66 years ago today..August 6th, 1945.

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Vassili Zaitzev

Master Sergeant
2,953
95
Nov 25, 2005
Connecticut, United States
Today marks the 66th anniversary of the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima, followed three days later by the bombing of Nagasaki. The Imperial Japanese military surrendered six days later after Nagasaki, on the 15th of August. I would like everyone to give a moment of silence for this terrible, but neccasary course of action.
 
I´m really very sorry for all the civilan victims.
From my personal view they died to allow us and our kids to live. I´m sure that without those 2 terrible mementos the cold war would end up in nuclear conflict - WWIII, the ultimate one...
No more.
 
The nuclear raids saved millions of lives. They were necessary, they were the right decision at the right time, without question. Not using the atomic bombs to end the war would have been criminally negligent.

With that said, God help us if they ever are used again!

TO
 
I have had a number of conversations this weekend with family members explaining to them the loss of life over the atomic bombs and the fire bombing raids over Tokyo, Desden, and Cologne. It has made for some good discussions.
 
My father was in the 6th Marine Division on Okinawa and they were scheduled to be in on the invasion of Japan. Obviously I am glad he didn't have to invade ( he was with the occupation forces).

That said I have a lot of sympathy for the victims and their family's who had little choice in what their leaders chose to do (or not do) that brought them to that point.

Hopefully in the future, should it be necessary, we can target leaders and not populations.
 
For those of you who have to discuss this with friends/relatives/co-workers, etc., I'd like to give you a few talking points.

1. The most effective argument for the use of the bomb is, as stated above, it saved millions of lives. Most of these would have been Japanese, Chinese, et al., not Allied soldiers. So if someone states that the bombs were a bad idea, ask them "What method of ending the war quickly do you propose and what method would result in fewer casualties?" The idea of blockade is often put forward, but that's also called "starving them out." We all know who gets the most and best food when there is a siege, the military and the command structure. The old and the young are usually last, and as they were already stressed in Japan, a starvation campaign would have been devastating. Add to this the thought that it's hardly the moral high ground here as it's indiscriminate and would have affected the entire population, not just two cities.

2. It was going to get worse. If the shock and awe campaign hadn't worked, Gen. George Marshall had asked that the next eight bombs be reserved for combat deployment during Operation Olympic. So there would have been ten places nuked in Japan. And the proposed deployment plan was for the Allied troops to go through "Ground Zero" about 1/2 hour after the bomb was dropped. The casualties due to radiation exposure might have caused the invasion to grind to a halt as the front line troops were followed through the blast area by the support units. Being ignorant of the real dangers of "fallout" we might have set up hospitals for the radiation cases in "hot" areas, hastening their demise. And the Japanese civilians would either not be getting any treatment or they would be swamping the medics.
 
".... If the shock and awe campaign hadn't worked, Gen. George Marshall had asked that the next eight bombs be reserved for combat deployment during Operation Olympic. So there would have been ten places nuked in Japan. And the proposed deployment plan was for the Allied troops to go through "Ground Zero" about 1/2 hour after the bomb was dropped."

Didn't know that. Sobering.

Thanks,

MM
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back