Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Was there a third atomic bomb? [View all]Ms. Toad
(38,422 posts)27. 200,000 largely civilians - many of whom were children, killed or injured directly by the bomb
or the immediate effects of the radiation. Countless others were killed indirectly by the bombs as a result of developing radiation induced cancer years later.
That's hardly "without a bloodbath."
Argue that the bombs ended the war earlier than it might otherwise have ended, if you want, but it is insincere to pretend it wasn't a bloodbath - or that the civilians who were the primary victims of the bomb, including children, were brutal monsters, or that a large urban area wasn't chosen as a psychological tactic - for much the same reason that Isis targets civillian targets in Syria - to generate international outrage.
The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 1011, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized.
The committee felt Kyoto, as an intellectual center of Japan, had a population "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon." Hiroshima was described as "an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focusing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target."
Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson struck Kyoto from the list because of its cultural significance, over the objections of General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project. According to Professor Edwin O. Reischauer, Stimson "had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier."
On July 25, Nagasaki was put on the target list in place of Kyoto.
The committee felt Kyoto, as an intellectual center of Japan, had a population "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon." Hiroshima was described as "an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focusing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target."
Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson struck Kyoto from the list because of its cultural significance, over the objections of General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project. According to Professor Edwin O. Reischauer, Stimson "had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier."
On July 25, Nagasaki was put on the target list in place of Kyoto.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Bombing_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
119 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Climate change and nuclear energy are intimately connected. If we abandon nuclear energy...
NNadir
Aug 2017
#42
Bullshit. This tiresome crap was clearly insane 20 years ago, but as things are now, it's worse.
NNadir
Aug 2017
#55
A blockade however, could have been both efficient and effective as per Tsuyoshi Hasegawa
LanternWaste
Aug 2017
#73
And yet somehow causing the deaths of children through induced famine is a morally superior
Marengo
Aug 2017
#104
Robert Oppenheimer wanted a test in the Pacific with Japanese emissaries as witnesses.
roamer65
Aug 2017
#12
That is not even remotely true. Only a small subset of Manhattan Project scientists, not...
NNadir
Aug 2017
#44
Oppenheimer was a very complex and deep man, Truman less so, but in my opinion...
NNadir
Aug 2017
#52
They were surrounded and beaten. Not like they were going to attack us at that point.
Hoyt
Aug 2017
#61
I'll trust scholars like H Zinn. Truthfully, I think it had a lot to do with we were bombing Asians
Hoyt
Aug 2017
#70
Ha. What do you call rationalizing the destruction of 150,000 innocent women and children?
Hoyt
Aug 2017
#95
Forced to do? At that point, Japan was about as much a threat to us as Vietnam and Iraq.
Hoyt
Aug 2017
#97
The Japanese were holding an estimated 125,000 prisoners when they surrendered.
Kentonio
Aug 2017
#99
What about the thousands of innocents dying every day in Japanese occupied countries
hack89
Aug 2017
#100
Would we not have used a nuke on Germany if any were available prior to the surrender?
Marengo
Aug 2017
#106
According to General Groves, President Roosevelt expressed a desire to do so shortly before Yalta.
Marengo
Aug 2017
#110
So it's OK for Roosevelt to have a desire, but you won't accept the Japanese were beaten
Hoyt
Aug 2017
#113
Apparently you don't understand. According to General Groves, FDR, being alarmed by the German...
Marengo
Aug 2017
#117
I understand completely. People who are into guns are also into nuking people like Japanese women
Hoyt
Aug 2017
#118
That doesn't answer any of my questions to you, how about you try again? In your own words...
Marengo
Aug 2017
#119
And yet the tonnage of the aerial bombs US forces dropped on Germany was far greater than Japan
Marengo
Aug 2017
#111
3.4 million Japanese military personnel in the occupied territories at the time of surrender.
Marengo
Aug 2017
#107
Approximately 3.4 million Japanese military personnel in the occupied territories at the time...
Marengo
Aug 2017
#67
I'm arguing we had the most destructive weapon ever and were itching to use it. Just like
Hoyt
Aug 2017
#69
Those who arguably suffered the most from Japanese aggression, the Chinese, have little...
Marengo
Aug 2017
#71
200,000 largely civilians - many of whom were children, killed or injured directly by the bomb
Ms. Toad
Aug 2017
#27
The fight over an island the size of 10 Washington DC's cost about that many lives.
NutmegYankee
Aug 2017
#30
My reference to monsters refers to the national downplaying of Japan to it's wartime atrocities.
NutmegYankee
Aug 2017
#33
My point is, you are minimizing, and dehumaninzing the damage we chose to inflict.
Ms. Toad
Aug 2017
#34
We go berserk every time some country wants a nuke, yet we are the only country vile
Hoyt
Aug 2017
#11
We darn sure would not have invaded Iraq and butchered thousands if they had nukes.
Hoyt
Aug 2017
#16
Christ, sounds like you -- like Trump -- are promoting war. Sorry, I'd call it another Iraq, but NK
Hoyt
Aug 2017
#78
Iraq had no military or WMD's. That's why bush invaded Iraq and why countries like NK want nukes.
Hoyt
Aug 2017
#83
Geez, my small state has an air force bigger than that. And not a one of the few planes Iraq had,
Hoyt
Aug 2017
#89
You say 'obviously' but they actually came much closer to being used than people think.
Kentonio
Aug 2017
#94
