60 years later, any thoughts?

"They also did 1, and if i'm not mistaken 2 nuclear bomb test, and after all of this the japanese refused to surrender."

One test, at Alamogordo, and it was secret, so the Japanese probably didn't know, and they would not have cared.

The telling thing is that it took *two* atomic bombs for them to surrender.

If, as all the historical revisionists and wacademics and America-haters say, Japan was just about to surrender, any day now -- why did they not surrender immediately after the first bomb?

Japan was free to surrender at any point. They could have surrenderred after Midway, after Marianas Turkey Shoot, or even because of VE Day ("Our only ally surrendered, so we surrender too.") The fact that they DID NOT, even after one solid nuking, speaks for itself, and leaves only one conclusion:

The Japanese Imperial government fried those babies at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Ah yes, another USA hater.

Students of history know your breed well.


Many American citizens would not be alive today had it not been for the atomic bombs. Thier grandfathers would have died taking the Japanese mainland. Or would have died at sea on ships that were being attacked by kamakazies.

Perhaps you'd have prefered that, Alain but most US citizens do not. The dropping of the atom bombs were the only choice. It was the quickest, easiest way to end the war.

And those are the only priorities.

Not the lives of the Japanese civilians, from whom the batalions of the soldiers were drawn.

Certianly not the health of the decendents of any possible survivors.

You are right on one thing. The 2001 Pearl Harbor was a bad movie. Congrats on this clairvoience. Keep it up.

Your bringing the current war in Iraq to the discussion has many miles to go before being worthy of comment.

Too many years later, but I'll respond, like I have every 5 year anniversary of Hiroshima to the local newspaper.

My Father was killed in WWII (the Good War?) in the Philippines in December of 1944 when I was 3 1/2 years old. My wish would have been for the bomb to have been dropped in August of 1944 and I would have known my Father and thousands of other children in the U.S. would have known their Father growing up.

Because it was the worst "message in the bottle" that the Americans could've sent to anyone!


"Why not hardcode the reaction parameters?" "Well, yeah, of course... It is possible."

lol, exactly... although the use of atomic weaponry against a civilian population is hardly a casual decision, we killed FAR more people with our firebombings of the various cities in Japan (it was FAR more than just Tokyo) than we did with the two nukes.

Each and everybody who is trying to act like nuking the JPs wasn't the right choice at the time is conveniently forgetting the fact that the Japanese performed just as many war crimes as the Nazis did... they are hardly the types you negotiate with. Anybody not familiar with the JP war crimes really needs to see "Tears from the sun" (or something to that effect) - it's a Chinese film documenting the various forms of "research" and torture that the Japanese scientists and troops were conducting on Chinese civilians (our ally at the time).

They dissolved peoples flesh right off their bones with industrial solvents, simply so they could see the effects they would have on people... they froze people to death to observe what happened to them as they were nearing death. In addition to this, they completely ignored the Geneva Convention (kinda like our current asshat President likes to do without understanding how dangerous that is) and tortured, starved and killed many Prisoners of War (who are granted protection from ALL of these unspeakable acts).

This was not simply soldiers fighting a "clean" war versus us... they were just as bad as the Nazis and an invasion of the home islands would have been just as devastating to both sides as some of the estimates prior posts have listed. The Japanese people (especially back then) are very much "traditional" minded... meaning if their leaders are telling them what's the right thing to do, even daring to question their orders is simply impossible on a variety of levels.

The only way we were going to win the war cleanly against them was either to let the Russians occupy Japan (very bad idea in the game of Risk we were playing back then) or to demoralize them utterly.

It worked by the way... and considering the fact that many Japanese agree that the nuking of the cities was actually a more humanitarian choice than a street to street genocidal campaign on the home islands - I think we made the right choice, and only those who don't understand a bit of history are not aware of this very plain truth.

In my opinion, to think that there was only one reason for using the bomb is kinda ridiculous. I think without question the bomb was used to hasten the end of the war, but at the same time used as diplomacy against the Russians. Japan DID receive a formal warning but essentially did not respond to it. However, the warning didn't mention anything about the bomb, which I think was on purpose by the U.S., because they did not want Japan to surrender leaving them without a target to show off the bomb.

And about not using the bomb to "keep it a secret" even longer was kind of irrelevant. The Russians were already aware of the bomb and it was estimated they would be caught up with the U.S. within 5 years without the U.S. using the bomb or letting the USSR in on the details.

There are so many details though, you can come at it from all angles. I just got done reading "The Manhattan Project: A Documentary Introduction to the Atomic Age", which is essentially a chronological compilation of government documents and things like Henry Stimson's diary entries. It's really got a ton of stuff and you have to realize how many different motives their were and how many people influencing the decision.

In 1945 the bomb was used to end a war and the causalities it caused were traded at about a 1 to 10 ratio that would have resulted from the invasion of Japan. It was the perfect application of shock and awe and gave the Emperor the ability to oppose his Military leaders and tell the Japanese people they must endure the unendurable which in this case was to surrender.

As for using the bomb now even at a tactical level, opens a veritable Pandora's Box to massive destruction. We came very close to this in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis because the USSR command in Cuba had short range tactical nukes and the authority to use them against an invasion from the USA. As for Iraq, the bomb was not necessary to achieve our goals. Also, it is not an effective option in dealing with terrorists and insurgents.

One thing to keep in mind is that the existence of the bomb can arguably be credited with the prevention of WW III, The USSR knew that we would have to use nukes to defend Western Europe because of their overwhelming ground forces. The risk that this would lead to a general exchange of nukes via ICBMs prevented the the USSR from overrunning Europe after WW II. However mad the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy was, it worked.

In a way there is more danger of a nuclear bomb being used. If terrorists get their hands on one, they would surly rationalize that Alla had put it in their hands for them to use in the most destructive and disruptive way possible.

steveresin......It is 8 years down the road, and with IMDB closing down the message boards, I need to get this response in now.

It was (and still is) hand-wringing cowards like you (and our recently departed feckless CIC) who allow the behavior of regimes like the Nazis and Imperial Japanese to fester and grow, until armed conflict is no longer optional. There is only ONE way to go to war - with the intent to win, at any cost. Our recent "need" to limit collateral damage is why we don't win anymore....

Stick your pansy head back in the sand and dream of unicorns and pixie dust....real men will still continue to protect you, unworthy as you are.