Nagasaki was it right

Operations Olympic and Coronet were planned for November 45 and then Spring of 46. Causulty estimates were horrendous based on the dug in fighing at Iwoa Jima and Okinawa. It was total war...and the ending of it came about quickly and with the lives at stake humanely IMHO.

i1_Operation_Olympic_s.jpg


i1_Operation_Downfall_3_s.jpg
 
It may sound strange but except the casualties prevented from the expected Operations Olympic and Coronet
the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki revealed the horror of Nuclear war and weapons early enough and before conflicts like Korean war were
the use of this kind of weapons would have destructive consequenses for the entire planet.
Tragic it was of course for the thousands killed and injured by the bombings but judging from the perception of the entire Japanese people of the period,fight to the last man-woman-child,
only a huge shock of that kind would persuade them that war is lost for them and further resistance is futile.
Also judging from the outcome, the tranformation of a hard core military society as it was the Japanese society for hundreds of years, to what it is today someone can claim that even in the hardest of ways the Japs
learned better of all among the nations the real price of war and its ugliest face.
 
It may sound strange but except the casualties prevented from the expected Operations Olympic and Coronet
the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki revealed the horror of Nuclear war and weapons early enough and before conflicts like Korean war were
the use of this kind of weapons would have destructive consequenses for the entire planet.
Tragic it was of course for the thousands killed and injured by the bombings but judging from the perception of the entire Japanese people of the period,fight to the last man-woman-child,
only a huge shock of that kind would persuade them that war is lost for them and further resistance is futile.
Also judging from the outcome, the tranformation of a hard core military society as it was the Japanese society for hundreds of years, to what it is today someone can claim that even in the hardest of ways the Japs
learned better of all among the nations the real price of war and its ugliest face.

Yes agreed like you say the the tragic loss of life was shocking, the only good thing it was a lesson for the world not to allow this to happen again, I think with the like's of Iran who may or mat not be a threat, the world owe's it's self to keep a eye open on these nuclear up coming power's be it for domestic use or other wise.
 
As an ex-Civilisation player I remember having to painstakingly build up my empire from the stone age year by year, century by century, developing new weapons all the time from spears, bows and arrows, gunpowder, tanks, artillery etc to fight off the relentless attacks of my enemies and undertake military campaigns of my own.
What a blessed relief to at last develop nuclear weapons and wipe out all the enemy cities one by one to bring the game to a quick decisive end.
Truman did exactly as I'd do by authorising nuclear strikes..:)

Sadly he then went soft and hadn't the balls to issue an ultimatum to the Russians (like Patton wanted) telling them to get out of Poland and eastern Europe or be nuked.
5 years later the Russkis developed their own nukes and Truman had missed his chance.

"Never fear to use weapons of mass destruction, let the fear be your enemies"- POS

Tsar-bomb.jpg
 
Sadly he then went soft and hadn't the balls to issue an ultimatum to the Russians (like Patton wanted) telling them to get out of Poland and eastern Europe or be nuked.
5 years later the Russkis developed their own nukes and Truman had missed his chance.

With what? and how?

I don't think in 1945 the US had the nuclear arsenal to be able to cause significant damage to the ruskies, also with the only way to drop the bomb from a fixed wing aircraft how would they have managed to drop the bombs? The soviets air force was in a significantly better shape than the Japanese in 1945, so the US would have had to fight for control of the skies first before they could have got the air superiority they would have needed to make the bomb truly effective.
 
..with the only way to drop the bomb from a fixed wing aircraft how would they have managed to drop the bombs? The soviets air force was in a significantly better shape than the Japanese in 1945, so the US would have had to fight for control of the skies first before they could have got the air superiority..

Couldn't a B-29 have gone at night under cover of darkness?
 
Exactly, as far as I have ever read, the Red Airforce night fighting capability had only visual detection capabilities which would have given them almost no chance of an intercept. I also think the fight for air supremacy would have gone our way in short order. Maybe one year at the most and the red airforce would have been blown out of the sky.
Lord Bane
 
The real point is that US had very few A-bombs at this point and except for obliterating Moscow as a nerve-centre and transportation hub, would've struggled to do widespread damage to the Soviets considering the size of the country and the widespread nature of it's natural resources and industries beyond the Urals.

Yes, the western air forces would've won air supremacy pretty quickly due to far superior training (as proved later in Korea), experience and command-control infrastructure and radar technology at the time.
Also, very few Soviet fighters had much high-altitude capabilities at the time to match especially the Mustang.

Also, in immediate period after the war, the US public and armed forces had no stomach for another fight (with the exception of Patton et al), especially against a country that US propaganda had spent better part of 4 years as building up as "glorious Allies" fighting at their side ... it was only a few years of Cold War disillusionment that changed this view radically.
 
One further interesting point is that until much later, say early 50's, the horrors of atomic warfare, especially the radiation poisoning aspect, was not really understood.
Attitudes of most western air force commanders was that it was just a weapon delivering a bigger bang than any before... and truth be told, the experience of its blast victims probably wasn't quantifiably worse than say being firebombed by Le May's B-29 before that.
 
16 July, 1945: First successful atomic bomb test
At 5:29:45 a.m. on this day in 1945, the Manhattan Project comes to an explosive end as the first atom bomb is successfully tested in Alamogordo, New Mexico.
Plans for the creation of a uranium bomb by the Allies were established as early as 1939, when Italian emigre physicist Enrico Fermi met with U.S. Navy department officials at Columbia University to discuss the use of fissionable materials for military purposes. That same year, Albert Einstein wrote to President Franklin Roosevelt supporting the theory that an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction had great potential as a basis for a weapon of mass destruction. In February 1940, the federal government granted a total of $6,000 for research – the costs of which ballooned to $2 million. But in early 1942, with the United States now at war with the Axis powers, and fear mounting that Germany was working on its own uranium bomb, the War Department took a more active interest, and limits on resources for the project were removed.

Brigadier-General Leslie R. Groves, himself an engineer, was now in complete charge of a project to assemble the greatest minds in science and discover how to harness the power of the atom as a means of bringing the war to a decisive end. The Manhattan Project (so-called because of where the research began) would wind its way through many locations during the early period of theoretical exploration, most importantly, at the University of California, where Robert J. Oppenheimer lectured and where most of the theoretical work on the bomb was done, and at Columbia University, where Enrico Fermi and his team successfully initiated the first self sustaining nuclear chain reaction.

But the Project took final form in the desert of New Mexico, where, in 1943, Oppenheimer began directing Project Y at a laboratory at Los Alamos, along with such minds as Hans Bethe, Edward Teller, and Fermi. Here, theory and practice came together, as the problems of achieving critical mass – a nuclear explosion – and the construction of a deliverable bomb were worked out.

Finally, on the morning of 16 July, in the New Mexico desert 120 miles south of Santa Fe, the first atomic bomb was detonated. The scientists and a few dignitaries had removed themselves 10,000 yards away to observe as the first mushroom cloud of searing light stretched 40,000 feet into the air and generated the destructive power of 15,000 to 20,000 tonnes of TNT. The tower on which the bomb sat when detonated was vaporised.

The question now became: on whom was the bomb to be dropped? Germany was the original target, but the Germans had already surrendered. The only belligerent remaining was Japan. On 6 and 9 August, on the order of President Truman, the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively. On 15 August Japan surrendered to the Allies, ending World War II.
 
is this an ethical/moral question, or a military question? It is easy for us, 65 years into the future to discuss whether or not we were justified to drop two, or even one nuclear bomb. The only way we can even come close to discussing this, is to put ourselves into the shoes of the decision-makers. We had just vanquished the Germans and Italians, and their minor allies. Were now fighting an ever increasingly costly war against Japan. The US leaders were repesented with a weapon that could bring the Japanese leadership to the table. No matter how much preparation our leaders got from our scientists about the aftermath of a nuclear blast, we still didn't know a whole helluva a lot. What we did know is we had a weapon that could level the better part of a city in one stroke. If the cost of a few thousand lives, (less than those lost in the firebombings) to save tens of thousands, on both sides, I would take the lesser of two evils.

Now, given what we know today, would I make the same decision? Probably not. Too many nuclear players out there, and too many unaccounted for nulcear weapons.
 
Back
Top Bottom