TAKING BACK AMERICA!

    Tuesday, August 09, 2005

    Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Good, Bad, and Ugly


    On August 6th, 1945 at 11:02 a.m. Hiroshima had a single bomb exploded of her. On August 9th, a single bomb exploded over Nagasaki. In review of history I favor the dropping of these bombs for the reasons of that time. It did save countless thousands of lives that might have otherwise been lost.

    The Good:
    Japan, the country that thought they would attack the USA and get away with it, surrendered on August 14th. Formal surrender ceremonies took place on September 2, 1945.
    Arguments for and against dropping the A-Bomb on Japan prevail to this day. All that really matters are the facts. The bombs were detonated for the sole purpose of making Japan surrender as fast as possible so as to save lives of allied forces. Emperor Hirohito, in his own words, said it was because of the A-Bombs dropped that he surrendered when he did. History proves the intended goal was achieved.

    The Bad:
    It was unfortunate that the people of Japan were under the control of a single person, Emperor Hirohito. Anyone that knows a drip of anything about Japanese history will know he was considered a deity, and his subjects would have done anything for their deity. I've been to Japan many times and I like Japan and the people - but WWII was way before my time and the Japan I see now is not quite the same I'm sure. If only they didn't do that nasty surprise attack.
    The Ugly:
    Now here is an interesting FACT that liberals that bash our current efforts in Iraq never tell the public. They bash this country and say "oh, look how many innocent people American (or Bush) have killed because of Iraq" (or something similar). Yes, it's sad but there are accidental deaths of civilians in war time. However, the accidental death count fades greatly in comparison to the intentional killing of civilians with the two A-Bombs by Democratic President Truman!

    19 comments:

    Caoilfhionn said...

    It's important that we bear this in mind and remember it. The anti-war folks would rather that everyone join hands and sing kum-baya. The fact remains; we need to have military strength and not weakness. That means staying ahead of any "arms race" and making sure we can defend ourselves. Great post, JAD.

    Cao said...

    Oops I forgot to change my identity. Turns out there are some old posts still over at blogsnot.

    Pundit said...

    I'm not in favor of bombing civilian non-combatants, but there is an important point that most anti-war and anti-nuke people forget, and this applies with special importance to the Japanese. Prior to dropping the glow-bombs, the United States had engaged in repeated b-29 bombing raids that resulted in horrendous fire-storms, destruction of untold numbers of cities that have long been forgotten, and over 800,000 people died. Yet, the emphasis is on only 147,000 that died from the two bombs that ended the war in the pacific. Absolutely nothing is ever said about that, especially by the Japanese who make such a big deal about how badly the U.S. treated them. It seems rather hypocritical to me. Killing 147,000 people is bad----killing 800,000 is orders of magnituded worse--yet the so-called pacifists never say a word about it. Which means, they probably have a different agenda than concern over those killed. when was the last time anybody had a vigil for the 800,000 firestorm bomb victims? When was the last time we saw a memorial erected to the 800,000 firestorm bomb deaths? This is particularly inexcusable for the japanese who still live on the Islands. Which never would have been bombed in the first place if they had not attacked pearl harbor while their ambassadorial representatives were in washington negotiating a peace treaty. I'm really tired of hearing it all. Its just part of the current sympathy movement.

    : JustaDog said...

    Very good point pundit and I'm glad you mentioned the fire bombings. I would agree that the glow bombs get the attention because of the liberal sympathic (pathetic) movement!

    Thanks!

    Pundit said...

    I was watching a BBC report earlier tonight and it showed the wreath-laying ceremony at the Nagasaki site. The commentator mentioned how much anguish there was in Japan among survivors over the use of nuclear weapons because so many people were literally turned to dust. I don't argue that nuclear weapons are particularly monstrous weapons. But it just seemed so pathetic, as if to say that death by beheading, death by being blown apart by a roadside bomb, death by an assassin bullet in the back of the head, or death by being drilled by full-auto machine gun fire is not quite so bad. Dead is dead, however it comes. I would just as soon nukes not be used, but then again, in terms of efficiency, where else can you get so much result from such a relatively small device, that gets everybody's attention, and even frightens a few people to think about it? It stopped the war.

    : JustaDog said...

    Do you think during such ceremonies that anyone makes a comment about Pearl Harbor? Maybe a sentance like:

    ...and let us not forget the penalty for our sneak attack on the United States, and the death and destruction we brought upon ourselves.

    I am concerned that such reprisals will be a thing of the past once a liberal president gets in. Our last liberal let A-Bomb secrets go to China and allowed the 9/11 terrorist to train in our own country.

    Torrid said...

    there are serious counterindications that dropping the bombs didn't prevent anything. The Japanese were ready to surrender, and in fact offered surrender only on the condition that the Emperor not be forced to lose face. The US refused--only to grant the condition anyway after the bombing. Several of Truman's top advisors were strongly against the bombing, believing there was simply no need. Among these were General Eisenhower himself, someone with a pretty fair grasp of military strategy.

    The concept also ignores other possibilities suggested at the time which could have achieved much the same goal: dropping a bomb off the coast of Japan, or in a rural section of the country rather than downtowns of major cities. If scaring the Japanese into capitulation were the goal, these would have sufficed--or even if not, would not have prevented our ability to escalate by bombing a civilian population.

    : JustaDog said...

    Torrid, although your comment is interesting, what part of Emperor Hirohito, in his own words, said it was because of the A-Bombs dropped that he surrendered when he did. don't you understand?

    Also, your "other possibilites make no sense - just read pundit's account of the hundred of thousands that were killed in fire bombs - yet they still didn't surrender.

    Torrid said...

    what part of "they were willing to surrender before the bombs" don't you understand?

    I don't see the relevance of Hirihito's comments. Everyone KNOWS that they surrendered because of the bombs. That's not the issue--it's would they have surrendered WITHOUT them. If you have something indicating that only bombs dropped on population centers would have caused them to surrender, bring that.

    : JustaDog said...

    It has already been brought - especially with over 800,000 victims of the firebombing. The only thing that made them surrender was the 2 A-Bombs. Now if and when they would have surrendered otherwise, it is pure speculation. However, the reality of the facts remain.

    Torrid said...

    What facts? To make the case that the bombs were necessary, it needs to be shown that dropping them was the only way to gain surrender. That's not in fact the case--we knew BEFORE dropping the bombs that they would have surrendered without them, with the condition the US agreed to when the surrender was actually signed.

    Pundit said...

    I have heard the theory that the japanese were ready to surrender. As presented when I heard it, it did not sound like a 100 percent sure thing. However, I cannot discount it either since I was not there when such high-level decisions were made. Beyond that, history also records that the U.S. government under Truman had also given serious consideration to a conventional land invasion much as we had done throughout all the Island campaigns. The estimates were that by attacking the japanese mainlain with an invasion force would have taken an amphibous landing that would have made Normandy look like a family reunion. Also, the estimates for death were as high as 5 million, both sides, but the largest percentage of those would have been japanese civilians. Since we already know close to a million had already been killed in conventional bombing raids, it would seem that the best way to make japan surrender, which even minimized the loss off life to them, was dropping 2 atomic bombs.

    Pundit said...

    As an addendum, Torrid is correct. The issue is about dropping the atomic bombs. But that is also the root of the problem--not how the war was stopped, but simply the argument against using atomic weapons. If dropping atomic weapons had only killed 147 instead of 147,000, the anti-nuclear people would still be complaining, because the issue for them is simply the use of atomic weapons. That's why they never argue about the hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers killed in the island campaigns, nor the near million killed in conventional bombing raids.

    Torrid said...

    I'm also entirely unconvinced by claims of Hirohito, compared to the HUNDREDS of Japanese leaders interviewed by the US Strategic Bombing Survey, which concluded that a Japanese surrender was a certainty by the end of the year, even without the bombs OR the Russian invasion. The probability was that it would happen by November 1st, they estimated.

    : JustaDog said...

    All good comments (except the scum I had to delete). Nobody noticed the posting time for this was the same as the dropping of the Nagasaki bomb - clever I thought.

    Everyone knows that Nagasaki was the 2nd target right? The city of Kokura was the primary, but the pilot reported too many clouds.

    Pundit said...

    And let's not forget the Bataan Death March, ritual canabalism of American officers practiced by Japanese officers, and thousands of American POWs that were transported from the Philipines to Japan and used a slave labor in Japanese coal mines and industrial works. I don't mind the Japanese honoring their war dead. I do mind hearing about how they got the short end of the stick that they were the ones that started using it in the first place.

    : JustaDog said...

    Thanks again pundit for reminding us all of that which many liberals and the Japanese would like us to forget!

    Excellent comment!

    loboinok said...

    "I'm also entirely unconvinced by claims of Hirohito, compared to the HUNDREDS of Japanese leaders interviewed by the US Strategic Bombing Survey, which concluded that a Japanese surrender was a certainty by the end of the year, even without the bombs OR the Russian invasion. The probability was that it would happen by November 1st, they estimated."

    Wrong... Japan refused to surrender even after Hiroshima which led to the bombing of Nagasaki 3 days later.
    Even then, a threat of a third delivery was necessary to convince Hirohito to surrender.
    That doesn't sound like someone who was already planning to surrender, then suddenly deciding to sacrifice a possible 100,000 more lives.

    : JustaDog said...

    How right you are loboinok. You know your history well. It was stated from Hirohito's own mouth to his people on radio that his country could not survive and his race vanish if they didn't surrender due to the force of the A-Bomb.