Bomb: 65 years ago today

ScottM

ScottM

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
42,530
Location
Variable, but somewhere on earth
Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
attachment.php


I am surprised that no one is mentioning this.

9 Aug 1945 Nagaski is the first city to be bombed using a plutonium bomb.
 

Attachments

  • 502px-Nagasakibomb.jpg
    502px-Nagasakibomb.jpg
    57.6 KB · Views: 158
The last time (one hopes) that a nuke will be used in anger. Still safe to say that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukes saved millions of lives, on both sides of that conflict.
 
SCCutler said:
The last time (one hopes) that a nuke will be used in anger. Still safe to say that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukes saved millions of lives, on both sides of that conflict.
Click to expand...
Interesting you mention that. I have no doubt that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have led to many deaths, but I was watching some documentaries this weekend that were dealing with some of the lessor known diplomatic talks that were underway. One statement was fascinating to me. That was the Japanese had not responded at all to the Hiroshima bomb. It was only after the USSR invaded Manchuria that the Japanese High Command started considering surrender. Then when Nagaski was bombed they had no real choice.

There was also fear on the Allied side that they would have to attack Japan with even more nukes. Marshall had changed the invasion plans from a straight up D-Day like assault favored by MacArthur to one that would use 9 atomic bombs to soften Japanese defenses.

MacArthur wanted to invade so much, to lead the largest invasion ever, he was willing to let the war continue and even use tactical nukes. YIKES!
 
SCCutler said:
The last time (one hopes) that a nuke will be used in anger. Still safe to say that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukes saved millions of lives, on both sides of that conflict.
Click to expand...

I would be willing to bet that we see another nuke used in our lifetime. I certainly hope not, but the middle east is such a powder keg that I think it's more likely than most people want to admit. I'll leave it there before we have to move to Spin Zone.

ScottM said:
Marshall had changed the invasion plans from a straight up D-Day like assault favored by MacArthur to one that would use 9 atomic bombs to soften Japanese defenses.

MacArthur wanted to invade so much, to lead the largest invasion ever, he was willing to let the war continue and even use tactical nukes. YIKES!
Click to expand...

That I believe, given events that transpired later with MacArthur. It was a very few years later that he was relieved of command.
 
The anniversary of the first successful use of nuclear weapons, the one on August 6, 1945, not having brought about the desired result (Japanese surrender).

BTW, both bombs used were "tactical" weapons by thermonuclear era (post-1953) standards in terms of yield. It was only their intended effect on the enemy which differentiated them as "strategic" in their use from the tactical usage planned by MacArthur with weapons of roughly the same explosive yield.
 
Last edited:
wsuffa said:
That I believe, given events that transpired later with MacArthur. It was a very few years later that he was relieved of command.
Click to expand...
What struck me about what they were saying concerning MacArthur and the invasion in Japan was that it would appear his invasion a few later of the Korean Peninsula was partially a result of his feeling it might have been his destiny to lead such an amphibious assault. It started me wondering if the invasion of Inchon might not have been necessary.
 
Ron Levy said:
The anniversary of the first successful use of nuclear weapons, the one on August 6, 1945, .
Click to expand...
Actually the anniversary of the first successful use of nuclear weapons is 16 July 1945. That date marks the first time that humans proved that concept of an atomic bomb. I think that would be technically correct.

6 Aug 1945 was the second use of a nuclear bomb, but the first used against a live target.
 
Last edited:
depends on how you define "successful"

successful could equal it goes boom

successful could mean that it get the desired response out of the bombed
 
I have read that the firebombing of Japan and Tokyo in particular killed more Japanese Civilians than the Atomic bombs.
 
ScottM said:
What struck me about what they were saying concerning MacArthur and the invasion in Japan was that it would appear his invasion a few later of the Korean Peninsula was partially a result of his feeling it might have been his destiny to lead such an amphibious assault. It started me wondering if the invasion of Inchon might not have been necessary.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure we'll ever know. The problem with historical views like that are that they engender whatever biases the historians and editors carry. Clearly, given his statements that led to his dismissal by Truman, he felt that broader fighting was warranted. Is that a matter of his "destiny" or a matter of "to a soldier, more force is better"? I don't think we'll ever know the answer.
 
tonycondon said:
depends on how you define "successful"

successful could equal it goes boom

successful could mean that it get the desired response out of the bombed
Click to expand...
By either measure then the Hiroshima bomb was unsuccessful. It was not the first explosion, nor did it solely bring about the Japanese surrender.

One could argue that it was really the combination of the two bombs along with the Soviet invasion that finally forced the hands of the Japanese.

History of time records that there were people arguing only for a demonstration of the bomb's effectiveness. But clearly because Hiroshima did not bring about surrender is that viewpoint is incorrect. Hiroshima was far more devastating to the Japanese people than any demonstration would have been and yet the Japanese High Command appears to not even react.

Even after the declaration of war by the USSR on the 9th of Aug along with the bombing the council was still evenly split. It was not until after the Nagasaki Bomb did the generals were finally approached by the Emperor Hirohito and basically ordered to accept the fact they must surrender. Between the first bomb and the second the Japanese war leaders were not willing to accept surrender.

Even after the surrender was accepted, but before the article of surrender were signed, the Japanese wanted to continue to fight. A military coup d'e'tat took place to prevent the Emperor from announcing surrender on the radio. The Japanese were still willing to fight on.
 
ScottM said:
The Japanese were still willing to fight on.
Click to expand...

What part of the Japanese? Clearly not the Emperor. Doubtful that the citizens wanted to. Military high command clearly did, as did half the government body.
 
ScottM said:
I am pretty sure that the Dresden firebombing also killed more too.
Click to expand...

In my reading I think I recall that the firebombings litterally sucked the O2 out of the City. People could literally not breath.
 
ScottM said:
Interesting you mention that. I have no doubt that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have led to many deaths, but I was watching some documentaries this weekend that were dealing with some of the lessor known diplomatic talks that were underway. One statement was fascinating to me. That was the Japanese had not responded at all to the Hiroshima bomb. It was only after the USSR invaded Manchuria that the Japanese High Command started considering surrender. Then when Nagaski was bombed they had no real choice.
Click to expand...

I stirred up a hornet's nest a few months ago by raising exactly this.

The reality is that talks for Japan's surrender had been underway since, if I remember off the top of my head correctly, March of 1945. Obviously, those talks were unsuccessful; it would be interesting to know if anyone that participated in, say, Okinawa would have liked to discuss the US goals in such talks.

At any rate, Japan's own documents - and the near-universal statements of those in charge - indicate that the war was known to be lost by 1945. There was hope that, "if we make it bloody enough," maybe we'll get favorable terms. That hope evaporated the minute the Russians attacked - and that's also indicated by Japan's own documents and the near-universal statements of those in charge.

There was also fear on the Allied side that they would have to attack Japan with even more nukes. Marshall had changed the invasion plans from a straight up D-Day like assault favored by MacArthur to one that would use 9 atomic bombs to soften Japanese defenses.

MacArthur wanted to invade so much, to lead the largest invasion ever, he was willing to let the war continue and even use tactical nukes. YIKES!
Click to expand...

Heroic, talented, intelligent, and worthy of both respect and esteem in many ways - no doubts about those. But, I think it's fair to say that MacArthur mattered the most to MacArthur.
 
wsuffa said:
I'm not sure we'll ever know. The problem with historical views like that are that they engender whatever biases the historians and editors carry. Clearly, given his statements that led to his dismissal by Truman, he felt that broader fighting was warranted. Is that a matter of his "destiny" or a matter of "to a soldier, more force is better"? I don't think we'll ever know the answer.
Click to expand...
Over the course of years I think a pretty good visualization of a person comes out. For example if you truly study Grant you find out his true nature, not the popular one that the was a drunk. IOW the complexities come out and one begins to understand the true nature of the person. There is no argument that MacArhtur was a 'royal' general and a genius who could look beyond the battle lines to see a future. But he truly was of the old guard at the time. He father was a US Civil War Veteran and MacArthur may not have truly understood the dramatic change to warfare and diplomacy that occurred with the dropping of the bombs.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Heroic, talented, intelligent, and worthy of both respect and esteem in many ways - no doubts about those. But, I think it's fair to say that MacArthur mattered the most to MacArthur.
Click to expand...
In some respects I very much agree with that. But I was also honored enough to know a few people who had first hand knowledge of working for him. One that was on the Bataan Death March. Those that knew him also remarked that he had a love and respect for his men that had never seen from a leader. He was a very complex man. Like you said he was worthy of respect and esteem.
 
ScottM said:
In some respects I very much agree with that. But I was also honored enough to know a few people who had first hand knowledge of working for him. One that was on the Bataan Death March. Those that knew him also remarked that he had a love and respect for his men that had never seen from a leader. He was a very complex man. Like you said he was worthy of respect and esteem.
Click to expand...

I also think that's an accurate statement.

MacArthur was worthy of respect in many ways, but had certain "but for characteristics" that...errr...got in the way.
 
ScottM said:
Actually the anniversary of the first successful use of nuclear weapons is 16 July 1945. That date marks the first time that humans proved that concept of an atomic bomb. I think that would be technically correct.
Click to expand...
The weapon was a technical success twice before, but the use of the weapon was not until the August 9 use.

Semantics, perhaps, but it was a point of importance to us in the nuclear warfare planning business back in the 80's, when the selective release of tactical nuclear weapons to achieve a strategic/political end of a conflict was an option under discussion in theater warfare planning. And I would point out that one option discussed in the summer of '45 was inviting Japanese observers to the Trinity test in order to achieve the desired result (Japanese surrender) without killing what they weren't sure would be a hundred thousand or a million or more Japanese. That would have been a successful use of a nuclear weapon even if it didn't do any physical damage to the enemy at all. However, that option was dropped due to fear that the weapon might not work along with the possibility that even if it did, they simply wouldn't believe it wasn't some sort of trick or that we did not have a deliverable weapon (viz, the earliest Soviet thermonuclear test devices, which were as big as a house).
 
Last edited:
ScottM said:
Over the course of years I think a pretty good visualization of a person comes out. For example if you truly study Grant you find out his true nature, not the popular one that the was a drunk. IOW the complexities come out and one begins to understand the true nature of the person. There is no argument that MacArhtur was a 'royal' general and a genius who could look beyond the battle lines to see a future. But he truly was of the old guard at the time. He father was a US Civil War Veteran and MacArthur may not have truly understood the dramatic change to warfare and diplomacy that occurred with the dropping of the bombs.
Click to expand...

No disagreement there. THe only potential disagreement is the term "destiny".
 
I used to work for a defense contractor that made parts for nukes. Every year on August 6th and 9th we'd have protestors outside.

Maybe it's the heatwave we've had this year that's keeping their numbers down, or maybe it's too hot for the local news crews to cover it, but I haven't heard anything about them yet this year.
 
I think Truman would have had a difficult time if during or after a bloody invasion it was discovered that we had a superweapon but didn't use it for fear for killing too many Japanese.

I can only imagine the effects of the military ineffectively using nukes tactically (the Japanese had the habit of digging in deep) and then trotting out soldiers in the middle of all that radioactivity (they didn't know much about fallout at that point).

I think Truman did everyone a favor, even the Japanese, by making the hard choice.
 
AdamZ said:
I have read that the firebombing of Japan and Tokyo in particular killed more Japanese Civilians than the Atomic bombs.
Click to expand...

16 square miles out of the heart of Tokyo when Lemay sent in the firebombers at 500 feet. That one night killed more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Or so claims a book at home.

steingar said:
I think Truman would have had a difficult time if during or after a bloody invasion it was discovered that we had a superweapon but didn't use it for fear for killing too many Japanese.

I can only imagine the effects of the military ineffectively using nukes tactically (the Japanese had the habit of digging in deep) and then trotting out soldiers in the middle of all that radioactivity (they didn't know much about fallout at that point).

I think Truman did everyone a favor, even the Japanese, by making the hard choice.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you. And I suspect there are a number of us on the board who might not otherwise be here if he had not.
 
steingar said:
I think Truman would have had a difficult time if during or after a bloody invasion it was discovered that we had a superweapon but didn't use it for fear for killing too many Japanese.

I can only imagine the effects of the military ineffectively using nukes tactically (the Japanese had the habit of digging in deep) and then trotting out soldiers in the middle of all that radioactivity (they didn't know much about fallout at that point).

I think Truman did everyone a favor, even the Japanese, by making the hard choice.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. It is my understanding that the Japanese strategy for making the war so costly to US forces that we would sue for peace, lasted until the German surrender. Following the defeat of Germany, the Russians announced that they would need three months before they would be in a position to themselves declare war on Japan. At that, Japan began seeking back channel negotiations with the US, and the main sticking point was the Emperor. We were demanding...rightly IMO...unconditional surrender while Japan sought to keep their Emperor. By August, when it was clear the war would not end prior to Russia's invasion of Japan, Truman decided that the Japanese needed to surrender before the Russians got involved. So...
 
steingar said:
I think Truman would have had a difficult time if during or after a bloody invasion it was discovered that we had a superweapon but didn't use it for fear for killing too many Japanese.
Click to expand...
A "dificult time", hmm, that is an understatement to be sure. I think if it had worked out like that we would have seen the first successful impeachment of a president along with his hide being tarred and feathered. I think that a lot of us, those younger than the generation that lived in the WW2 period forget that by 1945 America was really tired of war. We had already won in Europe by the summer of 1945, the economy was booming, there were very few shortages of anything and people were getting on with their lives. To drag out the war with a bloody invasion just would not be supported by anyone. Truman had no choice to drop the bomb and end the war.

steingar said:
I can only imagine the effects of the military ineffectively using nukes tactically (the Japanese had the habit of digging in deep) and then trotting out soldiers in the middle of all that radioactivity (they didn't know much about fallout at that point).

I think Truman did everyone a favor, even the Japanese, by making the hard choice.
Click to expand...
The radiation effects were hidden and kept secret. But it would have leaked out and become known.
 
Frank Browne said:
I agree with this. It is my understanding that the Japanese strategy for making the war so costly to US forces that we would sue for peace, lasted until the German surrender. Following the defeat of Germany, the Russians announced that they would need three months before they would be in a position to themselves declare war on Japan. At that, Japan began seeking back channel negotiations with the US, and the main sticking point was the Emperor. We were demanding...rightly IMO...unconditional surrender while Japan sought to keep their Emperor. By August, when it was clear the war would not end prior to Russia's invasion of Japan, Truman decided that the Japanese needed to surrender before the Russians got involved. So...
Click to expand...
The Japanese wanted a lot. At the Pottsdam conference the discussion amongst the allies was that the Japanese wanted to keep the Emperor in power, allow no occupying force on the Japanese mainland, try their own war criminals and negotiated reparations. IOW they basically refused to admit defeat.
 
Last edited:
Frank Browne said:
I agree with this. It is my understanding that the Japanese strategy for making the war so costly to US forces that we would sue for peace, lasted until the German surrender. Following the defeat of Germany, the Russians announced that they would need three months before they would be in a position to themselves declare war on Japan. At that, Japan began seeking back channel negotiations with the US, and the main sticking point was the Emperor. We were demanding...rightly IMO...unconditional surrender while Japan sought to keep their Emperor. By August, when it was clear the war would not end prior to Russia's invasion of Japan, Truman decided that the Japanese needed to surrender before the Russians got involved. So...
Click to expand...

It's probably worth noting that: 1) Japan ultimately kept an Emperor; and 2) the Russians got involved, and achieved significant benefits from doing so.
 
ScottM said:
The Japanese wanted a lot. At the Pottsdam conference they wanted to keep the Emperor in power, allow no occupying force on the Japanese mainland, try their own war criminals and negotiated reparations. IOW they basically refused to admit defeat.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the Japanese weren't at the Potsdam Conference.
 
ScottM said:
Really, only "pretty sure" they weren't there? I am positive they were not there. But their demand were and those were disused by the allies at the conference.
Click to expand...

Further, it's a fairly standard thing in international relations for countries to be in contact with each other, even if there are no formal embassies or missions. It's just done through some kind of intermediary - frequently the Swiss these days.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Further, it's a fairly standard thing in international relations for countries to be in contact with each other, even if there are no formal embassies or missions. It's just done through some kind of intermediary - frequently the Swiss these days.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

At the time of the Pottsdam conference the USSR was not all that excited about declaring war against Japan and continuing on WW2 into a new theater for them. It was at Pottsdam that Truman let the USSR in on the atom bomb secret, although there is evidence that Stalin had good intelligence that it did exist. It could be that Stalin saw that the war was going to wind down with the us of this super bomb and that if he did get into it the USSR could grab some more territory with little lose of life. That may have been the motivation to not capitulate to any of the Japanese surrender requests that they were discussing and instead continue to push for unconditional surrender. If you recall, the Potsdam Declaration did limit some of the Japanese territory, turning over some of the northern islands to the USSR.
 
Ghery said:
16 square miles out of the heart of Tokyo when Lemay sent in the firebombers at 500 feet. That one night killed more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Or so claims a book at home.
Click to expand...
All available evidence is that claim is accurate.
 
wsuffa said:
I'm not sure we'll ever know. The problem with historical views like that are that they engender whatever biases the historians and editors carry. Clearly, given his statements that led to his dismissal by Truman, he felt that broader fighting was warranted. Is that a matter of his "destiny" or a matter of "to a soldier, more force is better"? I don't think we'll ever know the answer.
Click to expand...

The stalemate of the last 57 years, costing billions (trillions?) and causing untold hardships on the Korean Peninsula -- not to mention leaving a crazy-man, now-nuclear-armed, region-destabilizing dictatorship in power ever since -- has ultimately proven that MacArthur was right. The U.S. should not have settled for a cease-fire.

Of course, no one knows what the Russians and Chinese might have done... THAT is the part of the equation that we will truly "never know".
 
Jay Honeck said:
Of course, no one knows what the Russians and Chinese might have done... THAT is the part of the equation that we will truly "never know".
Click to expand...
Jay if you ever get the chance to visit mainland China, especially Beijing, make it a point to visit the People's Liberation Army museum. It is a little west of Tienamen Square on Jianmenguo Wei. If you cannot read Chinese you will need an interpreter, this is not a place for tourists.

I say go, because it gives a really different view of the Korean war. It is from the north looking south. The museum itself is really interesting as there are plenty of cool American WW2 relics that were used in their civil war with Chang Kei Shek's KuoMinDong forces. But the Korean wing has all kids of interesting stuff. Such as photos of American POWs, maps, plans, memorabilia of their side.

When I visited I was the only westerner there and nothing was in English. I was followed the entire time by security. But I left with the strongest feeling that if provoked the Chinese would have happily invaded all the way to Jeju Island! All they needed was to be asked by the Northern government.

The economics of the 21st century are probably preventing that now. But in the early 90's when Deng XiaoPing was still alive and transiting the Chinese economy to capitalism it was clear that the old 'Long Marchers' were still itching for that fight.
 
ScottM said:
Jay if you ever get the chance to visit mainland China, especially Beijing, make it a point to visit the People's Liberation Army museum. It is a little west of Tienamen Square on Jianmenguo Wei. If you cannot read Chinese you will need an interpreter, this is not a place for tourists.

I say go, because it gives a really different view of the Korean war. It is from the north looking south. The museum itself is really interesting as there are plenty of cool American WW2 relics that were used in their civil war with Chang Kei Shek's KuoMinDong forces. But the Korean wing has all kids of interesting stuff. Such as photos of American POWs, maps, plans, memorabilia of their side.

When I visited I was the only westerner there and nothing was in English. I was followed the entire time by security. But I left with the strongest feeling that if provoked the Chinese would have happily invaded all the way to Jeju Island! All they needed was to be asked by the Northern government.

The economics of the 21st century are probably preventing that now. But in the early 90's when Deng XiaoPing was still alive and transiting the Chinese economy to capitalism it was clear that the old 'Long Marchers' were still itching for that fight.
Click to expand...

In the long run, we (and the Koreans) might have actually been better off if we had allowed the Chinese to take all of Korea, deposing the regime there. Of course, there are no guarantees that they would have done such a thing -- they might have left the Old Guard in power -- but it's interesting to speculate.

Economically, in the long run we'd have been better off without having to militarily support South Korea for half a century. The Korean Peninsula has been a weeping sore ever since.

Regardless, in 1953 that sort of thinking would have been blasphemy (and political suicide) in America, so this "alternate universe" could not have happened.
 
My dad turned 18 on August 14, 1945. Always claimed that bomb saved his life all the kids his age were convinced they were going to die fighting the Japanese.
 
ClimbnSink said:
My dad turned 18 on August 14, 1945. Always claimed that bomb saved his life all the kids his age were convinced they were going to die fighting the Japanese.
Click to expand...

My dad was a Captain in the Army Signal Corps, based in France when the war in Europe ended. He thought the same thing.

He always thought that Truman's decision to use "the Big One" was what saved his -- and hundreds of thousands of other people's -- lives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top