Seventy years ago today... -

Falcon Lord

kiwifarms.net
The United States dropped an Atomic Bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Was it the right thing to do? I say absolutely. Here's why:

http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Operation_Downfall.pdf
Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties[1] and tens of millions for Japanese casualties.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
On Marshall's orders, Major-General John E. Hull looked into the tactical use of nuclear weapons for the invasion of the Japanese home islands. Colonel Lyle E. Seeman reported that at least seven bombs would be available by X-Day, which could be dropped on defending forces. Seeman advised that American troops not enter an area hit by a bomb for "at least 48 hours"; the risk of fallout was not well understood, and such a short amount of time after detonation would have resulted in substantial radiation exposure for the American troops.
= = = = = = = = = = = == = = =
Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, each one drawing upon different lessons:
• In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
• A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.
• A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.
• In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.
Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa -- troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.
• A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities.
The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.
Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign." The Battle of Okinawa, the very last pitched battle against Japan, ran up 72,000 casualties in 82 days, of whom 18,900 were killed or missing. This is conservative, because it excludes several thousand U.S. soldiers who died after the battle indirectly from their wounds. The entire island of Okinawa is 464 square miles; to take it, therefore, cost the United States 407 soldiers (killed or missing) for every 10 square miles of island. If the U.S. casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had only been 5 percent as high per square mile as it was at Okinawa, the United States would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).
 

Johnny Bravo

Bravokin
kiwifarms.net
Inevitably, someone would have dropped the bomb. Maybe not in WWII. Maybe in a future war. Maybe even during the Cold War. But it would have happened. It's a good thing that it happened the way that it did, without nuclear retaliation.

Was it the right thing to do? No, it could never be "right." It was simply the better option.
 

AN/ALR56

Meu avô era do DOPS
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
the firebombing campaign was much more horrific and deadly,still no one talks about it today,the Chinese campaign in which the Japaneses devastated entire regions of china,the brutal occupation of Asia by japan,they all were much deadlier and horrific than the nukes,but barely appear today in the media.
the nukes were necessary,a invasion of japan would be a gigantic disaster and if the insane coup to try to continue the war after the nukes happened,japan would cease to exist as it is today,it would be a larger laos or Cambodia.
 

NumberingYourState

Our fate lies in the moons tilt and shine
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
There would have been a more destructive outcome (had it not happened) that would effect both the eastern and western hemisphere, and we didn't exactly know (or rather, understand) if we'd have a more destructive conflict afterwards. Some theorized a bigger nuclear crisis would have happened without notice if the decision were not made, but I doubt these theories hold a lot of water (not big on the subject of intercontinental warfare, it's been quite a while since I dipped my toes into the subject).
 
Last edited:

KingGeedorah

The Monster From Planet X
kiwifarms.net
the firebombing campaign was much more horrific and deadly,still no one talks about it today,the Chinese campaign in which the Japaneses devastated entire regions of china,the brutal occupation of Asia by japan,they all were much deadlier and horrific than the nukes,but barely appear today in the media.
the nukes were necessary,a invasion of japan would be a gigantic disaster and if the insane coup to try to continue the war after the nukes happened,japan would cease to exist as it is today,it would be a larger laos or Cambodia.

I don't think it's about which was worse, but more about the fact that it took less then a combined total of like ten minutes for the major explosive impact to be felt and understood by the Japanese people. One minute the center of Hiroshima is there, ten minutes later it's a fucking crater that people can't touch for years. Nukes just expedite the process to a degree never seen before in human history.
 

AN/ALR56

Meu avô era do DOPS
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
There would have been a more destructive outcome (had it not happened) that would effect both the eastern and western hemisphere, and we didn't exactly know (or rather, understand) if we'd have a more destructive conflict afterwards. Some theorized a bigger nuclear crisis would have happened without notice if the decision were not made, but I doubt these theories hold a lot of water (not big on the subject of intercontinental warfare, it's been quite a while since I dipped my toes into the subject).
Irony aside,nuclear weapons prevented a larger war,nuclear deterrence made a world war extremely costly and a political suicide,since your cities are destroyed and you cant use the territory that you earned due to it being irradiated.
I don't think it's about which was worse, but more about the fact that it took less then a combined total of like ten minutes for the major explosive impact to be felt and understood by the Japanese people. One minute the center of Hiroshima is there, ten minutes later it's a fucking crater that people can't touch for years. Nukes just expedite the process to a degree never seen before in human history.
I think this is what made a people ready to die for their emperor surrender shortly after,they thought they could resist,but after seeing what 1 single bomb could do to a city and probably thinking many more were coming.
also without the nukes,stalin would be much,much bolder than he was,if a weapon capable of exterminating a massive russian attack with one hit never appeared.....europe would be very different.
 

Duke Nukem

Leader of the Anti-Chad Extermination Squad
kiwifarms.net
Irony aside,nuclear weapons prevented a larger war,nuclear deterrence made a world war extremely costly and a political suicide,since your cities are destroyed and you cant use the territory that you earned due to it being irradiated.

I think this is what made a people ready to die for their emperor surrender shortly after,they thought they could resist,but after seeing what 1 single bomb could do to a city and probably thinking many more were coming.
also without the nukes,stalin would be much,much bolder than he was,if a weapon capable of exterminating a massive russian attack with one hit never appeared.....europe would be very different.

As well as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan the same day Little Boy fell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_War_(1945)

One of the reasons to end the war quickly was the concern about Stalin's territorial ambitions. He already overran Eastern Europe, and was able to take a few islands, Manchuria, and Korea from the Japanese Empire. So dropping the bomb may have helped to stave off any further action and territorial takeover on their part, by bringing the war to a faster end.

It was not an easy decision to make, but I feel that it needed to be used, and would have eventually been used anyway. Thankfully, it has not become a regular thing on the battlefield, as it almost did in the Korean War against China under the command of General Douglas MacArthur.
 

AN/ALR56

Meu avô era do DOPS
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
The German and japanese nuclear programs were a total failure.
The Nazis didn't like the Jewish phisics(einstein),the japs splited their programs due to the amazingly retarded army vs navy competition that helped their defeat and both received little to no funding.
The closest the Germans got were the nuclear pile.
Still,dirty bombs flown by v 2 rockets is a terrifying thought and could had happened.
 
Top