Jump to content

Hiroshima and Nagasaki Anniversaries


Recommended Posts

I did not realize that Monday was 6 August until I started writing the date at work last night. Then I noticed that there was no mention of the anniversary here and the main page only mentions an Irish holiday.

Are these dates being deliberatly avoided?

Chappie

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no political motive for missing the anniversary.

Sorry but between

--family visiting during the past weekend and staying with us for my neices wedding

--Monday being a stat holiday here (British Columbia Day)

--me working 6 and 7 late nights per week at my job al summer when I was supposed to be working 3 early shifts per week all summer. :cheers:

--my kids being out of school and looking for things to do

--me redoing our backyard into a Japanese garden and lawn area to replace the horrible massive raised shrub garden with no lawn for my kids to play on

--updating ARC

I've been somewhat overwhelmed to say the least.....I did remember the Hiroshima anniversary on Monday.....but I was away from my computer the bulk of the day.

I've always wanted a Japanese garden for 20 years and this past weekend I decided to make it happen. I'm now working on a design using elements that fit my life style.....which is requiring research as the designing of a Japanese Garden is new to me. I don't have the money to hire a designer so I've got to come up with the design myself which is possible thanks to the internet. The Excavator and dump trucks come next week (I hope) to removed the 130 yards of soil from my backyard.....13 or 14 dump truck loads need to be removed.

Here's a fence design that is very close to the fence design I'll be using. Fences will be built by me and installed by me next year. I'm keen to do this whole backyard myself and let the project evolve over the next few years.

00020.jpg

I've got to wrap it all up by Sept 15 as my wife will be off work recovering medically for 8 weeks from mid Sept to mid Nov and I've got to tend to her 24/7. As it stands there will be no relief at work (I was planning on taking 4 weeks off work but that won't be possible).

My apologies for missing the anniversary as those 2 anniversaries are important to me on a personal level....very important.

Steve B

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve,

My comment was not meant to a B) post or anything, I fully understand being kept busy by life. I was mostly surprised that nobody mentioned on the Boards. Since some threads on Real Aviation have become heated over this year I thought maybe folks were just letting it go.

Important for me too, those missions probably saved my grandfather's life. He was part of the Army of Occupation in Europe and was "sweating it out" on whether or not he'd be sent to the PTO.

Hey look! 5000 posts! :banana:

Chappie

Edited by Chappie
Link to post
Share on other sites

My dad was in one of the first groups of US troops in Japan for the occupation. 24th mechanized cavalry recon company, 24th infantry division. His reception then was far superior to that he would have received a few months later if they hadn't been dropped.

I read a what-if history book, not speculative fiction but a series of essays by historians on alternative outcomes. Stuff like, what if Alexander the Great hadn't died at 30 or what if Marc Antony won.

One of the senarios was what if the bombs hadn't been dropped. The possiblilties described were worse than what happened. Based on the casualty figures at Oki and Guam the estimate was something like 7% casualties per day for the invading force. For a couple of months! The other possibility was the continuation of the submarine blockade and contiued bombing of all available targets for months. That would have lead to mass starvation of the Japanese people as all transportation for food was right on the coast because of the mountainous interior of the islands. No food would have gotten to the cities after about another month. There would have been millions starving in Tokyo in the winter of '45/'46. Even if they surrendered. Not that the historians thought surrender likely. The military fanatics had taken over decision making by then and thought it was the right thing to do to sacrifice the entire population of Japan before surrender. There needed to be a traumatic shock in order to break their resolve.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My dad was in one of the first groups of US troops in Japan for the occupation. 24th mechanized cavalry recon company, 24th infantry division. His reception then was far superior to that he would have received a few months later if they hadn't been dropped.

I read a what-if history book, not speculative fiction but a series of essays by historians on alternative outcomes. Stuff like, what if Alexander the Great hadn't died at 30 or what if Marc Antony won.

One of the senarios was what if the bombs hadn't been dropped. The possiblilties described were worse than what happened. Based on the casualty figures at Oki and Guam the estimate was something like 7% casualties per day for the invading force. For a couple of months! The other possibility was the continuation of the submarine blockade and contiued bombing of all available targets for months. That would have lead to mass starvation of the Japanese people as all transportation for food was right on the coast because of the mountainous interior of the islands. No food would have gotten to the cities after about another month. There would have been millions starving in Tokyo in the winter of '45/'46. Even if they surrendered. Not that the historians thought surrender likely. The military fanatics had taken over decision making by then and thought it was the right thing to do to sacrifice the entire population of Japan before surrender. There needed to be a traumatic shock in order to break their resolve.

The military had invasion plans in place. The first invasion would have been on Kyushu Nov. 1945. Once under control it would have been a base to set up a larger invasion on Tokyo itself which would have come Mar.-Apr. 1946. The Kyushu invasion itself would have been larger than D-Day invasion and the invasion on Tokyo many times larger than D-Day was.

If I recall properly from the documentary I saw casualties estimates ranged from as little as 100,000 US/allied to over 1million US/allied with most thinking it would have been between 250,000 and 500,000. As for Japanese the estimates were from just under 1million to over 7 million.

As horrible as the A-bombs were IMO they were the less catastrophic choice. Had I been in Truman's place I'd have given the go ahead too. Sorry if that offends but that is how I see it. Revisionists have hindsight and the distortions of time to shine on their their views. Truman and his Chiefs of staff did not. They just finished enduring Okinawa and only believed mainland Japan would have been a tougher nut to crack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Guys,

Well said Les and Grey Ghost! How many more people would have died if not for the atomic bombs. More importantly how many more US Marines, and Soldiers would have died to win the war with the invasion of Japan. Every year with out fail there's stories of how many innocent civilians America killed with the bombs. Granted, that is truly horrible. It seems that it is always forgotten how many civilians that the blood thirsty Japanese Army raped, tortured and killed in the Phillippine, Korea, and China. Oh, yeah there's that Pearl Harbor thing. All countries payed a price for the war that Germany and Japan started. I just thank God my father, and 4 uncles got back alive. They didn't ask for the war.

Chuck

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's more, dropping those bombs showed Stalin that the US not only had a nuclear capability but also the resolve to use them if necessary. And that probably saved the world from witnessing World War III.

Steve, that fence looks really cool. I try to persuade my Mum to turn at least part of our garden into a Japanese garden, but she isn't convinced. She's more into roses and colourful flowers, even if she has to fight off the snails. :rofl:

Link to post
Share on other sites
What's more, dropping those bombs showed Stalin that the US not only had a nuclear capability but also the resolve to use them if necessary. And that probably saved the world from witnessing World War III.

Steve, that fence looks really cool. I try to persuade my Mum to turn at least part of our garden into a Japanese garden, but she isn't convinced. She's more into roses and colourful flowers, even if she has to fight off the snails. :lol:

More apparent at the time was the USSR declared war on Japan in Aug 9 1945. The USA feared the Soviets wanting to carve up Japan had the war not ended soon. Forging using nukes would have dragged the war out at least a 1/2 year + and the Soviets would want to make some claim over Japan's fate. Dropping the bombs may have been terrible acts but they help saved Japan from being a carved out nation as Germany became.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What's more, dropping those bombs showed Stalin that the US not only had a nuclear capability but also the resolve to use them if necessary. And that probably saved the world from witnessing World War III.

It wasnt Stalin who was ready to continue the war Eastwards and kill all those pesky commies...

As far as nuclear bombing of Japanese cities... RIP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the book "Downfall" by Richard B. Frank. It deals with the dropping of the bombs and the possible invasion. An excellent, scholarly work on a tragic, but ultimately necessary (IMO) decision that changed the world.

Jon

Link to post
Share on other sites
It wasnt Stalin who was ready to continue the war Eastwards and kill all those pesky commies...

You're right. Stalin was probably content having commies killed or left-to-die in his own country that didn't share his views.

What I referred to was a correspondence or even face-to-face talk (I believe in Potsdam near Berlin in 1945) in which Truman informed Stalin that they had developed the nuclear bomb. To which Stalin noted that if the US had such a "war-winning" weapon, why wouldn't they use it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
You're right.

How kind.

Stalin was probably content having commies killed or left-to-die in his own country that didn't share his views.

And I mourn them too.

What I referred to was a correspondence or even face-to-face talk (I believe in Potsdam near Berlin in 1945) in which Truman informed Stalin that they had developed the nuclear bomb. To which Stalin noted that if the US had such a "war-winning" weapon, why wouldn't they use it?

And how do you interpret that remark, to directly infer that the use of nuclear weapons would "saved the world from witnessing World War III." The way I understood you (perhaps incorrectly) is that the demonstration of nukes in action dissuaded Stalin from an alleged attack on Western Europe beyond Germany. Thats why I allowed myself to remind you that the Red Army didnt have very prominent 4-star general eager and willing to continue the war.

And since this discussion is not benefitting the main thread or the forum, I respectfully offer you to move to PM.

Regards

Z.S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to detract from the discussion about should the US or shouldn’t the US have dropped the bomb, but to pick up on SBRAC’s post about home/hobby improvement projects:

I completely forgot about the anniversary because like an idiot I chose the hottest muggiest day of the year to work outside and build a shelf for my hobby table.

All I can say is by bald head is fried and the shelf will be really neat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been in a few "heated" debates about the justification of dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. Needless to say, from my own personal interactions I'd have to offer up that those who disagree with the decision to drop those bombs are ignorant to the facts as they existed back in 1945. They use the morals of today and how the public in general feels about nukes and MAD to justify their opinions that the U.S. should have never even considered using such highly destructive weapons. Transport these clowns back in time and put them on anyone one of the landing craft that headed to Iwo Jima or Okinawa and they'd change their tune about not dropping two bombs to end the war quicker and save a few hundred thousand lives as well.

By the way, more Germans died in Dresden during that terrible fire bombing raid than Japanese that died in both A-bomb attacks.

Randy

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been in a few "heated" debates about the justification of dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. Needless to say, from my own personal interactions I'd have to offer up that those who disagree with the decision to drop those bombs are ignorant to the facts as they existed back in 1945.

Those in which I had the dubious honor of debating the bomb couldn't even tell me who started the war. :D One even told me that US started it when we invaded China. :rofl:

By the way, more Germans died in Dresden during that terrible fire bombing raid than Japanese that died in both A-bomb attacks.

More Chinese were killed during the "**** of Nanking" in 1937-1938 (370,000) than during the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No one was raped during the atomic bombings as compaired to 80,000 in Nanking, unfortunately, the "other side" seems to forget this. :cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC....the US put tremendous resources into creating the 2 nuclear bombs. They dropped both to give Japan the impression the US had a warehouse full of Atomic bombs....it was a big bluff that paid off and ended the war. Many Japanese and Germany cities were fire bombed which killed millions of civilians. The atomic bombs were only different in the fact they left radiation. Plenty of cities had been fire bombed into ashes by conventional bombing. I'm glad Japan surrendered......I wish they had of surrendered much sooner.

If Yamamato had of not been killed by the US raid on his aircraft......would he have risen to a level of influence to have ended the war? He seemed uniquely aware of the way things were going and the end result. Something to ponder.

Steve B

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to detract from the discussion about should the US or shouldn’t the US have dropped the bomb, but to pick up on SBRAC’s post about home/hobby improvement projects:

I completely forgot about the anniversary because like an idiot I chose the hottest muggiest day of the year to work outside and build a shelf for my hobby table.

All I can say is by bald head is fried and the shelf will be really neat.

I wear a wide brimmed sun hat to protect my bald spot.....it's bad enough going bald.......but getting skin cancer up there would be much worse.

I spent 4 hours digging in clay and breaking up part of a rock wall and concrete walkaway to trace the supply line for my sprinker system.....that line needs to be moved to a safe spot before the excavator comes next week. My body is hurting pretty bad right now. This backyard is gonna' require plenty of effort, but I'm hoping the end result will be well worth it.

Steve B

Link to post
Share on other sites

you have to be kidding????

did you even think about all the suicides they would have done?

we would have lost 800,000 men!

The country is made of wood, thermo bombs caused more casulties?

such as Dresden???

Please think before you talk here in the US!!

those are Dads!!!!

Ron

Link to post
Share on other sites

One does not even have to mention nuclear weapons to get others into a tizzy, an ignorant one at that. Just mention nuclear power plants and watch the ignorant flowers rise from the ground. Listen for the words Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. It amazes me at how ill informed many are about a perfectly safe and very clean source of immense power generation.

So Let me pick on a few points if I may.

1: Chernobyl was a nuclear plant designed that only the USSR built. We don't build graphite cooled reactors as such. Western nations reactors are immensely more stable and safe. Chernobyl even with shoddy Soviet era construction worked properly, it was human failure that caused it to melt down.

2: Three Mile Island never melted down. Its built in safety measures prevented as designed such. It too was a human fault that caused the concern over it. But nothing outside of its designed safety measures caused any terrible events on the plant and the people living near by. Fact anyone who lives in Denver will get more radiation yearly from the sun than any radiation those who lived by Three Mile Island got through the release of steam.

3: Nuclear power plants and waste, there is no huge amount of spent materials from 50+ years of US nuclear power plants. The materials if safely and properly packaged and put in one contained space would take up the volume of space of a typical US high school Gym.

4: The burning of coal to make electricity puts more radioactive particles in the air than any possible escape of such under normal safe conditions from the 280 or so US nuclear power plants today.

5: Western nuclear power plants are among the most safest built, well engineered man made structures in history. France has over 80% of its domestic electricity through nuclear power plants and it has maintained a safe record of such.

6: Hypocrisy, California as an example has laws that forbid building of any more nuclear plants but it has no problem importing electricity on the open market via nuclear plants in other states.

Much of my thoughts here come from hearing out Dr. Bill Wattenburg of KGO 810 radio. S.F. Dr. Bill is a nuclear scientist or engineer and has a long history in both civil and military nuclear programmes.

As with anything in life we have possible errors or breakdowns in safety but you'd be hard pressed to find any western nuclear power plants being shoddily operated and left unsecure or unsafe.

:cheers:

Edited by Les / Creative Edge Photo
Link to post
Share on other sites
By the way, more Germans died in Dresden during that terrible fire bombing raid than Japanese that died in both A-bomb attacks.

Randy

So many people fail to realize this fact, not to mention Nanking.

Chappie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Les....good points on nuclear power. I don't think nuclear power is the best option for California due to the earthquake situation. I live on the west cost in British Columbia....we have earthqaukes here.......but these shifting plates create mountains. So we use hydro electric power. In the flat plains further inland they don't have mountains so hydro electric power is not the best option....but they do have stable ground free of major earthquakes.......so nuclear power is a very good option. The Brits are harnessing tidal power and that looks like a good option for certain coastal areas.

So....to sum thing up....I believe each area should use the power generation that is best for that area........one solution for one area is not the best solution for another area. I also listen to Dr Bill on KGO and his arguments are very sound regarding nuclear power. I'm still amazed Calofornia has brown outs when they are baked by solar energy. :cheers:

Steve B

Link to post
Share on other sites
Les....good points on nuclear power. I don't think nuclear power is the best option for California due to the earthquake situation. I live on the west cost in British Columbia....we have earthqaukes here.......but these shifting plates create mountains. So we use hydro electric power. In the flat plains further inland they don't have mountains so hydro electric power is not the best option....but they do have stable ground free of major earthquakes.......so nuclear power is a very good option. The Brits are harnessing tidal power and that looks like a good option for certain coastal areas.

So....to sum thing up....I believe each area should use the power generation that is best for that area........one solution for one area is not the best solution for another area. I also listen to Dr Bill on KGO and his arguments are very sound regarding nuclear power. I'm still amazed Calofornia has brown outs when they are baked by solar energy. :banana:

Steve B

Has California's Diablo Canyon nuclear facility ever been adversely affected by any earthquake? Does anyone here know the answer?

These such things are a concern yes, but safety can be built in to stop the fission process as a soon as an earth quake reaches a level of force above safety. I'm no nuclear expert and will never propose to being one I recall Dr. Bill making a point oh about 7-8 years ago about an Indian nuclear reactor (aka: a Can Do one Yeah CANADA!) that was hit with an earthquake and it promptly shut down. After a day or two of safety checks they fired it back up no harm done. I believe Dr. Bill noted it was like a factor 7 earthquake but as said it was like 7-8 years ago when he talked about it I could be off a bit on this one.

I'm not against alternatives like solar, wind, tidal, geothermal etc. But I agree again with Dr. Bill at best the USA can only hope to get 10-15 % of its electricity needs from these. Each have numerous hurdles to overcome.

I think nuclear power plants will have to be invested in as western type living eats more and more energy. We are quite simply PIGS, BIG, FAT, BLEEPING PIGS in terms of our energy use!

Yes, here in B.C. we get most of our power from hydro and after nuclear it is likely the best in terms of efficiency and cleanliness. But we can't be damming up rivers anymore either as people will harp about that too. I think our provincial govt. has really set us up for major FUBAR in 10-15 years as it banned B.C. Hydro from investing in any major or mega projects itself and the govt. hoped small/medium business would make micro projects to provide the power we will soon need. But the govt. has found a lower than expected investment by smaller companies and at the rate we use electricity here just in B.C. we will be screwed in 10-15years. B.C. Hydro is one of the most successful and able power generation corps on earth and it has had its knees cut from under it. For that we will pay for it, just you wait and see.

Even more scary is China's growing electricity needs. Its 3 Gorges dam, the largest on earth, itself cannot provide their full needs. I read something like they will over the next year or so build more coal burning plants alone to generate electricity than all the plants Britain has built post WWII. They too are building numerous nuclear plants.

Just more FYI from all I have heard and read. I'm not trying to s-disturb but provide thought and hopefully good, engaging thought.

Edited by Les / Creative Edge Photo
Link to post
Share on other sites
The country is made of wood, thermo bombs caused more casulties?

such as Dresden???

Ron

Taken from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay

LeMay commanded subsequent B-29 combat operations against Japan, including the massive incendiary attacks on sixty-four Japanese cities. This included the firebombing of Tokyo on March 9–March 10, 1945. For this first attack, LeMay ordered the defensive guns removed from 325 B-29s, loaded each plane with Model E-46 incendiary clusters, magnesium bombs, white phosporus bombs and napalm, and ordered the bombers to fly in streams at 5,000–9,000 feet over Tokyo.

The first pathfinder planes arrived over Tokyo just after midnight on March 10. Following British bombing practice, they marked the target area with a flaming 'X.' In a three-hour period, the main bombing force dropped 1,665 tons of incendiary bombs, killing more than 100,000 civilians, destroying 250,000 buildings and incinerating 16 square miles of the city. Aircrews at the tail end of the bomber stream reported that the stench of burned human flesh permeated the aircraft over the target.

The New York Times reported at the time, "Maj. Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, commander of the B-29s of the entire Marianas area, declared that if the war is shortened by a single day, the attack will have served its purpose."

Precise figures are not available, but the firebombing and atomic bombing campaign against Japan, directed by LeMay between March 1945 and the Japanese surrender in August 1945, may have killed more than one million Japanese civilians. Official estimates from the United States Strategic Bombing Survey put the figures at 330,000 people killed, 476,000 injured, 8.5 million people made homeless and 2.5 million buildings destroyed. Nearly half the built-up areas of sixty-four cities were destroyed, including much of Japan's war industry.

LeMay referred to his nighttime incendiary attacks as "fire jobs." The Japanese nicknamed him "Demon LeMay". In violation of the rules of war shot-down B-29 aircrews were frequently tortured and executed when captured by both Japanese civilians and military. Also, the remaining Allied prisoners of war in Japan who had survived imprisonment to that time were frequently subjected to additional reprisals and torture after an air raid. LeMay was quite aware of both the brutality of his actions and the Japanese opinion of him — he once remarked that had the U.S. lost the war, he fully expected to be tried for war crimes, especially in view of Japanese executions of uniformed American flight crews during the 1942 Doolittle raid. However, he argued that it was his duty to carry out the attacks in order to end the war as quickly as possible, sparing further loss of life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
These such things are a concern yes, but safety can be built in to stop the fission process as a soon as an earth quake reaches a level of force above safety. I'm no nuclear expert and will never propose to being one I recall Dr. Bill making a point oh about 7-8 years ago about an Indian nuclear reactor (aka: a Can Do one Yeah CANADA!) that was hit with an earthquake and it promptly shut down. After a day or two of safety checks they fired it back up no harm done. I believe Dr. Bill noted it was like a factor 7 earthquake but as said it was like 7-8 years ago when he talked about it I could be off a bit on this one.

Although I do have full respect for the CANDU reactors........I'd be hesitant to use them in an earthquake zone.........at a time the Titanic was considered unsinkable.....

I also think conservation is important as is "load shifting". BC Hydro did a pilot project giving 100 families digital electric meters. These familes were then offered lower rates in off peak hours. The families went for the cheaper rates and shifted their load to evening and nighttime hours. They found that these families were actually buying new appliances with "start timers" so they could set their appliances to come on in the middle of the night. Last I heard....BC hydro will be converting all electric meters to the digital meters in the future.....but that will take a long time to do.

Steve B

Link to post
Share on other sites
There was no political motive for missing the anniversary.

Sorry but between

--me redoing our backyard into a Japanese garden

AH-HA! There IS a political motive! :blink:

Sorry, just joking...please don't ban me :angry:

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...