. The world isn't going to end tomorrow, there's no boogie man, and Einstein was right (contrary to the belief of certain dimwits).
QUOTE (PuckSR+Dec 10 2007, 11:49 PM)
good adoucette...argue till the end
I'm not arguing with you.
The distinction I'm making, between weapon and attack, is important though.
As you pointed out, the conventional bombing killed more people in a single raid.
But,
The A-bomb was by far a more deadly weapon, as illustrated to the Japanese when the devastation was delivered by just one plane.
The Japanese military at first argued that we only had one of these weapons.
Hence the second bombing.
At this point their military could no longer bet that we couldn't send over a squadron of planes with these weapons and wipe Japan off the map.
Arthur
I'm not arguing with you.
The distinction I'm making, between weapon and attack, is important though.
As you pointed out, the conventional bombing killed more people in a single raid.
But,
The A-bomb was by far a more deadly weapon, as illustrated to the Japanese when the devastation was delivered by just one plane.
The Japanese military at first argued that we only had one of these weapons.
Hence the second bombing.
At this point their military could no longer bet that we couldn't send over a squadron of planes with these weapons and wipe Japan off the map.
Arthur
In addition, ending the war (with Japan) before the Soviet Union committed a large number of troops was in our (U.S.) best interest. Examine the occupation of Germany by Allied Forces.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Dec 11 2007, 03:09 AM)
What?
Now that is completely false....
Germany surrendered long before Hiroshima occurred, and the germans didn't send ANY u-boats after the surrendered.
Hi puck,
Just a little back info on what you say is completely false.
Peace,
Ron
"On May 9, 1945, several days after Germany surrendered to the Allies, a German U-Boat, number U-234, pulled into the Portsmouth Naval Base in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
The German crew, aware that the war was over, promptly surrendered themselves and their boat. What makes this event even more extraordinary was the cargo they were carrying: 10 cases of uranium oxide.
According to later testimony, the U-boat left Germany several weeks before en-route to Japan. In addition to the precious cargo, there were several Japanese envoys onboard assigned to accompany the shipment.
When it became obvious to the German High Command that defeat was inevitable, it was decided that this last desperate act might greatly assist the Japanese in the defense of their homeland. Japan had been working on a nuclear weapon, although technically far behind the American effort, and it was thought that they could use the scare uranium oxide.
During the voyage, it was learned via radio that Germany had surrendered and that U-boats should surrender at the nearest port. There was much dissention amongst the crew as to whether they should surrender. Eventually, the decision was made. They would proceed to the Naval Base at Portsmouth, NH. The Japanese envoys onboard, unwilling to surrender themselves to the Americans, committed suicide."
http://www.mphpa.org/classic/HISTORY/H-07c.htm
Wow Ron...interesting post...
Let's jump into my time machine and see what you said...
So, they were sent while Germany was still at war...
And they surrendered after learning that the war was over.....
It also has no bearing on our use of the Atomic bomb...since we know the shipment never reached Japan...
We also knew at the time that the Japanese project was far behind achieving a bomb..
I will concede that I misread your original post, I thought you were trying to claim that it was secretly sent AFTER Germany surrendered.
But, this u-boat was captured long before we dropped the Atomic Bomb....and Germany had been exporting all kinds of technology to Japan
Let's jump into my time machine and see what you said...
QUOTE
Be aware also that there were German u-boats found after the war headed toward Japan with nuclear material on them for Japan to try to make a bomb once Germany was overrun.
So, they were sent while Germany was still at war...
And they surrendered after learning that the war was over.....
It also has no bearing on our use of the Atomic bomb...since we know the shipment never reached Japan...
We also knew at the time that the Japanese project was far behind achieving a bomb..
I will concede that I misread your original post, I thought you were trying to claim that it was secretly sent AFTER Germany surrendered.
But, this u-boat was captured long before we dropped the Atomic Bomb....and Germany had been exporting all kinds of technology to Japan
Hey Puck,
1st, no need to be snide. Thanks.
2nd, That boat was captured 3 months before Hiroshima. I say it would have given cause for worry, No?
Peace,
Ron
1st, no need to be snide. Thanks.
2nd, That boat was captured 3 months before Hiroshima. I say it would have given cause for worry, No?
Peace,
Ron
Ron,
Why do you believe we declared war on Germany to begin with?
Why do you believe we declared war on Germany to begin with?
Hi Derek,
We were already considering getting involved because of England's situation, but there were a crapload of isolationists that wouldn't pass a declaration of war. Churchill was asking for our help long before we got involved. Short answer is Pearl Harbor. We declared war on all three major axis powers on Dec. 8, 1941 (a day after Pearl). It was sort of a package deal because of the way they were allied. If we had declared war only on Japan, Germany would have been after us immediately as defense of their allies.
That's my take, Derek,
What do you think?
Peace,
Ron
We were already considering getting involved because of England's situation, but there were a crapload of isolationists that wouldn't pass a declaration of war. Churchill was asking for our help long before we got involved. Short answer is Pearl Harbor. We declared war on all three major axis powers on Dec. 8, 1941 (a day after Pearl). It was sort of a package deal because of the way they were allied. If we had declared war only on Japan, Germany would have been after us immediately as defense of their allies.
That's my take, Derek,
What do you think?
Peace,
Ron
To those quibling about the numbers killd in 16 months, consider Our conservative estimate on the use of firebombing was in Tokyo in one knight killed at least 100,000. Berlin, 50,000 Dresden 40,000 Coventry, about 40,000. Hitler after Coventry even came up with a term for it. He called having a city "Coventrized"
Regarding "Be careful what you wish for", Prior to the German attack on the British city of Coventry, the British had already broken the German Military and before that diplomatic codes.They had broken "Enigma"They did it using a combination of the first digital computer called a lot of things but usually referred to in the history books as "Collusas", in addition to who were most likely, the most intelligent and gifted people ever to be assembled in one place at one time, they were the first great code breakers. Oh, sure people broke codes, before that, most recent and of interest to that(concerning the US) was the Zimmerman telegram which got the US in to WW-1 in 1917. So Churchill had to make a decision. Does he warn the city to evacuate, order the Royal Air Force to intercept the bombers ahead of time? He knew if he did even given the fact by then the British had "turned" most of the Abware and other German spies in England to work for the British, he knew the risk if they thought the codes were broken. he was given this information and no one else. He took no "unusual" defensive action. The city was destroyed, and became part of history. I really try not to judge others with out trying to put my self in there place. And what would I have done. Nothing. And I would have prayed for Gods forgiveness.
Hi Hawk,
There has been alot of speculation about Churchill's motives in several critical situations, but I find it hard to believe that he would have been the only one 'in the know'. Is this documented? I wouldn't be real surprised, but I've never heard it stated plainly.
Thanks,
Ron
There has been alot of speculation about Churchill's motives in several critical situations, but I find it hard to believe that he would have been the only one 'in the know'. Is this documented? I wouldn't be real surprised, but I've never heard it stated plainly.
Thanks,
Ron
To Ron: Actually, the United States did not declare war on Germany in WW-2. We "officially" declared war by Roosevelt, on December 8Th 1941, in Congress with only the Japanese. Hitler declared war on us on December 9, 1941 (talk about dumb *** moves). Before that Churchill and Roosevelt had been in very close contact, given the technology of the day, and Roosevelt was convinced one way or the other, we would also have to take on Germany. Churchill is quoted as that when he heard of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and was aware of the instant ramifications, specifically as it had to do with Germany, he said he "slept the sleep of the saved".
To Ron: Of course Churchill was not the only one to know of the decrypts, but at that time the British put in to place that would become the hall mark of any nations secrets that are "Above Top Secret". It was based on a need to know. Even the president of the US does not need to know every thing and given the number of secrets, why should he/she? (Some how I don't worry about our current president knowing to much)
QUOTE (hawksecho+Dec 12 2007, 01:48 AM)
To Ron: Of course Churchill was not the only one to know of the decrypts, but at that time the British put in to place that would become the hall mark of any nations secrets that are "Above Top Secret". It was based on a need to know. Even the president of the US does not need to know every thing and given the number of secrets, why should he/she? (Some how I don't worry about our current president knowing to much)
"In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be protected by a bodyguard of lies." - (Winston Churchill)
"In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be protected by a bodyguard of lies." - (Winston Churchill)
To Adoucette: I should ad you are quite correct, in stating we did end the war with Japan on a bluff. We did not have any more bombs at that time. The only reason we developed plutonium in the first place, as apposed to variations of natural uranium is with plutonium you got a lot more bang for your buck. To develop plutonium it required the electrical out put the equivalent of one third of the entire nations power supply. The TVA in the south was where we would place the major production of plutonium for the next fifty years.
QUOTE (Ron+Dec 11 2007, 11:51 PM)
Hi Derek,
We were already considering getting involved because of England's situation, but there were a crapload of isolationists that wouldn't pass a declaration of war. Churchill was asking for our help long before we got involved. Short answer is Pearl Harbor. We declared war on all three major axis powers on Dec. 8, 1941 (a day after Pearl). It was sort of a package deal because of the way they were allied. If we had declared war only on Japan, Germany would have been after us immediately as defense of their allies.
That's my take, Derek,
What do you think?
Peace,
Ron
The United States went to war with Germany and Japan because it was in our interest to do so. And because of our justifiable loyalty to England.
The Nazi Army’s exterminating of Jews in Auschwitz and the Japanese Imperial Army’s raping of children in Nanking provided a moral clarity to our killing Germans and Japanese.
However, aggression and barbarism do not always result in war. Ever heard of the USS Pueblo? President Johnson determined it was not in the interest of the United States to go to war with North Korea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pueblo_(AGER-2)
We were already considering getting involved because of England's situation, but there were a crapload of isolationists that wouldn't pass a declaration of war. Churchill was asking for our help long before we got involved. Short answer is Pearl Harbor. We declared war on all three major axis powers on Dec. 8, 1941 (a day after Pearl). It was sort of a package deal because of the way they were allied. If we had declared war only on Japan, Germany would have been after us immediately as defense of their allies.
That's my take, Derek,
What do you think?
Peace,
Ron
The United States went to war with Germany and Japan because it was in our interest to do so. And because of our justifiable loyalty to England.
The Nazi Army’s exterminating of Jews in Auschwitz and the Japanese Imperial Army’s raping of children in Nanking provided a moral clarity to our killing Germans and Japanese.
However, aggression and barbarism do not always result in war. Ever heard of the USS Pueblo? President Johnson determined it was not in the interest of the United States to go to war with North Korea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pueblo_(AGER-2)
The way Japan conducted its war went beyond necessary military force. A Japanise newspaper kept a tally in a contest two officers had to see who could kill more people with their swords in the Japanese march through China. And they were indiscrimnt about who they killed.
Yes, German furnaces were bad but Japan celebrated casual killing. They talked of a Bushido code but their actions had nothing to do with it. The bombs were an emphatic "No!" to them and America was right to have droped them.
Yes, German furnaces were bad but Japan celebrated casual killing. They talked of a Bushido code but their actions had nothing to do with it. The bombs were an emphatic "No!" to them and America was right to have droped them.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.