It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hiroshima bomb may have carried hidden agenda

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp

Originally posted by FredT
As stated above Tokyo was not selected because the city was already burned out.


So Tokyo would be the perfect target for showing off with as little casualties as possible! The Japanese would have #ted in their pants after seeing what nukes can do!


Nah, Japan wouldnt surrender if they hit a near desolate city anymore then if someone blew up Kansas City. They would say "Sure, you can scare us with your explosions in an empty city, but you wont dare do it in a full city."

Plus, America really only had two bombs, and they needed to use it good. No risks should have been involved, they needed to hit a populated area, and hit it quickly, or else, if it failed, it would take too long to make a new atomic bomb in time.




posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   
A very informative and indepth academic historical journal entry, in the Journal of Military History, related to this discussion that is certainly well worth the read. Be warned, it is long--61 pages, but the amount of recorded, documented, and cited sources and references is unmatched.
After reading this historical academic journal entry, one will come to see the US rational for making the decision that they did in dropping the 2 Atomic bombs on Japan.
CASUALTY PROJECTIONS FOR THE U.S. INVASIONS OF JAPAN, 1945-1946: PLANNING AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Another historical journal article that coincides with the one linked above:
Evolving Methodologies in Casualty Reporting to the American Public During World War II

Also, here:
“Spinning” the Casualties: Media Strategies During the Roosevelt Administration



Kyle Palmer, the Los Angeles Times’ long-time political editor, had traded in his editorial desk for a position as the paper’s war correspondent in the Pacific. Attached to the headquarters of Central Pacific Commander Admiral Chester A. Nimitz, he covered the first aircraft carrier strikes against Japan and the costly U.S. invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, then made a brief return to Los Angeles for a medical checkup. Before he shipped out again, Palmer hammered away at the theme that “it will take plenty of murderous combat before our soldiers, sailors and marines polish off the fanatical enemy”[28] in both articles and appearances before civic groups. Under the headline “Palmer Warns No Easy Way Open to Beat Japs,” the Los Angeles Times quoted one of his speeches: “We are yet to meet the major portion of the ground forces of the Jap empire. They have 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 under arms and it will cost 500,000 to 750,000, perhaps 1,000,000 lives of American boys to end this war.”[29]

At this point it is worthwhile to mention that veterans of World War II have been roundly dismissed when claiming they “remembered” being told that the invasion of Japan might cost a half-million or even a million casualties. Although these men failed to take detailed notes for the benefit of future historians on where they had seen the numbers, these reading-starved troops had, in fact, been regularly exposed to huge casualty figures in Army organs and commercial newspapers since the middle of 1944, as the needs of both politics and maintaining morale led the War Department to first inflate, then deflate, the number of casualties through statistical manipulation.

By early 1945, similar figures for the upcoming fighting in Japan were beginning to appear in daily newspapers, and although the Army stopped running casualty figures in Yank, the paper nevertheless quoted a series of unnamed “War Department strategists” and “military experts” who warned veteran troops and new draftees alike of prolonged fighting ahead. They repeatedly estimated a year and a half to two years as the minimum time it would take to “get it over unless there is a sudden collapse.”(43) This was not good news. Many years later an old soldier named Paul Fussell would need few words to sum up his feelings over the “sudden collapse,” which came unexpectedly in August 1945: “Thank God for the atom bomb.”(44)


Another very, very, very good and informative read can be found here:
CND: wrong again

Another mention worthy of looking at with some great academic links on Operation Downfall: the Invasion of Japan, etc can be found here:
Pacific Theater of Operations: "The Fat Lady Sings": Victory in the Pacific Air War, Surrender, Occupation


Other notable mentions:
"To Bomb Or Not To Bomb"
Witnesses
Alonzo L. Hamby, "The Decision to Drop the Bomb," Journal of American History, Vol. 84, no. 2 (September 1997)
Ethical Debates Concerning the Use of the Atomic Bomb
The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb






seekerof

[edit on 6-8-2005 by Seekerof]



new topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join