Use of Nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: A more humane way to end the war just as quick?

Originally posted by fritz

So my friend, I do know my subject although for the life of me I do admit in failling to understand how biological and chemical agents which can kill at best, only a few hundred people, can be classed as WMDs when in fact
they are not.

I reiterate what I have said before:

Chemical weapons are an ideal first strike weapon when mixed with tubed or rocket artillery strikes during an initial bombardment of enemy positions and are thus deemed to be battlefield weapons;

Biological weapons on the other hand are better suited to infecting the civil and military population behind the forward staging areas, thus hindering the resupply of enemy forces, clogging roads and overwhelming the local medical services.

Biological agents do not have to kill in order to achieve the strategic aims of the country using them but they are a double edged weapon and their use must be carefully considered.

I see what you mean about chem and bio weapons being relatively low yield in terms of actual physical deaths (at least compared to nuclear jobbies). However the current buzz phrase is now Weapons of Mass Effect (WME) as opposed to destruction. This is used as it is acknowledged that the effect of these weapons on a countries infrastructure and activities through fear and apprehension is sufficient to do a disproportionately large amount of damage.

Essentially the fact that they were used at all causes so much fear and distress to a population, and forces so many preventitive measures 'just in case', that it drains a huge amount of resources and is a definate force multiplyer. This is why they could be so popular among 'terrorist' or insurgent forces.

The simple threat that they may be used (usually supported by at least one successful live demonstration of effect) may generate enough public opinion to force a government to start capitulating to some of an organisations demands.

[edit on 19-6-2010 by PaddyInf]

reply to post by PaddyInf[/url] Nice to have you back mate. Your reply to my post kind of illustrates what I was suggesting.

Chemical weapons are, when mixed with conventional tubed or rocket bombardments, are the ideal first strike weapon. (When we faced the Russian Bogey Man in Germany during the Cold War, both sides would have resorted to chemical weapons in the first instant)

The Warsaw Pact, because sheer weight of numbers and firepower alone could never compensate for NATO technology and superior equipment and training and NATO [probably the UK] as a ground denial tactic.

As you said Paddy, imagine the terror of an artillery bombardment which not only delivered conventional HE, but vomiting and defecating agents in the first strike, followed by blood agent or blister agent. [That is how I would have done it!]

No amount of training can prepare you for, or prevent you from spewing in for facepiece and removing it to clean it properly.

One of the things I learnt on my Recognition Instructors course was the real reason who we had to mask in nine!

Yes it took 15 seconds for a Katyusha battery to develope a blood agent vapour over prepared positions, but it took Frogfoot, Fencer and MiG 21 GTA just 4 seconds to deliver chemical weapons behind the FEBA

Also remember Paddy, as I'm sure you do, that whilst Noddy Suits protects against all known agents [] it is still cumbersome and degrades performance after about 4 to 6 hours in Europe and about 2 hours in the Middle and Far East.

As I said mate, Biological agents used sparingly to affect water supplies, if only to produce flue-like symptoms can virtually bring the civil population [and thus the military infrastructure] to a standstill and should still be considered as Theatre wide weapons.

On a side note, have you read about one of our 'foes', that acursed man, Retseh?

Originally posted by fritz

On a side note, have you read about one of our 'foes', that acursed man, Retseh?

No, tell me more (by PM of course, less we go off topic)

My Grandfather was wounded in the Pacific. He also recieved the Navy Cross.. It makes me sick to read some of these posts.. So many brave American Soldiers and Marines died in that war. The invasion of Okinawa was one of the bloodiest and horrific battles of WW2. Not many know about it..

Do some research.. there is enough info in this thread..

So you people are serious that operation olympic would have been the better choice? Im sorry guys, but I must say you have NO idea what all these Men went through so that we can sit here and talk in PEACE.

Also you cant compare any modern war with WW2. its just not possible..

Im am against War and Nukes and all of that.. but in back then our Guys fighting in Okinawa got sent HOME to their loved ones!

Reply to post by Daedalus3

I hold the view that nuclear weapons were used as a demostration to show american superiority, the war was basically over, the us had already firebombed most big cities, even if the war went on it wouldn't go.on for much longer as japanese would have been isolated and easily dealt with. also since they never actually used the bomb before the usa got a great deal of knoledge from it after the war. history is recorded by the victor.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Its hard to say it's more humane. Would You rather Fight a fair fight or have the opposition VAPORIZE two of YOUR CITIES....hhhmmmmm...TOUGH ONE.

As a Republican I'm all for nukes, as long as its us nuking them. We bombed Japan to end a war which saved countless lives... however, if Hitler had dropped 2 atomic bombs on L.A. and New York to end a war with the U.S., that would have been a cowardly mass murder of countless civilians... an atrocity even.

As a Republican I'm all for torture as long as its us torturing them. If they torture us, that's breaking geneva convention rules which would be cowardly and dishonorable and definitely a war crime.

As a Republican I'm all for invading countries because if we don't fight them over there, then we will have to fight them here. But when other countries do that, like Hitler using the same justifications, I condemn those actions... such cowards picking on small countries...

reply to post by spiritualzombie


Huh?
Being a Republican, or not, has little to do with it.
What's the point of your post?

reply to post by OldDragger


Well it seems thats Republicans have everything to do with the point of the post.


Quite hilarious..

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
As a Republican I'm all for nukes, as long as its us nuking them. We bombed Japan to end a war which saved countless lives... however, if Hitler had dropped 2 atomic bombs on L.A. and New York to end a war with the U.S., that would have been a cowardly mass murder of countless civilians... an atrocity even.

As a Republican I'm all for torture as long as its us torturing them. If they torture us, that's breaking geneva convention rules which would be cowardly and dishonorable and definitely a war crime.

As a Republican I'm all for invading countries because if we don't fight them over there, then we will have to fight them here. But when other countries do that, like Hitler using the same justifications, I condemn those actions... such cowards picking on small countries...

S & F! Its funny how we can justify these things when we commit them, but condemn them when used against us. I applaud your irony

Hi Dark,

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
Question for Daedalus3,

Not sure if Daedalus got to these but i would like to share my opinion....

Do you think that only America would have used the bomb?

Not at all, it's the nature of imperial nations to use whatever means necessary to keep the colonies in line and other imperialist ( like the SU) at bay. What may have surprised some is that it was used on a nation which had absolutely no defense against it and were desperately seeking a way out of a fight for the home islands with as much 'honor' intact as could be managed. To rather use nuclear weapons on defeated foes rather than to save the lives of innocents by making humane concessions to the barbarians in charge makes you , in my opinion, just as barbarous. To invoke a notion as ridiculous as 'unconditional surrender' on fascistic police states is to consign their entire populations to the mercy of the whim of the dictator in charge who has so far proven that he would kill anyone who resists him.

We could discuss the strategic considerations that drove the USA to use the bombs but i already outlined those so it's better to go back and check.

Do you think the Soviets would have hesitated to use it, or the Germans or the Japanese had they obtained it first?

But their the 'bad' guys, right? Isn't that what the bad guys do? If the 'good' guys use such weapons what in the end sets 'us' apart from 'them'? What remains but the rhetoric of who started it and for what reason? Why not leave the barbarity to the Japanese leadership and simply blockade the country into submission?

58 percent of the deaths in WW II were Allied civilians, while Axis civilians accounted for 4 percent of the casualties.

Allied? You mean colonials such as the Chinese, and various other people's of the South pacific? Do you perhaps mean the Russian's of which Stalin before, during and after the war killed as many as Hitler while having much the same imperial ambitions? Please do not insult our intelligence by presuming that French/British/Americans/Chinese/Australians/Canadians etc where fighting in ACTUAL common cause.

American male population of all ages in 1940 was 66 million by 1945 America had 16 million men in the services which was virtually every man of fighting age, America was at the end of its manpower and most allied countries were in the same shape.

Rubbish. The American 'army' of 16 million barely produced 100 division sized units and in terms of men who's lives were in comparative danger ( tail end/support compared to fighting units) it was one of the most ineptly organized forces in modern human history. You can go look up the numbers and you will soon realise that if Germany or the USSR tried to fight this way even the French would laughed them out of France and the Fins would still be killing Russians.

I think the Cold war and Arms race were on no matter which nation Soviets or Americans got the bomb.

Yes off course.... After Roosevelt gave away Eastern Europe and the comparatively inept allied forces most of Germany ( by crawling trough France) Stalin made sufficient gains and buffer zones to do slightly more than just keep the broken SU together.

I actually believe that if the Soviets had of gotten the bomb first they would have used it on Germany and Finland then used it on whatever Allied forces were on the European continent.

Stalin liked his secrets and he would not have used the first few to save a few hundred thousand ( or perhaps even a million) Soviet lives. Likely he would have built up as large as arsenal as he could in secret and then, in conjunction with other strategic forces, use it to blackmail the west into concessions of one sort of another. Using nuclear weapons in the way the USA did is more akin to what your average gangster would do to intimidate actual and perceive enemies/colonials far and wide. As for using it on allied forces Stalin had a good idea of where he stood and he realised that the allies were sill growing stronger daily and that to fight them in the condition the SU were then would have been suicide ( even without nukes) in the medium or long term. The SU simply lacked the means to defend western Europe ( provided they could even kick the allies out of it in the short term) as continental fortress and thus Stalin were quite happy to watch the allies go home and use the reprieve to slowly rebuild his armed forces and the devastated Western/European Russia, Eastern Germany and, the imperial 'prize', Eastern Europe.

Stalin like Hitler had no boundaries. I could very easily see the Soviets becoming allies with the Japanese and then using the bomb against Allied forces in Asia.

Well perhaps you could but Stalin was as close to a realist as paranoia allows one to be and he was not in my reading deluded enough to believe that he could make war on the allies as united and heavily armed as they were in in 1945. Furthermore Stalin had already pledged that he would make war on Japan as soon as Germany were defeated and made good on his word as soon as the required divisions could be moved east. Considering the size of the remaining Japanese forces in China three months is not much preparation time and what the allies perhaps feared more than anything was that if they attempted a long term blockade it would result in a Soviet invasion and occupation of the main Japanese islands. It is not commonly understood that the SU had the capability to do this in 1945 but if one takes a look one might realise that the Japanese did not surrender because the US nuked them but because whatever the US did they expected worse treatment from the SU and had lost their only 'million-man' means of defense on the continent in the comparative blink of an eye; the Japanese had their 'France' and given the choice of who to surrender to and beg protection of there was no choice at all.

en.wikipedia.org...emis-kurils-russian_names.png

So in closing the nukes were not required and since the US essentially accepted the terms Japan ( the US actually lowered it's demands after the nukes) would have agreed to three odd months before concessions then would have saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese and Chinese ( and a few hundred American) lives lost in the interim period instead of killing so many more.

Hope that clears up some issues and is understood in the way i intend it to be!

Stellar

I think that using the first atomic bomb was politically, militarily and morally justified. The use of the second bombs was not justifiable on any grounds. Some argue that it made military sense and demonstrated that Japan had no option but to surrender or be utterly destroyed. I disagree.

I believe conventional incendiary bombing with HE to spread the effects would have punched the message home. (After all, the USAAF was bombing paper and wooden houses for the most part)

By using the first atomic bomb, America not only sent a message to the Imperial Japanese High Command but also to our future enemy (Russia) which stated that America had the political will to use and would use atomic weapons.

As to whether or not Russia would have used atomic weapons against Germany if she had obtained the technology to build her own device is very much open to debate. Stalin and the MKVD liked to hold their cards as close to their chest as possible. Why show your hand before you had to? I seriously doubt that as mad as Stalin was, he would not have used an atomic bomb against Germany. What would have been the point?

Originally posted by fritz
I seriously doubt that as mad as Stalin was, he would not have used an atomic bomb against Germany. What would have been the point?

One word: Stalingrad.

The Soviets were big on payback and sending messages.

reply to post by signal2noise
You think that Stalingrad would have given Stalin the justification to use an atomic bomb?

As far as I can remember, research for the atomic bomb (Manhattan Project) started in 1939 but The Gadget was not built and tested until 1945.

Even if Russia had the wherewithall to design and build their own atomic bomb, how would they deliver it to the target in Germany?

Apart from not having an aircraft large or powerful enough to carry and deliver a large bomb to Berlin - the most obvious target, the Luftwaffe ruled the skies over Russia and the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS were not yet beaten.

the japanese military blew off the first explosion. hiroshima.

the emperor was appalled.

when nagasaki happened he gave the order to surrender.

so it worked, 1 week they surrendered.

Hi Fooks,

Originally posted by fooks
the japanese military blew off the first explosion. hiroshima.

The Japanese military did not 'blow off' the first explosion and it in fact too a while to assess what had actually happened. Whatever the case may be in how long that assessment took fact is that destroying defenseless cities that has practically zero military/strategic value ( other than the fact that it's destroyed) is no way to convince dictatorial states to give up their power. In the same way that the strategic bombing campaign drove Germans closer to Hitler so nuclear weapons would just prove to the Japanese civilians that they were fighting a enemy that had little respect for human life. Since few Japanese would have had an idea of what were being done by the army in China or other colonies they lacked the knowledge required to know that they were just getting back what was being done in their name.

the emperor was appalled.

The emperor's opinion mattered but only in so far as it agreed with the IJA.

when nagasaki happened he gave the order to surrender.

By which time it was fast becoming clear that they had in a few days lost a substantial portion of their million man army in China and that they would lose it ALL long before nuclear they could run out of cities for the Americans to nuke into oblivion. In fact losing that army in so short a space of time opened up a relatively short term threat of Soviet Invasion long before the Americans could redeploy their forces from the ETO for a sustained and well supplied invasion of the Japanese home Islands. Essentially the Japanese chose surrendering to the USA rather than invasion and occupation by the SU; arguably the most intelligent thing they managed to do since attacking Pearly harbor.

so it worked, 1 week they surrendered.

As with most things in life history tends to seem simplistic when you know practically nothing of it.

Cheers.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Hi Fooks,

Originally posted by fooks
the japanese military blew off the first explosion. hiroshima.

The Japanese military did not 'blow off' the first explosion and it in fact too a while to assess what had actually happened. Whatever the case may be in how long that assessment took fact is that destroying defenseless cities that has practically zero military/strategic value ( other than the fact that it's destroyed) is no way to convince dictatorial states to give up their power. In the same way that the strategic bombing campaign drove Germans closer to Hitler so nuclear weapons would just prove to the Japanese civilians that they were fighting a enemy that had little respect for human life. Since few Japanese would have had an idea of what were being done by the army in China or other colonies they lacked the knowledge required to know that they were just getting back what was being done in their name.

the emperor was appalled.

The emperor's opinion mattered but only in so far as it agreed with the IJA.

when nagasaki happened he gave the order to surrender.

By which time it was fast becoming clear that they had in a few days lost a substantial portion of their million man army in China and that they would lose it ALL long before nuclear they could run out of cities for the Americans to nuke into oblivion. In fact losing that army in so short a space of time opened up a relatively short term threat of Soviet Invasion long before the Americans could redeploy their forces from the ETO for a sustained and well supplied invasion of the Japanese home Islands. Essentially the Japanese chose surrendering to the USA rather than invasion and occupation by the SU; arguably the most intelligent thing they managed to do since attacking Pearly harbor.

so it worked, 1 week they surrendered.

As with most things in life history tends to seem simplistic when you know practically nothing of it.

Cheers.

Stellar

great retorte to my simplistic post.

i really did sum that up in a nut shell.

wasn't it 3 days between bombs? aug, 12, was when hirohito decided to surrender to the us.

they were not going to surrender the homeland in a conventional war.

i think it's horrible but i think it was the best way to end an ugly time.

imagine if russia was in on an invasion?

japan made it out of that pretty good.


still a nutshell. sorry!

reply to post by fritz


The USSR had several B29's that had landed there, along with the American crews. They copied and produced their own bombers based on those aircraft. The Soviets had the capability to deliver and the will to use a nuke. They just didn't have one.

Originally posted by fooks

great retorte to my simplistic post. i really did sum that up in a nut shell.

wasn't it 3 days between bombs? aug, 12, was when hirohito decided to surrender to the us. they were not going to surrender the homeland in a conventional war. i think it's horrible but i think it was the best way to end an ugly time. imagine if russia was in on an invasion? japan made it out of that pretty good. still a nutshell. sorry!

At least get your historical dates right if you're going to correct somebody yourself. According to Boeing (they know) the B29 Enola Gay dropped the first atomic bomb on Aug 6, 1945. Bockscar delivered the second bomb on Aug 9, 1945. Here's the link: www.boeing.com...

Tinman 67, as for your assertion that Russia was in possession of B29s, I think you'll find that far from giving the Russians B29s on Lease/Lend, the Russians were able to back engineer the aircraft from the 3 aircraft that made forced landings in Russia during late 1944, going as far as stripping one a/c down to individual nuts and bolts!

Indeed, according to Tupolev who carried out the work, the resulting Tu-4 did not fly until 19 May 1947, two years after Nazi Germany had surrendered.

For more detailed information about the design and development of the Tu-4, may I suggest you read the following book: Kerber, Leonid. "Tu-4 bomber epic". militera.lib.ru: a compilation of articles published in 1988 & 1990 (in Russian). Retrieved: 29 December 2009.

Hirohito demanded the usage of nuclear weapons against Japan to scare off the Soviets from the Kuril Islands.
When FD Roosevelt was vacillating on this prospect, he suddenly died probably by assassination, then Truman took his place and dropped the bomb to "scare the soviets" who didn't exactly get scared and came up with their own bomb soon after.