Should the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[oralloy]

the nuke has the lasting effect for generations. What makes it worse is that the next generation and the ones after continue to suffer from sickness and deformities.

Balderdash!

The nuke has no effect for anyone who was not physically present in the city when the bomb exploded.

Subsequent generations are just fine.

Actually there is evidence to both ends for the atomic radiation can enter the soil and poison the water and ground and for years mutating the children in the whomb, yet those are only found in very specific instances in which the expectant mother had ingested the contaminated water....

These were airbursts. The only people who received radiation injury from the bombs, got that injury directly at the moment of the explosion (and did not pass that injury on to subsequent generations).

I was trying to get to the point that not both were airbursts! There is still evidence as to show that one of them hit the ground and exploded!

No, both were airbursts.

the nuke has the lasting effect for generations. What makes it worse is that the next generation and the ones after continue to suffer from sickness and deformities.

Balderdash!

The nuke has no effect for anyone who was not physically present in the city when the bomb exploded.

Subsequent generations are just fine.

Actually there is evidence to both ends for the atomic radiation can enter the soil and poison the water and ground and for years mutating the children in the whomb, yet those are only found in very specific instances in which the expectant mother had ingested the contaminated water....

These were airbursts. The only people who received radiation injury from the bombs, got that injury directly at the moment of the explosion (and did not pass that injury on to subsequent generations).

That is not quite the case one was the other was a dirty bomb (yours) and another, in which it hit the ground....as for the radiation the one you are talking about it did affect the soil...the other hit and burn all in its blast radius including whole bodies only leaving chared places where the item/creature was standing. The dirty bomb is a bomb in which is made by using the spent "rods" from a nuclear reactor. There are now many forms one is a dirty (the one that North Korea is said to be trying to create using its spent rector rods) there is a Uranium bomb which leaves radiation all over, as does its other atoms "buddies" a.k.a. Neptunium & Plutonium. There is even a H-bomb that leaves no radiation....these are just a few that are in existance....long story short there is no use fighting over if it should have been done or not it was and that is what allowed the war to begin its end, Yes it was a war the was brutal and thanks to many of the German scientists that worked and learned durring that war we have better war planes and other mechanical utilities along with many other "World Powers" whom the scientists decided to work for after Nazi Germany fell. So in effect to battle over weither it was ethical or not is simply a waste of time and energy, the probelem now resideds in the need to keep those weapons from the groups of people in the world who will use them to force their views and opinions on others rather then as a means to wadge war....a.k.a. the terrorists groups of the world!

A dirty bomb is one were a contaminant has been added to provide long-term toxic contamination of an area. The contamination does not have to be radioactive, although it usually is. I've seen proposals for dirty bombs based on dioxin instead of radioactive materials however.

The A-bombs did not have such a contaminant added, and they did not provide any long term contamination of the area in any case.

If a thermonuclear warhead were salted with cobalt, that may well constitute a nuclear version of a dirty bomb I suppose.

There are many H-bombs in existence. Virtually all of them provide a significant amount of fallout, although if they are airburst they may provide no local contamination.

 

[oralloy]

Oh, and Hirosima and Nagasaki are probably the only reason why Stalin didn't take the rest of Europe.

The other reason being the Soviet union's unwillingness to wage war. Why do the west always see the Soviet Union as a warmonger? This is definitely the legacy of too much cold war propaganda. The SU was much more peace loving than the USA, as can be seen from the Korean war, Cuban crisis, U2 incident, and interventions in Africa and S America.

Not sure the people of eastern Europe would agree much with the view of Russia as some sort of peaceful and/or benevolent power.

 

[Minimike3636]

Yes. Well, half yes.

One bomb drop was tactical, I believe it was Nagasaki. The other, which if my gut insinct is correct is Nagasaki, was just to devistate the Japanese on a massive scale. So, like I said, half yes.

 

[goodman528]

Oh, and Hirosima and Nagasaki are probably the only reason why Stalin didn't take the rest of Europe.

The other reason being the Soviet union's unwillingness to wage war. Why do the west always see the Soviet Union as a warmonger? This is definitely the legacy of too much cold war propaganda. The SU was much more peace loving than the USA, as can be seen from the Korean war, Cuban crisis, U2 incident, and interventions in Africa and S America.

Not sure the people of eastern Europe would agree much with the view of Russia as some sort of peaceful and/or benevolent power.

SU is peace loving because they fear USA. USA is peace loving because they fear the electorate. Obviously, USA is a lot more scary than the electorate.

 

[Shinny_Explosions]

oralloy,

I am sorry but one was a ground hitting because there is a ground zero where it touched that "dirty" bomb hit and burnt the surrounding area and yes it burned it people some to just burn marks where they were standing...and blew away homes, ect. It left burn marks on people and caused their flesh to boil and burn, so it is quite possible to get cancer from that and cancer HAS BEEN PROVEN AS A DNA ALTERATION and if they had children after the alteration to their DNA then it is possible and do not tell me that this is BALDERDASH because that just proves how naive you are being...and anyways wiether or not it happened and thus there is nothing left to say so thus I leave it at this: It is no longer should it have been done, but now what do we need to do to keep everyone from using them, and no treaties are no longer useful because they are just a peice of paper like Hitler in Germany durring this time with Russia, and more reciently North Korea forming nuclear program and building a reactor. They claim to not cease working on it unless they recieve "aid" (what aid they refer to is beside the point).

 

[Yoshi_egg80]

My goodness we've dropped incendiary bombs on a couple of their villages and killed countless more than with those two atom bombs so it's all a bunch of hogwash politics and showed we can effectively fuck them over out of existance in one day so they had no choice other than surrender.

 

[Otterpoet]

the nuke has the lasting effect for generations. What makes it worse is that the next generation and the ones after continue to suffer from sickness and deformities.

Balderdash!

The nuke has no effect for anyone who was not physically present in the city when the bomb exploded.

Subsequent generations are just fine.

Actually there is evidence to both ends for the atomic radiation can enter the soil and poison the water and ground and for years mutating the children in the whomb, yet those are only found in very specific instances in which the expectant mother had ingested the contaminated water....

These were airbursts. The only people who received radiation injury from the bombs, got that injury directly at the moment of the explosion (and did not pass that injury on to subsequent generations).

Before you start throwing erroneous (and frankly dangerous) statements like this around, maybe you should actually know what the hell you're talking about. There have been continued studies on this very subject since 1946. Just a few:

Risk of cancer among children exposed in utero to A-bomb radiations, 1950-84. Lancet. 1988 Sep 17;2(8612):665-9.

Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors exposed in utero or as young children. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Oct 15;100(20):1482-3.

The somatic effects of exposure to atomic radiation: the Japanese experience, 1947-1997. 1: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 May 12;95(10):5437-41.

The survivors got the worst of it, but I seriously doubt a 10-year old child dying of radiation-related leukemia is going to make that distinction.

 

[Hearthing]

Sadly they did.

But no. America had a new toy to play with and they wheren't sure what it could do. They knew, however, that there was a 1.x% chance of it ending the entire world if the winds where in the wrong direction, they took the risk anyway. (luckily it didn't eh?)

Basically, America being the fat idiotic country it is dropped it's new toys to have a better understanding of the world, and claims that it did the world good, and only attempts to achieve good. (Harharhar I look at Iraq and laugh at thee.)

But yes. They've dropped them already so this discussion needn't go on, there is the moral aspect to it, but what's done is done. I'm sure Japan wont forget. When America has gotten too fat for it's own good, when they completely forget their own history (which they know very little, apparently British people are illegal immigrants.) and they start a world war 3, then Japan will likely flex it's muscles too. Probably in the form of some kind of virus-hentai.

 

[Jay2o3]

war is stupid and waste of resources to begin with =_=
i'd rather the different nations work toward better technology for living (faster travel dammit! hate trafic jams!!!)
but back on topic, should have been dropped to get it over with
considering how small japan is, it's close to impossible to target their military units without damaging "innocents"
if you try to paracute troops in, most likely they'll die/injure before they land
if you try to board japan via sea, doomsday anyone?

 

[benjtfell]

Yes and No. Yes for the 2nd Nuclear strike stopped WWII and maybhe saved many lives from being taken, but one of the major points missed by people is the fact that there has never being another Nuclear attack on another Nation since. No for it took so many innocent lives and is still doing so.

 

[oralloy]

oralloy,

I am sorry but one was a ground hitting because there is a ground zero where it touched that "dirty" bomb hit and burnt the surrounding area

No, both were airbursts.

and yes it burned it people some to just burn marks where they were standing...and blew away homes, ect. It left burn marks on people and caused their flesh to boil and burn,

Airbursts do all that.

so it is quite possible to get cancer from that and cancer HAS BEEN PROVEN AS A DNA ALTERATION and if they had children after the alteration to their DNA then it is possible and do not tell me that this is BALDERDASH because that just proves how naive you are being...

How is it that scientists have not found any altered DNA or increase in cancer in the offspring of the survivors?

 

[oralloy]

the nuke has the lasting effect for generations. What makes it worse is that the next generation and the ones after continue to suffer from sickness and deformities.

Balderdash!

The nuke has no effect for anyone who was not physically present in the city when the bomb exploded.

Subsequent generations are just fine.

Actually there is evidence to both ends for the atomic radiation can enter the soil and poison the water and ground and for years mutating the children in the whomb, yet those are only found in very specific instances in which the expectant mother had ingested the contaminated water....

These were airbursts. The only people who received radiation injury from the bombs, got that injury directly at the moment of the explosion (and did not pass that injury on to subsequent generations).

Before you start throwing erroneous (and frankly dangerous) statements like this around, maybe you should actually know what the hell you're talking about. There have been continued studies on this very subject since 1946. Just a few:

Risk of cancer among children exposed in utero to A-bomb radiations, 1950-84. Lancet. 1988 Sep 17;2(8612):665-9.

Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors exposed in utero or as young children. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Oct 15;100(20):1482-3.

The somatic effects of exposure to atomic radiation: the Japanese experience, 1947-1997. 1: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 May 12;95(10):5437-41.

The survivors got the worst of it, but I seriously doubt a 10-year old child dying of radiation-related leukemia is going to make that distinction.

Before you run around falsely accusing people of not knowing what they are talking about, perhaps you should take the time to learn about the subject yourself.

Note this term in the study titles you cut-n-pasted: "exposed in utero".

Those studies refer to fetuses that were exposed to radiation coming directly from the explosion at the moment the bomb went off.

 

[oralloy]

Yes. Well, half yes.

One bomb drop was tactical, I believe it was Nagasaki. The other, which if my gut insinct is correct is Nagasaki, was just to devistate the Japanese on a massive scale. So, like I said, half yes.

Hiroshima was targeted because it was a major military center. Nagasaki was targeted because it was an industrial center devoted to manufacturing weapons.

Both kinds of targets are legitimate.

-------------

Sadly they did.

But no. America had a new toy to play with and they wheren't sure what it could do. They knew, however, that there was a 1.x% chance of it ending the entire world if the winds where in the wrong direction, they took the risk anyway. (luckily it didn't eh?)

No, they knew there was no chance of that happening.

They also knew exactly what the A-bombs would do, having tested one at Trinity.

Basically, America being the fat idiotic country it is dropped it's new toys to have a better understanding of the world, and claims that it did the world good, and only attempts to achieve good. (Harharhar I look at Iraq and laugh at thee.)

The reason we dropped the bombs was to make Japan surrender.

(And Iraq will be better off now that they are a democracy.)

-------------

Far fewer lives would have been lost if we had invaded.

Not really.

Had the war dragged on until invasion, it is estimated that ten million Japanese would have starved to death from the blockade. Likewise, more than a million non-Japanese Asians would have died under the occupation of the Japanese Army on the mainland during this time.

And the invasion itself was projected by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to kill about a quarter million American soldiers. Japanese casualties from the invasion would have been pretty high as well.

The A-bombs didn't kill more than 200,000 people.

 

[Shock and Awe]

This was a crime against humanity on a massive scale.

No consideraton was taken of the innocent civilians that were killed by the bombs. This is by definition a war crime.

It's digusting and the US should be ashamed of these actions for the rest of its existence. Given that the US is the ONLY country in the world that have used Weapons of Mass Destruction in a conflict directly against civilians shows what a destructive force it is in the world.

The US lost all moral ground to criticise human rights violations the second that bomb was dropped. This was compounded by the McCarthy trials, the Vietnam war, the Gulf war and the War on Terror. As a result the US has done more damage to the cause of human rights ever since than any third world dictatorship could.

It is nearly impossible for the UN and international criminal court to bring any meaningful action against the atrocities carried out in the third world because without treating the US the in the same way their actions are somewhat hypocritical.

However, the UN and Criminal court should do more to condemn the US. They should also issue a warrant for the arrests of those in the US involved in torture, George Bush and Tony Blair for blatant disregard of the Geneva Convention. Even if they would not be able to follow through with the trial the issuing of a warrant would be a damning condemnation and hugely daming to these criminals.

No offence intended but the A bombs saved millions of lives, on both sides, And they weren't as destructive as fire bombing, which killed around 100,000 in Tokyo alone. Im sure you know how many died in battles like the ones Aleation Islands, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, now imagine that on a much bigger scale, millions would have been killed, both military and civilian.

 

[Mr Grey]

earlier that same year the japanese offered to surrender on one condition - that the emperor would not be tried for war crimes. the americans refused, stating that they would only accept unconditional surrender from the japanese. the war with japan continued until the bombs were dropped, after which the japanese surrendered unconditionally.

the emperor of japan was never tried for war crimes.


if the allies had accepted the japanese terms of surrender, the net result would have been the same but without the loss of countless innocent lives.


so no, the bombs should never have been dropped.

 

[samsprinkle]

Absolutely not...I think we could have afforded a few more years of war...ANYTHING but what we did...innocents will die in a war, but to target the innocents. 40's America was no better than modern terrorist...

 

[neoman10]

I feel compelled to say this; but firebombing of Japan was just as effective as nuclear bombs, without the lasting effects.

but not as dramatic and scary

but yes, it was a short end to a long war that no one wanted

 

[oralloy]

earlier that same year the japanese offered to surrender on one condition - that the emperor would not be tried for war crimes. the americans refused, stating that they would only accept unconditional surrender from the japanese. the war with japan continued until the bombs were dropped, after which the japanese surrendered unconditionally.

the emperor of japan was never tried for war crimes.


if the allies had accepted the japanese terms of surrender, the net result would have been the same but without the loss of countless innocent lives.


so no, the bombs should never have been dropped.

Your calendar is miscalibrated.

Japan asked to surrender "with a guarantee for the Emperor" on August 10.

The A-bombs were dropped August 6 and August 9.

It is true that we insisted on unconditional surrender, and on August 14 Japan gave in, but no A-bombs were dropped in the period between when Japan asked to surrender "with a guarantee for the Emperor" and when they agreed to surrender unconditionally.

That said, it was utterly unacceptable to let Japan surrender with such a guarantee. Had Japan insisted on such a conditional surrender, we would have nuked them over it. (In fact, we were a week away from nuking Tokyo when they surrendered unconditionally.)