Was dropping the A-bomb right?

Aleldar · Post by **Aleldar** » Wed Nov 07, 2001 12:37 pm

They did know about the fallout. Those building the damn thing told them. It like they know what the biological weapons will do, when they build them. It is just sad that, are not different means to stop a war.

The number on thing is, never to start one.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Nov 07, 2001 12:55 pm

Originally posted by Aleldar:
They did know about the fallout. Those building the damn thing told them. It like they know what the biological weapons will do, when they build them. It is just sad that, are not different means to stop a war.

The number on thing is, never to start one.

@Aleldar, so you say; but I can only ask you what I've asked people who have claimed this, before: what's your source for information concerning Truman knowing the halflife of the atmoic isotopes created by the A-bomb? I've yet to receive a straightforward reply on this point from anybody. My impression was that nobody had that figured out until at least a year or two after the bombs were dropped.

Aleldar · Post by **Aleldar** » Wed Nov 07, 2001 1:10 pm

You tell me, when a bomb that size explodes and incinerates everthing in a certain radius. Then leaves body shadows on the concrete, not to mention skin peeling off of people 5 to 10 miles away, because of the heat. They had to know something.

Next thing you are going to tell me. That Area 51 does not exsist, either.

Case closed, I'm not going to talk about this anymore. All these threads about war and bombs are starting to depress me. I thought this was a gaming board, that is why I joined. But, I see my first mistake was posting in this thread. Now, I know why Weasel wants peace on this board.

Aleldar · Post by **Aleldar** » Wed Nov 07, 2001 1:27 pm

I have two questions?

Putting up this tread. Did you ever think that, this will offend Japanese people? Or maybe a decendent of someone who's family member worked on those two bombs?

There are those who would like to forget, how horrorable that time was. They were people just like you and me. And they died a horrorable death, war or not. It was still horrorable in Japan and also this country. Quite a few people died of cancer, from the fallout out West. To name a famous person John Wayne was one of them.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Wed Nov 07, 2001 1:33 pm

When you ask the question of whether or not it was right to drop the bomb, first you have to consider the implications of bombing a city. Given that the Americans had done it before, only this time using a single plane to do the job it had previously taken 600 planes, there's no reason to believe that Truman or Hap Arnold felt bad at all about destroying a city or terrorizing a civilian population.

When you add in the implications of using a nuclear weapon, you have to separate what Truman knew from what we know now. Unlike modern VPs like George Bush (the elder) and **** [EDIT-I'm not intentionally using profanity; I can't help what the Veep's first name is] Cheney, Truman was kept in the dark about a lot of things by Roosevelt. Heck, he didn't even know about the Manhattan Project until he became president.

Our friend Xandax rightly points out that hindsight is 20/20. The documentary evidence regarding what Truman did or did not know about the bomb is vague at best. Certainly someone knew that the radiation was harmful and they probably would have told one of Truman's flappers about it (but maybe that information didn't get up to the president); what we didn't know was how much fallout the bomb would cause and how long it would be around, but we certainly knew it would have detrimental effects.

When the first bomb was tested at Los Alamos, there was a faction of scientists who postulated that the explosion would cause a fusion reaction in the hydrogen in the atmosphere and destroy the planet. They were (of course) wrong. This example illustrates how much Robert Oppenheimer et al did not know and could only theorise about.

If you're going to criticise Harry Truman for deciding to drop the bomb on Japan, you have to first consider what he did or did now know about the weapon and its effects. Then you have to take into account his responsibilities as the president of the United States and understand all of the different factors what went into his decision. Certainly it's not a decision I would like to make, but that's part of the job of being the president.

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: HighLordDave ]

Aleldar · Post by **Aleldar** » Wed Nov 07, 2001 1:42 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave:
When you ask the question of whether or not it was right to drop the bomb, first you have to consider the implications of bombing a city. Given that the Americans had done it before, only this time using a single plane to do the job it had previously taken 600 planes, there's no reason to believe that Truman or Hap Arnold felt bad at all about destroying a city or terrorizing a civilian population.

When you add in the implications of using a nuclear weapon, you have to separate what Truman knew from what we know now. Unlike modern VPs like George Bush (the elder) and **** [EDIT-I'm not intentionally using profanity; I can't help what the Veep's first name is] Cheney, Truman was kept in the dark about a lot of things by Roosevelt. Heck, he didn't even know about the Manhattan Project until he became president.

Our friend Xandax rightly points out that hindsight is 20/20. The documentary evidence regarding what Truman did or did not know about the bomb is vague at best. Certainly someone knew that the radiation was harmful and they probably would have told one of Truman's flappers about it (but maybe that information didn't get up to the president); what we didn't know was how much fallout the bomb would cause and how long it would be around, but we certainly knew it would have detrimental effects.

When the first bomb was tested at Los Alamos, there was a faction of scientists who postulated that the explosion would cause a fusion reaction in the hydrogen in the atmosphere and destroy the planet. They were (of course) wrong. This example illustrates how much Robert Oppenheimer et al did not know and could only theorise about.

If you're going to criticise Harry Truman for deciding to drop the bomb on Japan, you have to first consider what he did or did now know about the weapon and its effects. Then you have to take into account his responsibilities as the president of the United States and understand all of the different factors what went into his decision. Certainly it's not a decision I would like to make, but that's part of the job of being the president.

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: HighLordDave ]

I never said I was critizing Truman. I said they, meaning the military and others working on the bomb. Even now the President is kept in the dark on new tech stuff.

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Wed Nov 07, 2001 2:22 pm

@Dottie: Sorry, I must have confused your post and someone else's somewhat. I apologize.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Nov 07, 2001 4:42 pm

Originally posted by Aleldar:
You tell me, when a bomb that size explodes and incinerates everthing in a certain radius. Then leaves body shadows on the concrete, not to mention skin peeling off of people 5 to 10 miles away, because of the heat. They had to know something.

Well, they knew the A-bombs achieved an amazing temperature at ground zero, yeah, because of local US tests. But that doesn't prove anything regarding knowledge about the dangers of radioactive fallout, or that the contamination would last for so long.

If anything, the evidence seems to run the other way. Consider: the Defense Dept actually brought in soldiers to check the test sites shortly after explosions were triggered and bring back samples *without any kind of protective gear.* Tests were also held in the Utah deserts within a hundred miles of habitations, and an unusually high incident of breast cancers have developed in that area more than thirty years after the tests were halted.

It would be ridiculous to consider that the US govermment would deliberately put the health of its own citizenry at risk and create the possibility of a backlash. They could have done all the tests without human interference, and not a hundred, but five hundred miles from human habitation. That they didn't, seems to indicate they genuinely didn't know about problems of contamination in the short or longterm.

I'm not excusing their actions. I'm not commenting upon the rightness or wrongness of dropping the bomb, here. I'm just suggesting that, as has been said before, hindsight is 20/20. Truman probably had no idea what he was truly unleashing when he dropped the A-bombs, and the scientists who gave him information were either insufficient in their tests, or deliberately falsifying material. Possibly both. Remember, Edward Teller was in charge, and Teller is also the mastermind behind the Satellite Defense Shield that drives Dubbyah into delights.

Celegorm · Post by **Celegorm** » Wed Nov 07, 2001 5:14 pm

my apologies for using the term "jap" and "japs". i'm always worried about misspelling japanese so i shorten it. that and i type too fast anyway heh.

anyways...

I would be willing to sacrifice myself against Nazis, but that is for the sake of my own and others freedom, not for the sake of my nation. And i would do so by targeting Nazis not by targeting people who happend to live near them.

That is right, soldiers doesnt make policy. Essentialy soldiers are for-hire guns, wich by itself are imoral. However fighting for a cause you percive as just is a different thing. - dottie

your freedom as an individual is the basis of the nation your in. without that nations freedom you have none either. without your freedom your nation has none either. the two are inclusive. you lose one, you've lost the other.

soldiers for hire = mercinary. plain and simple. i don't think (although i haven't done the interviews) that most soldiers who stay in the army for a career and don't leave to be exactly that, a mercinary, fight for anything but their nation.

that's why its the national army. there's a lot of pride in being apart of your national army, and serving your nation. protecting its ideals and maintaining its laws and order to it when necissary. i would love to serve in the army, or any other branch, but i can't. during the day when a private army could be raised there were still people who would rather serve their king and country, then serve a man for money. because they take pride in it. they take pride in serving the nation in which they live. that and the taxes are better

as for targetting the nazis and not targetting them?... well, who do you think gave birth to them. who do you think farmed their food. who do you think made their guns, housed their troops, printed off their signs and propaganda. who do you think strung their phonewire and attended their rallies and tuned into their radio shows.

it wasn't all soldiers, but they were the enemy during the war. the key is *during the war*. at that time its importent to take out the army, and all of the resorces that keep that army on the field. if their sorce of guns and bullets dry up, then they can't fight. thats what happened to russia, and why we sent convoy after convoy to them. they couldn't produce what was needed in enough numbers to keep their men going.

if you take out the factories that make those things, then the army is stalled in the field, chocked off by its own needs.

and the problem in japan is that the people *were* fighting for their nation. there was a lot of pride taken by their people, something that is very honorable. i believe that if pushed the people at the time would've faught back beside their own sons and brothers, and not sat inside their houses sipping tea commenting on the weather. same with anyone else in the world. people take pride and want to belong in something higher than themselves, and when its threatened they move to defend it. the german people believed in hitler, for the most part. and we saw his followers flock to his banner at the end of the war in the hitler youth units among others. the island empire would've been a tough match for the US military, and it would've been a long and bloody campaign.

i would recommend you read up on the theories of general sherman of the union army during the US civil war. he was one of the first generals to stop being a gentlemen and start the concept of total war, at least in "modern warfare".

basically put: when the army's people have no will left to fight, then the army loses its will to fight; and the means to do so.

to boil it down to one line...

the exact honor your claiming we violated to end the war is the same honor that would've made it ten times more bloody had we not violated it.

just my opinion...

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Nov 07, 2001 5:42 pm

I am surprised to see so many people have the opinion that only two alternatives existed - A-bombs or land invasion.

Originally posted by VoodooDali:
I think we need CE or someone else knowledgeable about physics to tell us what they knew about radiation in the 40's.

Some dangerous effects of radiation exposure was known already about the turn of the last century. One problem with evaluating the hazard, was that there was no way to measure the amount of radiation.

The US begun performing secret testing of effects of radiation exposure about 1940, I think. Plutonium was injected in unknowing citizens and prisoners, and prisoners were also subjects to testicular radiation. Whole body exposure experments were conducted at lab staff. Surprisingly little actually was concluded from those experiments.

By the time the H-bombs were dropped, the acute effects of massive exposure to radiation were well known, but the long term effects were not well understood. Some long term effects like decrease of white blood cells were known, and the increased risk for developing cancer was suspected. What was not known, was the increase of mutations that would lead the next generation to be affected as well

On the contrary, much of what we know today about long term effects of exposure, is from survival studies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the nuclear power plants accidents and the studying of uranium mine workers

Here is a link to the US governmental collection of human radiation experiments that are now made public: [url="http://tis.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/experiments/index.html#Contents"]http://tis.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/experiments/index.html#Contents[/url]

posted by HighLordDave:
[qb}Would the Japanese have surrendered otherwise? Maybe, maybe not. I have never seen any documented evidence to lead me to believe that they were pursing avenues of peace.

[/qb]

It's well documented that the Japanese were trying to negotiate peace through the Soviet union. Didn't you read my post above? Here are some links to original, declassified docs: [url="http://www.dannen.com/decision/index.html"]http://www.dannen.com/decision/index.html[/url] [url="http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm"]http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm[/url]

The might not change you basic opinion about whether to drop the bombs or not, but it might change your belief that the Japanese were not looking to negotiate peace.

Celegorm · Post by **Celegorm** » Wed Nov 07, 2001 6:05 pm

well then you travel down the path of did the US trust the soviet union at the time enough to negotiate a peaceful settlement that would be acceptable to the US people.

the answer, i believe, is no.

tensions were already high with the russians, and by then after the german surrender i don't think we would've let them have that kind of control, especially in areas where they had very little interest militarily.

granted, the russians and japanese have had negotiation ties before, in a war prior to 35 i believe. but i don't think a communist government would've done the deeds of the US and walked away without putting their own 2cents in.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Wed Nov 07, 2001 6:28 pm

@C Elgans:
I have read that the Japanese were talking to the west through the Soviets. However, they wanted terms similar to what the Germans got out of the First World War, namely that there would be reparations, no occupation, a reduction in territories, no war crimes trials, a scaling-back (not elimination) of the armed forces, an admission of guilt with an apology, and basic non-interference from the Allies in determining the post-war government.

Those were terms that were not acceptable to the Americans. I say "Americans" not "Allies" because we didn't give a damn about anyone else's opinion in Japan; in the minds of Roosevelt/Truman et al, since we had done all of the dirty work, we should be the ones dictating the terms. The Allies had just forced an unconditional surrender in Germany, Italy, Romania, and the other Axis partner nations. We expected Japan to capitulate in the same manner that the Germans and Italians had: completely. Anything less was unacceptable.

Given that the only words the Americans wanted to hear out of the Japanese were "unconditional surrender" and that the Japanese weren't for a minute going to consider uttering them (until we dropped the bomb), I basically do not accept any of the talk about negotiated peace as a serious or viable option in June/July 1945 (just as we don't take seriously any of Saddam Hussein's bluster about getting UN weapons inspectors back in Iraq, because the US isn't about to lift the no-fly zones). I think the Japanese knew the Americans weren't about to give the them good terms, and that any negotiations or note-passing were basic stall tactics.

We must also consider that the Americans wanted a quick end to the war with Japan so we could begin bolstering Asia against any Soviet incursion. I hate to keep harping on the perceived threat of the Soviets, but it was a real concern to Truman and his foreign policy gurus. With the Germans out of the picture and the European theatre winding down, the Americans wanted to keep anyone else (especially the Soviets, but also the French and British) from doing what the Japanese themselves had done at the end of the First War: snatch up as much territory as they could get their hands on.

Aside from the bomb and an invasion, what other options did we have if we wanted to end the war quickly? We could keep bombing them and blockading the islands until they starved or gave up, but that could possibly take years and the American public hates not having immediate results (and it wouldn't help us scare off the Soviets).

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Wed Nov 07, 2001 6:35 pm

@CE--somehow I just *knew* you'd know a lot about the radiation thing...

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Nov 07, 2001 6:49 pm

Originally posted by Gruntboy:
Yes, interesting point - guess that's why they came up with it.

Would Japan believe the demonstration? How could we show it to them? Would it matter (who do we show it to?)? What about an already bombed city or giving warning? What is the point of that?

Some of these questions we'll never know the answer to.

The idea was to describe and demonstrate the bomb by detonate in at a barren island before the eyes of all the UN representatives, and then make an ultimatum to Japan.

The full text can be read here: [url="http://www.dannen.com/decision/franck.html"]http://www.dannen.com/decision/franck.html[/url] [url="http://www.dannen.com/decision/45-07-17.html"]http://www.dannen.com/decision/45-07-17.html[/url]

But there are of course no way of knowing whether it really would have worked or not. IMO it should have been tried, anyway.

Another current idea was to warn the Japanese they should evacuate an area, and then drop the bomb there as a demonstration. That would also have been a feasible alternative before targetting cities.

But I understand the basic logic behind dropping the bombs. Kill an enemy that won't surrender with minimum loss of Allied life. Demonstration doesn't do this. Why waste an already limited hand? Why even show your hand? Delivered as a surprise and on two occassions it had the desired effect.

I think I also understand the basic logic behind it, although I still think it should never have happened and it wasn't necessary to end the war.

I agree with president Eisenhower: "the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

I think the cold war stuff is benefical side-effects as opposed to the governing reason for using the bombs.

I agree. When something horrible has happened, we must also turn and look what benefits can be drawn from this, and the keeping of the terror balance might well be such a side effect.

originally posted by Happy Evil:
Oh and as always, dont beat up on the US for finishing the fight Japan started.(sticks out toungue childishly)

So just because the other side started, that means the attacked side are allowed to do anything? If you hit me, does that make it OK for me to kill your entire family with an AK4? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here.

by Happy Evil:
Dottie speaks about people being responsible for their actions. The Japanese were held responsible for their actions.

Do you feel that intentional targetting of civilians is a legit way of holding a nation responsible for its actions? Were the Japanese citizens killed in Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki responsible for declaration of war against the US? Are the 500 000 children who have died of starvation in Iraq, taking responsibility for Saddam's actions by the UN? Are the 6000 dead in the WTC attack responsible for whatever made the terrorists want to attack the US as a nation? IMO it's very dangerous thinking to start holding civilians in a country responsible for what a nation does as a whole. I hope this is not what you mean?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Nov 07, 2001 6:55 pm

Originally posted by VoodooDali:
@CE--somehow I just *knew* you'd know a lot about the radiation thing...

Your psychic abilities probably told you that I work with radiation (positron emission) for medical purposes

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Nov 07, 2001 6:57 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans:
By the time the H-bombs were dropped, the acute effects of massive exposure to radiation were well known, but the long term effects were not well understood. Some long term effects like decrease of white blood cells were known, and the increased risk for developing cancer was suspected. What was not known, was the increase of mutations that would lead the next generation to be affected as well On the contrary, much of what we know today about long term effects of exposure, is from survival studies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the nuclear power plants accidents and the studying of uranium mine workers

@CE, thanks. Unfortunately, this pretty well confirms my thought that the US government didn't know what it was causing in the long run when it dropped that pair of bombs. However, I maintain a suspicion that Teller and his scientific colleagues were at least capable of envisioning the hazards. Doubtless, they never shared these views with the politicians. I really should put up some links to Teller's writings--they're quite scary.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Wed Nov 07, 2001 7:03 pm

Teller? Of Penn & Teller?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Nov 07, 2001 7:07 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave:
@C Elgans:
I have read that the Japanese were talking to the west through the Soviets. However, they wanted terms similar to what the Germans got out of the First World War, namely that there would be reparations, no occupation, a reduction in territories, no war crimes trials, a scaling-back (not elimination) of the armed forces, an admission of guilt with an apology, and basic non-interference from the Allies in determining the post-war government.

We will have to disagree about this, your information does not coincide with what I have read. If you post references that support your viewpoint, I will certainly read them.

Having broken the code Japan used for transmitting messages, the U.S. was able to follow Japan's efforts to end the war as it intercepted the messages between Foreign Minister Togo and Japan's Ambassador to Moscow Sato. The messages were sent as the result of the June 22, 1945 Japanese Cabinet meeting. The conditions under which Japan was willing to surrender were not clearly spelled out in the messages, aside from a willingness to give up territory occupied during the war and a repeated rejection of "unconditional surrender".

July 1945 - Japan's peace messages

Still, the messages from Togo to Sato, read by the U.S. at the time, clearly indicated that Japan was seeking to end the war:
July 11: "make clear to Russia... We have no intention of annexing or taking possession of the areas which we have been occupying as a result of the war; we hope to terminate the war".
July 12: "it is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war".
July 13: "I sent Ando, Director of the Bureau of Political Affairs to communicate to the [Soviet] Ambassador that His Majesty desired to dispatch Prince Konoye as special envoy, carrying with him the personal letter of His Majesty stating the Imperial wish to end the war" (for above items, see: U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 873-879).
July 18: "Negotiations... necessary... for soliciting Russia's good offices in concluding the war and also in improving the basis for negotiations with England and America." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/18/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
July 22: "Special Envoy Konoye's mission will be in obedience to the Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government." The July 21st communication from Togo also noted that a conference between the Emperor's emissary, Prince Konoye, and the Soviet Union, was sought, in preparation for contacting the U.S. and Great Britain (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/22/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
July 25: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter." (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 2, pg. 1260 - 1261).
July 26: Japan's Ambassador to Moscow, Sato, to the Soviet Acting Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Lozovsky: "The aim of the Japanese Government with regard to Prince Konoye's mission is to enlist the good offices of the Soviet Government in order to end the war." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/26/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).

President Truman knew of the messages' content, noting, for instance, in his diary on July 18, "Stalin had told P.M. [Prime Minister Churchill] of telegram from Jap [sic] Emperor asking for peace" (Robert Ferrell, ed., Off the Record - the Private Papers of Harry S. Truman, pg. 53)

Regarding the threat from the Soviet union: yes, I'm convinced that also played a major role in Truman et al's decision to drop the bombs, but that does not make it any more excusable IMO.

Regarding ending the war quickly - it might have ended quicker with diplomacy, we will never know.

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: C Elegans ]

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Nov 07, 2001 7:18 pm

Originally posted by fable:
@CE, thanks. Unfortunately, this pretty well confirms my thought that the US government didn't know what it was causing in the long run when it dropped that pair of bombs. However, I maintain a suspicion that Teller and his scientific colleagues were at least capable of envisioning the hazards. Doubtless, they never shared these views with the politicians. I really should put up some links to Teller's writings--they're quite scary.

Please do provide us with some links, Fable.

IMPO, Teller is no better than dr Mengele, but I suppose I might have to edit out this statement later.

Yes, I think the US didn't realise just how devastating the long term effect would be, but some long term hazards like decrease of white blood cells and suspicion it would increase cancer, but as often in war, the long term effects of new weapons are not well examined before use.

However, this makes no difference to me personally, I still think a demonstration coupled with an ultimatum should have been tried first. Targetting civilians is always unacceptable IMO.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Nov 07, 2001 7:28 pm

I haven't got any Teller quotes to hand; but here's a quote from Kirkus Reviews about Broad's work, Teller's War: Behind the Star Wars Deception:

"New York Times science-writer Broad (Star Warriors, 1985, etc.), twice a Pulitzer-winner, presents a refreshingly factual account of how physicist Edward Teller sold the Star Wars concept to two conservative Administrations—and adds some prescient comments on how to prevent such apparent abuses of power in the future. Teller, co-inventor of the hydrogen bomb, has long been known as one of America's most enthusiastic cold warriors. According to Broad, the charismatic Hungarian refugee's lifelong habit of spouting off innumerable wild scientific ideas, depending on peer review to separate out the good ones, turned dangerous as his increasing power and right-wing politics served to isolate him from his colleagues while winning him friends among conservative politicians. As a result, Broad says, when Teller became obsessed with the experimental X-ray laser project that would form the heart of Star Wars, he went straight to the White House to lobby for funds, ignoring a chorus of criticism from a wide array of experts. Teller's enthusiasm, the author explains, won the heart of Ronald Reagan, among other technologically unschooled officials, to the tune of $25 billion to date. Broad's thesis—that this phenomenal waste of funds (and Star War's potential to create instability among superpowers) was the result of a deplorable abuse of personal privilege, the defense industry's tradition of secrecy, and a lack of a governmental advisory panel for judging the technical merit of proposed weapons projects—is convincingly backed up by facts presented here. And it gives this tale of a man who in his enthusiasm may have betrayed "the central principle of his profession"—and whocontinues to promote Star Wars' replacement project, Brilliant Pebbles—a particularly frightening resonance."

I'll keep looking.