Nagasaki / The Bomb

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

"I realize the tragic significance of the atomic bomb... It is an awful responsibility which has come to us... We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it in His ways and for His purposes."
—President Harry S Truman, August 9, 1945

The Fat Man weapon, containing a core of about 6.4 kilograms (14 lb) of plutonium, was dropped over the city's industrial valley... It exploded 43 seconds later at 469 metres (1,539 ft) above the ground halfway between the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works in the south and the Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works (Torpedo Works) in the north.
The resulting explosion had a blast yield equivalent to 21 kilotons of TNT (88 TJ). The explosion generated heat estimated at 3,900 °C (7,050 °F) and winds that were estimated at 1,005 km/h (624 mph).
Casualty estimates for immediate deaths range from 40,000 to 75,000. Total deaths by the end of 1945 may have reached 80,000.

(Source: Wiki)

Read up on the Nagasaki A bomb attack as it's the anniversary today and I wondered what fellow revlefters thought about nuclear weapons. I would imagine that in a communist society there would be no need of such devastating weapons. But here and now, what is your opinion on this technology? Who should have control of it? Should we strive to destroy both the weapons and, somehow, the knowledge to make them? Are they necessary in some circumtances? etc
My own opinion is that the sooner these weapons cease to exist, the better. But how that can be acheived, I've no idea.

[citizen of industry]

Big protests in Hiroshima last weekend on the anniversary. Personally, I look forward to the day when we finally have communism and toddlers don't have to be incinerated for profit anymore. In the here and now, it's regretful, but I think some countries are compelled to develop nuclear weapons just to keep from getting invaded by US imperialism. I think for them it's more of a bargaining chip than a weapon they intend to use. But because they exist they might very well be used.

Incidentally, I bought this children's book for my kid, Hiroshima no pika. I think more people should read it. It tells the story of one of Truman's "enemies," a little girl and her mother. Found the English translation online: http://kindergeschichten.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/hiroshima-no-pika-the-flash-of-hiroshima-toshi-maruki/

[The Cheshire Cat]

Man's most horrible creation. It has the potential to incinerate everything in a great distance, leaving nothing behind but a dead, empty wasteland. I do not see how that could support our revolutionairy struggle. A revolution should save more lives than it destroys. This will not be the case when atomic bombs are used.

As the creator of the atomic bomb, J. Robert. Oppenheimer, watched the first test explosion, he thought: "I have become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

Oppenheimer was a communist in his younger years, according to wikipedia.

[Lynx]

Get rid of the stockpiles, but how small can these weapons be made in terms of yield? Small nukes may find use as battlefield weapons, along with other horrors such as biological and chemical warfare.
The motivation for war has to be eliminated as well.

[Rafiq]

Well, if you didn't know, the rhetoric regarding how it was "necessary" to stop the Japanese is absolute garbage. By the time they used it, the Japanese were already going to surrender, and the Americans knew that. The reason? To stick a middle finger at the Soviet Union. To scare them.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Well, if you didn't know, the rhetoric regarding how it was "necessary" to stop the Japanese is absolute garbage. By the time they used it, the Japanese were already going to surrender, and the Americans knew that. The reason? To stick a middle finger at the Soviet Union. To scare them.

I don't really know how much basis this argument has. Certainly there is a case to say that the bombings were unnecessary (with which I agree), but I think it has much more to do with internal politics in the Allied high command than it does such a simplistic "they wanted to scare Russia" explanation. Certainly, MacArthur was part of this "they," yet he deemed the bombings militarily unnecessary. So I guess the question becomes, who is this "they" and why? The answer will be found, as I said, in the internal struggles of the high command.

Keep in mind that the Soviets went along with the allies' plans the entire time, even going so far as to stall the Japanese while they moved their troops to the eastern front before declaring war as they agreed in the various Conferences.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Certainly, MacArthur was part of this "they," yet he deemed the bombings militarily unnecessary.

Not just MacArthur, but also Eisenhower and Nimitz (if memory serves me correctly).

I agree that the explanation of the USA simply wanting to give a big FU to the USSR is convenient but probably too simplistic and not entirely true.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Not just MacArthur, but also Eisenhower and Nimitz (if memory serves me correctly).

Among others. I was just using MacArthur as an example, so you are certainly correct.


I agree that the explanation of the USA simply wanting to give a big FU to the USSR is convenient but probably too simplistic and not entirely true.

Indeed, it is similar to how the "anti-imperialist" line on the Korean war is untrue on the same grounds; the reality is in the internal politics. Most socialists (or pro-myth folks) don't understand how MacArthur bullied Truman into it, for example.

[redbrigade]

The motivation for war most be eliminated at the division that make men want to fight should be removed through education, The bomb has shown many people the destruction all out war can have, and nobody ever wants to see it in action again

[Comrades Unite!]

It just fucking sickens me when people like Truman try to justify their actions by using the 'god' crap.

Horrible man.

[Raúl Duke]

I'm not sure if the Japanese where willing to surrender just yet...I may be wrong.
If anything, they might be willing to negotiate but the US wanted unconditional surrender.

But the Soviets did factor strongly in when it came to the use of the bomb.
After the Soviets over-ran Korea, the Americans didn't want them to invade Japan and then have a future where Japan would be divided between South and North just like the division of Germany. Also, the Americans projected heavy casualties on their side if they invaded Japan plus a lot of Japanese civilian deaths, etc due to suicides.

As an extra, dropping it would also be a show of force to the world.

[Raúl Duke]

I think atomic weapons, especially the ones we got currently in the world, are frightening and horrible weapons of war. I hope we may never again use them against other humans.

[Hermes]

I'm not sure if the Japanese where willing to surrender just yet...I may be wrong.
If anything, they might be willing to negotiate but the US wanted unconditional surrender.

But the Soviets did factor strongly in when it came to the use of the bomb.
After the Soviets over-ran Korea, the Americans didn't want them to invade Japan and then have a future where Japan would be divided between South and North just like the division of Germany. Also, the Americans projected heavy casualties on their side if they invaded Japan plus a lot of Japanese civilian deaths, etc due to suicides.

As an extra, dropping it would also be a show of force to the world.

Unconditional surrender is a kind of terrible ideal, though. To be honest, the Japanese would have surrendered had the Allies simply clarified the post-war status of Hirohito.

As to dropping it, a fair amount was probably to deter a Soviet invasion of Japan, but also just because it was a new weapon. They had spent quite a bit of money and time developing it, and with Germany out of the war there was only one suitable target. They had kept Hiroshima and Nagasaki untouched for testing purposes, if I remember correctly.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I agree that part of the motivation was to show the world, and especially the USSR what these weapons could do. But I think part of the reason they were somehow able to do this, especially the second bomb on Nagasaki, was due in part to the disgusting racist views held by by the US leadership. Just as they didn't round up people of German descent and put them in camps, they also might have hesitated to use nuclear weapons twice (!) just to flex their muscle. Of course, the fire bombing of Dresden suggests that I could be totally full of shit on this point.

[Hermes]

I agree that part of the motivation was to show the world, and especially the USSR what these weapons could do. But I think part of the reason they were somehow able to do this, especially the second bomb on Nagasaki, was due in part to the disgusting racist views held by by the US leadership. Just as they didn't round up people of German descent and put them in camps, they also might have hesitated to use nuclear weapons twice (!) just to flex their muscle. Of course, the fire bombing of Dresden suggests that I could be totally full of shit on this point.

Unfortunately, I can't find the poll, but I think a survey taken after the war showed that a percentage of the population (not a majority, I think it was around 15%, give or take) wanted to delay dropping the atomic bombs until we had more of them, and then drop all of them so quickly that they couldn't surrender in time.

[Invader Zim]

The US actually commissioned an investigation shortly after the war which looked into the effect of the bombing campaign on the Japanese ware effort. It concluded:


"There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html#jstetw

Quite interesting (http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/28318.html)

[Teacher]

Japan was not on the verge of surrendering and the bomb probably did save a lot of lives in the particular case of World War II.

[citizen of industry]

Japan was not on the verge of surrendering and the bomb probably did save a lot of lives in the particular case of World War II.

There's no way to prove that assertion. Nuking two cities and their civilian population can not be used to make a claim it was done to "save lives." Furthermore, the Japanese did , in fact, surrender, unlike the Germans. So who is to say they wouldn't have surrendered without the bombs? With what would they have opposed a US invasion?

[Teacher]

The Japanese were building up a massive force to counter a U.S. invasion of the Japanese mainland and were ready to fight to the bitter end. The shock of the atomic bombs coupled with the Soviet entry into the war was what caused them to surrender. If not for the bombs the war likely would have raged on with many more American, Japanese, and especially Chinese casualties. Without a doubt more than were killed by the atomic bombs. Like it or not, ending the war quickly saved lives.

[Hermes]

The Japanese were building up a massive force to counter a U.S. invasion of the Japanese mainland and were ready to fight to the bitter end. The shock of the atomic bombs coupled with the Soviet entry into the war was what caused them to surrender. If not for the bombs the war likely would have raged on with many more American, Japanese, and especially Chinese casualties. Without a doubt more than were killed by the atomic bombs. Like it or not, ending the war quickly saved lives.

Most of the 'force' they were massing, however, consisted of untrained civilians. The large majority of their industrial capacity wasn't actually in Japan; it was in Manchukuo. The Soviet conquest of that territory would have deprived them of the majority of their resources.

You're also still neglecting the fact that the US (and the rest of the allies) had an almost complete naval blockade of Japan, and were bombing it conventionally to an extreme extent.

[citizen of industry]

On top of the fact that their navy, merchant marine and airpower was completely destroyed by that time. They had nothing capable of even slowing a US invasion, and their surrender probably had more to do with the pending invasion of Kyushu with no way of defending against it than the two bombs. If they were planning on pursuing a scorched earth policy, as you claim, why did they surrender after the bombs? At the time they correctly assumed the US had only 2 or 3 bombs, so they had some breathing room, from nukes anyway, not from incendiaries. But even with the incendiaries, most of the children had been evacuated into the countryside.

[Invader Zim]

The Japanese were building up a massive force to counter a U.S. invasion of the Japanese mainland and were ready to fight to the bitter end. The shock of the atomic bombs coupled with the Soviet entry into the war was what caused them to surrender. If not for the bombs the war likely would have raged on with many more American, Japanese, and especially Chinese casualties. Without a doubt more than were killed by the atomic bombs. Like it or not, ending the war quickly saved lives.

The problem with this is that you treat the Japanese high command as one unified likeminded entity. It wasn't, and in fact was split down the middle, with those who advocated a military peace solution and those a diplomatic route. The real question is whether the bombs gave the later the edge or whether it was a combination of factors catalysed by either the bombs, the soviet invasion of manchuria and the Kuril islands, or both. I dont think that the bombs caused the end, rather they helped determine the precise timing.

[Salyut]

On top of the fact that their navy, merchant marine and airpower was completely destroyed by that time. They had nothing capable of even slowing a US invasion, and their surrender probably had more to do with the pending invasion of Kyushu with no way of defending against it than the two bombs. If they were planning on pursuing a scorched earth policy, as you claim, why did they surrender after the bombs? At the time they correctly assumed the US had only 2 or 3 bombs, so they had some breathing room, from nukes anyway, not from incendiaries. But even with the incendiaries, most of the children had been evacuated into the countryside.

Operation Starvation was really, really hurting the Japanese ability to feed themselves. Coupled with mass fire raids on Japanese cities... I'm not really certain there would be a Japan left to occupy.

There are some really good books on Operation Downfall that talk about what would have happened had the Japanese not surrendered when they did. Here (http://www.amazon.com/Downfall-The-Imperial-Japanese-Empire/dp/067941424X) and here. (http://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Operation-Downfall-1945-1947/dp/1591143160) They cover the subject better then I can.

[Teacher]

That book linked above by Richard Frank debunks a lot of the silly stuff that has become common currency on the left about the atomic bomb from people like Zinn and Alperovitz. The anti-atomic bomb story you read in A People's History of the United States has been debunked for a long time. The only revisionist stirrings have been about whether or not the bombs or the Soviet intervention were more important. Hasegawa has argued pretty convincingly that perhaps the latter was more important.

[Invader Zim]

The only revisionist stirrings have been about whether or not the bombs or the Soviet intervention were more important. Hasegawa has argued pretty convincingly that perhaps the latter was more important.

This is just nonsense. Firstly Frank's views should be taken in the light if those abysmal 'what If' books, to which he contributed. Put simply, he seemingly accepts the thesis that the bombs were necessary. That is the orthodox view. The alternative view is that they were not necessary and that surrender would have cone sooner or later. 2. Hasegawa was made to look the fool by Asada, and quite frankly Asada's articles have been game changers on this debate. I suggest you read them.

[Invader Zim]

In fairness, having just re-read Frank's essay on the subject, problematic though I still find it, he does raise some interesting points regarding likely death tolls following a Soviet invasion of the Japanese main home islands. He also points out just how pecarious Japan's situation was in the light of the USA's decision to target Japanese rail lines, which would have caused massive famine. Maybe there is more to his view than I had previously given him credit for. Not that I'm convinced, but it certainly is something to read more about.

[Princess Luna]

I don't have time to read the whole thread so this may have already been said but, on the morning the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki word had just reached Tokyo about what had happened at Hiroshima, there was no time for the Japanese government to respond before the second bomb was dropped. This completely destroys the defense that the bombing was done to save lives, and not to test the effects of a atomic bomb on a city, in preparation of the cold war.

[Invader Zim]

I don't have time to read the whole thread so this may have already been said but, on the morning the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki word had just reached Tokyo about what had happened at Hiroshima, there was no time for the Japanese government to respond before the second bomb was dropped. This completely destroys the defense that the bombing was done to save lives, and not to test the effects of a atomic bomb on a city, in preparation of the cold war.

That simply isn't true. Tokyo knew what had happened withoin hours of the the bombing. When Hiroshima basically went 'dark' in terms of radio traffic, people investigated and quickly sent word to Tokyo. This was WW2, not the medieval period. The speed news travelled wasn't limited by the maximum velocity of a person on a horse.