Nuclear weapons a threat, then and now

As noted in the recent movie “Oppenheimer,” about the development of the first atomic bomb (nicknamed “Little Boy”), the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have been the first shots of the Cold War, as well as the final shot of World War II.

Aug. 6 marks the 78th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. Nagasaki was bombed Aug. 9.

The bombings provided the Soviet Union with a graphic example of the devastation it would face if it challenged American supremacy in the post-war world.

This year, Russia's Vladimir Putin has repeatedly backed up his escalation in Ukraine with nuclear threats. He has recently sent nuclear weapons to Belarus as a threat to use them in Ukraine.

 

Putin also recently bragged that he has more nuclear weapons than NATO and, on the subject of nuclear missile reduction talks, said NATO can “shove it.”

The erratic and unstable leader of North Korea, Kim Jong Un, has an estimated 30 to 40 nuclear weapons and is conducting tests for bombs that could reach America.

Last week, Russian and Chinese delegates joined Kim in North Korea for a military parade that showed off the country’s latest long-range nuclear-capable missiles.

 

FULL ARTICLE

Japan’s PM deplores ‘Russia’s nuclear threat’ on 78th anniversary of Hiroshima

 

 

Japan’s prime minister has hit out at Russian threats to use nuclear weapons as the country marked the 78th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.

Around 140,000 people died in Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and 74,000 in Nagasaki three days later, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on the two Japanese cities days before the end of World War II.

 

“Japan, as the only nation to have suffered atomic bombings in war, will continue efforts towards a nuclear-free world,” said Fumio Kishida at a ceremony in Hiroshima on Sunday. “The path towards it is becoming increasingly difficult because of deepening divisions in the international community over nuclear disarmament and Russia’s nuclear threat.”

 

FULL STORY

 

Two thoughts ...

... people simply don't learn from history

... unless it's profitable, it's not going happen

 

All ... All countries are too intertwined economically to ever let some idiot push that button.

 

Makes good headlines, and keeps people scared, and the defense contractors laugh all the way to the bank.

 

Ignorance is Bliss

I agree with a lot of what Kuhn la says with this caveat nato and the USA cannot back down to Putin’s blackmail if we do he will run wild over Europe 

22 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Two thoughts ...

... people simply don't learn from history

... unless it's profitable, it's not going happen

 

All ... All countries are too intertwined economically to ever let some idiot push that button.

 

Makes good headlines, and keeps people scared, and the defense contractors laugh all the way to the bank.

 

Ignorance is Bliss

Blessed are the peacemakers  ,

for they to stand a chance to gain fame with ones god and people of all.

34 minutes ago, Tug said:

I agree with a lot of what Kuhn la says with this caveat nato and the USA cannot back down to Putin’s blackmail if we do he will run wild over Europe 

Putin has no interest in the rest of Europe.  His objective was to help Russians, and take away UA military capabilities.  

 

Which without regime change from outside sources, and if NATO kept it's word about neutral border states, none of it would have been necessary.

 

I think that objective has been  almost met, but the west doesn't want peace ... again, not profitable.

 

And Off Topic ... with more than a few threads going to debate that subject on.

 

The world is safe from a nuke war, as it simply isn't a win win for anyone.

 

Although, in the end, it would solve the problem of too many people on this rock, trashing the place.

 

Hard choice, trash or nuke residue for a century ... hmm.  I'd go with nuke residue myself.  Those countries that aren't self sufficient ... oh well, problem solved.

Edited August 7, 20232 yr by KhunLA

48 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Putin has no interest in the rest of Europe.  His objective was to help Russians, and take away UA military capabilities.  

 

Which without regime change from outside sources, and if NATO kept it's word about neutral border states, none of it would have been necessary.

 

I think that objective has been  almost met, but the west doesn't want peace ... again, not profitable.

 

And Off Topic ... with more than a few threads going to debate that subject on.

 

The world is safe from a nuke war, as it simply isn't a win win for anyone.

 

Although, in the end, it would solve the problem of too many people on this rock, trashing the place.

 

Hard choice, trash or nuke residue for a century ... hmm.  I'd go with nuke residue myself.  Those countries that aren't self sufficient ... oh well, problem solved.

"Putin has no interest in the rest of Europe.  His objective was to help Russians, and take away UA military capabilities."

 

Total BS.   

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"Putin has no interest in the rest of Europe.  His objective was to help Russians, and take away UA military capabilities."

 

Total BS.   

Another case of Merscheimer syndrome.

As horrifying as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were  believe me I wish they had demonstrated it before wiping out a city both combined were less that 6% of the total killed in the bombing of japan there is a very well done series on utube us bombers ww2 that gets into this and many other subjects in a very factual concise manner I recommend it 

6 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Two thoughts ...

... people simply don't learn from history

... unless it's profitable, it's not going happen

 

All ... All countries are too intertwined economically to ever let some idiot push that button.

 

Makes good headlines, and keeps people scared, and the defense contractors laugh all the way to the bank.

 

Ignorance is Bliss

exactly, that's what I thought too.

I am in Japan now and there is always quite the to-do around this time of year about the bombings. I think people here are getting a more realistic image, gradually.  When I first arrived it was taught as though innocent Japan was suddenly struck by these horrible weapons for no discernable reason.  I'll never forget the first line of an English textbook that was used in a JHS where I was teaching;

 

"One day, a big bomb fell on the city of Hiroshima..." 

 

with no context other than how sad it was and describing children slowly dying.  The teacher made the mistake of asking me what I thought about it- I told him that yes it was terrible but in the end saved millions of lives on both sides and probably prevented the Soviet invasion of Hokkaido in the north.  He was NOT pleased. 

5 hours ago, Tug said:

As horrifying as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were  believe me I wish they had demonstrated it before wiping out a city both combined were less that 6% of the total killed in the bombing of japan there is a very well done series on utube us bombers ww2 that gets into this and many other subjects in a very factual concise manner I recommend it 

I used to think so too, but the Americans simply didn't have enough fissionable material to make more bombs at that time.  Only two were ready by August 1945 and it would be months before another could be constructed. 

 

Even after the first bomb, the Japanese war cabinet STILL insisted on fighting on. It took the intervention of the emperor (an entirely unprecedented and shocking event) to vote for an end to the war, ony AFTER the second bomb was dropped. And even then, there was an attempted coup by some military figures to prevent the emperor from speaking and keep fighting to the last. 

Just in time to put an end to Stalin’s plans to join the pacific war and take Japanese territory.

21 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Just in time to put an end to Stalin’s plans to join the pacific war and take Japanese territory.

Exactly right.

 

And also to save my wife's grandmother. Who at age 15 was training on how to use a bamboo spear to attack any Allied soldiers that would dare to come ashore.  And her grandfather, who was training to be a kamikaze flight crew on his twin engined bomber. 

29 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Exactly right.

 

And also to save my wife's grandmother. Who at age 15 was training on how to use a bamboo spear to attack any Allied soldiers that would dare to come ashore.  And her grandfather, who was training to be a kamikaze flight crew on his twin engined bomber. 

Saving Japanese citizens was not a consideration.

 

US strategic, political, military objectives where what informed the decision to dtlrop the bombs.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Saving Japanese citizens was not a consideration.

 

US strategic, political, military objectives where what informed the decision to dtlrop the bombs.

Obviously.  If you look up the estimated Allied casualties for an invasion of the Japanese home islands, they were staggering.  Not to mention giving the Soviets time to get involved.

A post with an unattributed chart has removed. Please provide a link to the source of information even if the source is Wikipedia.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Saving Japanese citizens was not a consideration.

 

US strategic, political, military objectives where what informed the decision to dtlrop the bombs.

Quite.  It was about ending the war as quickly as possible, with saving as many allied lives as possible.  This is OK, given the context of the time.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Just in time to put an end to Stalin’s plans to join the pacific war and take Japanese territory.

That was the sole motivation. To force a surrender quickly to prevent Russia from partitioning the country. Japan was already debating a surrender, only nationalist holdouts were slowing it down. The bombing was a war crime.

6 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Quite.  It was about ending the war as quickly as possible, with saving as many allied lives as possible.  This is OK, given the context of the time.

Japan didn't have a viable fighting force at that time. The US had no need of an invasion, they only had to wait for the surrender.

11 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Japan didn't have a viable fighting force at that time. The US had no need of an invasion, they only had to wait for the surrender.

Not at all.  Dropping the bomb saved countless allied lives.  The Japanese had a "death cult" and were planning to fight until the end, suiciding themselves if necessary.  Their treatment of prisoners of war was evil and likely they would have massacred them all during the invasion.

26 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Japan didn't have a viable fighting force at that time. The US had no need of an invasion, they only had to wait for the surrender.

Untrue.

 

The Japanese had been husbanding their strength for months in order to defend the home islands. Their operational plan was called "Ketsu-go", which delineated how and where to hit the Allies to maximum effect. Thousands of kamikaze aircraft were readied. Civilians by the millions were training and would be sent out in waves to kill Allied soldiers. Suicide submarines by the hundred were readied. Even some mobile armored units were being hidden for counterattacks.

 

Japan was not about to surrender.

5 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

I am in Japan now and there is always quite the to-do around this time of year about the bombings. I think people here are getting a more realistic image, gradually.  When I first arrived it was taught as though innocent Japan was suddenly struck by these horrible weapons for no discernable reason.  I'll never forget the first line of an English textbook that was used in a JHS where I was teaching;

 

"One day, a big bomb fell on the city of Hiroshima..." 

 

with no context other than how sad it was and describing children slowly dying.  The teacher made the mistake of asking me what I thought about it- I told him that yes it was terrible but in the end saved millions of lives on both sides and probably prevented the Soviet invasion of Hokkaido in the north.  He was NOT pleased. 

An example of why sanitized history is a problem.

9 hours ago, ozimoron said:

That was the sole motivation. To force a surrender quickly to prevent Russia from partitioning the country. Japan was already debating a surrender, only nationalist holdouts were slowing it down. The bombing was a war crime.

Japan was "already debating a surrender"?  Do you have a source for that?  My understanding of history was that the military was firmly in control and willing to let the population starve rather than surrender.  The bombing was not a war crime, it was the least bad option.

 

9 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Japan didn't have a viable fighting force at that time. The US had no need of an invasion, they only had to wait for the surrender.

Not true.  Japan still had the ability to resist an invasion, which would have cost hundreds of thousands of allied casualties and millions of Japanese deaths.  A blockade to force a surrender would have resulted in millions of Japanese starving and an entire generation mentally and physically stunted by malnutrition. 

 

When you have nothing but bad options, the least bad option is the best one.

8 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Untrue.

 

The Japanese had been husbanding their strength for months in order to defend the home islands. Their operational plan was called "Ketsu-go", which delineated how and where to hit the Allies to maximum effect. Thousands of kamikaze aircraft were readied. Civilians by the millions were training and would be sent out in waves to kill Allied soldiers. Suicide submarines by the hundred were readied. Even some mobile armored units were being hidden for counterattacks.

 

Japan was not about to surrender.

Don't forget about the Japanese forces in China that could be drawn upon:

 

"Now faced with a wider war, the Japanese army remained bogged down in China with between 500,000 and 600,000 troops, according to Mitter, and 38 of 51 infantry divisions stationed in the country."  https://www.history.com/news/china-role-world-war-ii-allies

23 hours ago, Social Media said:

Japan’s prime minister has hit out at Russian threats to use nuclear weapons as the

Someone should remind him about the atrocities and war crimes Japan committed during the last WW. 

As was suggested in the Oppenheimer biopic they could have dropped a bomb on Tokyo Harbor just to demonstrate the power of the thing, and that might have been enough, but I seriously doubt it. The Japanese were so entrenched at that point and so dogmatic about their the war effort that I really do think it required a Hiroshima to stop them, as horrible as it was. 

 

Let us hope we never see another one of these dropped. As KhunLA said, it would be one way to reducing the population. I favor some sort of forced sterilization on the 22 nations with the out of control birth rates. Or some sort of reform (as 21 of those nations are Muslim). 

Edited August 8, 20232 yr by spidermike007

On 8/6/2023 at 9:49 PM, KhunLA said:

Two thoughts ...

... people simply don't learn from history

... unless it's profitable, it's not going happen

It's profitable alright. I once took a taxi from the Hiroshima train station to the Hiroshima airport hotel. Roughly the same as Mo Chit to Suvarnabumi.

 

$150 USD (I forget how many Yen...18,000 or so)... About 6,000 baht. Ouch! I only had 10,000 yen on me & I had gotten them from a USMC base in Iwakuni... At an ATM.

 

Thinking 10,00 baht will get me from Don Muang to Chiang Mai...should be enough. I'm just going across town in Hiroshima.

 

He had the meter on as well. I was able to put it on my expense report no problem, but the problem was finding an ATM that would accept international cards . The only one was in the Airport a half mile away, inside a Japanese Post Office that closed at 5:00PM and it was 5:30 PM by the time I hoofed if over there. The taxi wasn't hauling me another inch. He was an inch away from calling the cops.

VERY nice hotel manager that spoke great English got us to agree that I would leave the money with him, and he would hang onto my passport in the meantime.......I took the bullet train to Tokyo for work the next day (I had bought the round tip ticket at a Travel agency on the USMC base), and did my work at the Tokyo port (2 hours working) and started wandering AIMLESSLY thru Tokyo looking for an ATM that was in English, and that took a Mastercard debit card.

 

I stumbled upon a farang on the street, and he lived there. Canadian guy. He took pity on me and hooked me up with a Japanese Post Office that was open. WHEW!

 

============

I was in Iwakuni for work and got to see the cherry blossoms in March. GORGEOUS!!!

 

Hiroshima was a beautiful city (this was all 20 years ago). The people were, to a fault ALL super nice. Riding the bullet train was cool as hell.

 

Nuclear war is the worst thing that could ever happen, and I'm happy I got to see it as a really nice place.

18 hours ago, ozimoron said:

The bombing was a war crime.

Virtue signaling drivel.

17 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Japan was not about to surrender.

Indeed. Their plan was to make any invasion so bloody and costly to the Americans that they would hesitate to continue thus increasing Japans bargaining power over any surrender.

 

As for the poster who thinks Japan had no fighting force :

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

 

 

Japan's last source of natural resources—the War Journal of the Imperial Headquarters concluded in 1944:

We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight.^[9]

As a final attempt to stop the Allied advances, the Japanese Imperial High Command planned an all-out defense of Kyūshū codenamed Operation Ketsugō.^[10] This was to be a radical departure from the defense in depth plans used in the invasions of Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. Instead, everything was staked on the beachhead; more than 3,000 kamikazes would be sent to attack the amphibious transports before troops and cargo were disembarked on the beach.^[8]

If this did not drive the Allies away, they planned to send another 3,500 kamikazes along with 5,000 Shin'yō suicide motorboats and the remaining destroyers and submarines—"the last of the Navy's operating fleet"—to the beach. If the Allies had fought through this and successfully landed on Kyūshū, 3,000 planes would have been left to defend the remaining islands, although Kyūshū would be "defended to the last" regardless.^[8] The strategy of making a last stand at Kyūshū was based on the assumption of continued Soviet neutrality