I'm curious. I guess this is political.

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18299
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: I'm curious. I guess this is political.

Post by BoSoxGal »

Big RR wrote:
Sun Jul 10, 2022 8:26 pm
The decision 75 years ago to use atomic bombs was fuelled not by strategy but by sheer inhumanity
I have to disagree; the strategy was to stress to the Japanese leadership the futility of keeping on fighting, just like the firebombing of Tokyo was. (or, using an earlier example, Sherman's march was) Was it inhumane? I think likely was; but was it intended to be inhumane and absent of any other strategy? I seriously doubt it. War is inhumane and messy.

Personally, I would have preferred to bomb the emperor's palace or military headquarters, but my guess is this was rejected because there would be no one to surrender (among other reasons). And, at that time, how do you have a weapon which will end the war and save the lives of your troops (and regardless of the number it saved a great number of American lies) and not use it? We think that way now about nuclear weapons, but it was just viewed as a bigger gun then.
This comment reads as though you didn’t read past the title.

Nauseating so see so many defending use of atomic weapons in this thread. I guess you all think you’re smarter than Eisenhower? No, I think you all swallowed the propaganda on this issue and have never grown past it.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: I'm curious. I guess this is political.

Post by Big RR »

I assure you I read the entire post; so what? I have stated my position and you can dismiss or attack it at your leisure. sure, many disagreed of the necessity of the bombings, and many others not mentioned in the article have defended it. I honestly love seeing McNamra's opinion as to morality, given that he was one of the major architects of US policy in Vietnam, hardly something moral (or even defesinble)--a war being conducted where there was no US interest other than showing we had the will to fight.

As I have said, given what we know now, I think it is something that should not have been done; but after years of hard fighting with it looking like more of the same to come, I will not blame the leadership for making the choices they did in 1945. If you choose to, it is your right.

Face it, if Germany didn't surrender when they did, the bombs likely would have been dropped on them; would you similarly condemn that action to end the holocaust early?

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: I'm curious. I guess this is political.

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

The 'Eisenhower was against the bomb' trope is probably revisionist history. Historians have looked at the evidence and concluded that Eisenhower's later statements that he had told Stimson (Secy of War to both FDR and HST) not to use the bomb were at best exaggerated.

There are no good options once you are in a war, only lesser evils. Yes: the bomb was used against a race who did not look like us (to summarize BSG's statement and certainly many of the attitudes of the time) but we have no way of knowing if it would have been used against Germany had the war in Europe lasted a few more months and had the calculations of probable losses of both Allied troops and Axis civilians been the same.

I did not know (Jarl's post) that a third weapon was ready so soon but I found a reference that it was planned for August 19th and there were a further several weapons scheduled for delivery ands in September and beyond . It's a long time since I read Richard Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb so I'm not sure if this is more recent information or my own fallible memory.

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9015
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: I'm curious. I guess this is political.

Post by Bicycle Bill »

ex-khobar Andy wrote:
Mon Jul 11, 2022 12:20 am
There are no good options once you are in a war, only lesser evils. Yes: the bomb was used against a race who did not look like us (to summarize BSG's statement and certainly many of the attitudes of the time) but we have no way of knowing if it would have been used against Germany had the war in Europe lasted a few more months and had the calculations of probable losses of both Allied troops and Axis civilians been the same.
It is no secret that Nazi Germany implemented policirs and tactics (the Blitz of London, and other bombing raids on industrial cities without regard for collateral damage to non-combatants), as well as developed 'vengeance weapons' such as the 'Stuka' dive bombers and the V-1 and V-2 semi-guided missiles that were designed to create terror among the civilian populations. It is also no secret that the Third Reich was conducting their own experiments and programs with regard to the possible development of nuclear weapons.

We also can safely assume, given their efforts at the systematic, wholesale elimination of those who did not fit the model of the Aryan 'Ubermensch', that had their efforts succeeded they would had no qualms whatsoever about deploying said weapons against targets like London, Moscow, Stalingrad, or the advancing Allied forces that were converging on Berlin itself during Hitler's final days in Apil 1945.

So, yeah. Better we (the USA) develop the A-bomb and use it on a limited basis than let a madman like Der Fuehrer turn large parts of Europe into a radioactive wasteland.

-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: I'm curious. I guess this is political.

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

I like learning new stuff. I did not know that the V in V-1, V-2 stood for Vergeltungswaffen = vengeance weapon. Thanks BB.

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: I'm curious. I guess this is political.

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

And there were certainly fears that Germany, given its primacy in science, was also secretly developing its own atomic weapons. Heisenberg was involved in such a program and there is some evidence, perhaps self serving on Heisenberg's part, that he and other scientists deliberately dragged their feet because the prospect of Hitler having an atomic weapon was just too awful for them to consider.

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: I'm curious. I guess this is political.

Post by Big RR »

I do believe FDR said on a couple of occasions that, had the bomb been ready in time, he would have dropped it on Germany. I also, I recall reading that a study was conducted at one of the Manhattan Project facilities to determine whether Germany or Japan would benefit more from the remains of a non functioning bomb (there was always concerns it would not work, hence the hesitation in conducting a demonstration in a non populated area. I do think there was less concern about Japan because of the state of its science at the time. Also, early on, many of the ex-German and Jewish scientists were participating in the development because they wanted to stop Germany (and they feared Germany developing it first). Even though the Trinity site test was in July, after Germany surrendered, there was no real recorded opposition among the scientists to dropping it on Germany, even among those who signed the Szilard Petition. Sure there was a racism against the Japanese (FDR capitalized on this throughout the war), but many hated the Germans just as much, especially those with relatives in Europe. My guess is that, had Germany not surrendered (and did not appear ready to do so in the near future), at least one bomb would have been dropped on some German site.

Again, it's easy to now say it was not needed; but that's with a lot of hindsight. They didn't know it would work for sure under battle conditions; the army (all the services actually) just saw it as a bigger gun we spent tons of money on developing that should be used, and few saw the result of the development or its use. I'm not defending its use, but given the time and what people then knew, I'm not condemning the people who built and/or used the devices.

About Heisenberg slowing the German atomic program down; I'm not certain. :D

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: I'm curious. I guess this is political.

Post by Econoline »

Big RR wrote:
Mon Jul 11, 2022 2:46 pm
About Heisenberg slowing the German atomic program down; I'm not certain. :D
:ok :lol: Good one!
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11266
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: I'm curious. I guess this is political.

Post by Crackpot »

Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

Post Reply