Nagasaki remembers atomic attack

[nofurylike]

Nagasaki remembers atomic attack
Tuesday, 9 August 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4133572.stm

The Japanese city of Nagasaki is marking the 60th anniversary of its destruction by a US atomic bomb at the end of World War Two.
At least 70,000 people died in the world's second nuclear attack.

About 6,000 people attended a ceremony in the city's peace park, including Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.

Correspondents say there is fresh controversy over why the attack happened just three days after the bombing of the city of Hiroshima.

Some historians argue that the attack was seen as necessary because Japan had not surrendered.

But others believe that the attack enabled the American military to try out plutonium as a nuclear weapon.

Nuclear opposition

A peace bell rang out as the city marked the exact moment 60 years ago when a US plane dropped the bomb nicknamed "Fat Man" for its rotund shape.

-snip-

Nagasaki mayor Iccho Ito asked US citizens whether their security was enhanced by their nuclear arsenal.

And he appealed to them to join hands with others to work together for a peaceful planet free from the threat of the nuclear bomb.

"We are confident that the vast majority of you desire in your hearts the elimination of nuclear arms," he said.

-snip-

***

[expatriot]

1. I've never heard of any good alternative theories of how Japan would have

surrendered early and thus avoided a bloodier than hell invasion of the Japanese home islands without the use of the A-bombs. I am willing to listen. But conventional wisdom suggests that millinos more Japanese would have died along with hundreds of thousands more American soldiers.

[nofurylike]

2. the article addresses that. and there is an excellent piece on exactly

that, in this thread, at the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x145801


peace

[nofurylike]

3. you write: "I've never heard of any good alternative theories..."

this is discussed at enormous length here on DU, frequently.

just two days ago, there were several discussions, with extensive information on the "why"s

have you not read any of those discussions? just curious.


meanwhile, i highly recommend this article by Harvey Wasserman:

Orphan Nagasaki
by Harvey Wasserman
August 9, 2005
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2005/1182

Like Nagasaki, August 9 is an orphan of history.

And in that history, new, definitive evidence has finally surfaced that the atomic bombing there was completely unjustified.

-snip-

***


peace

[Bridget Burke]

6. Sticking your fingers in your ears & yelling...

Is a good way to avoid hearing anything.

General Curtis Lemay was among the military who thought the atomic attacks were unnecesary. He was the architect of the fire bombing of Japanese cities, which were horribly efficacious. Perhaps he's too much of a pacifist for some.

[expatriot]

8. "I am willing to listen." nt

[bpilgrim]

10. some quotes from our leaders who were there...

~~~JOSEPH GREW
(Under Sec. of State)

In a February 12, 1947 letter to Henry Stimson (Sec. of War during WWII), Grew responded to the defense of the atomic bombings Stimson had made in a February 1947 Harpers magazine article:

"...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.

"If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer."

Grew quoted in Barton Bernstein, ed.,The Atomic Bomb, pg. 29-32.

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

this site provides excellent up-to-date scholarly research on the decesion...
http://www.doug-long.com

I encourage everyone who wants to learn more to go there and pass the word =)

peace

[nofurylike]

21. thank you, as ever, for excellent information, bpilgrim. passing word eom

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nofurylike]

20. good point. thanks. eom

[expatriot]

12. I have to get going, but here is some ongoing self-research

I am uncertain as to whether I believe the A-bombs ended the war prematurely but have done some googling. I need to get going

But the Soviets were probably the real reason Japan surrendered. New evidence, finally unearthed after six decades, indicates the Japanese wanted to avoid Soviet troops dissecting their island as they had already divided Germany. The Bomb may have had little to do with their submission.

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2005/1182


The Japanese surrendered to an alliance which included the Soviets. Some of the northern home islands of the Japanese could have been handed over to the Soviets.

Either way, the Soviets did not have the naval capacity in the Pacific to launch a major amphibious invasion of the Japanese home islands.

In September 1945 the Joint Chiefs of Staff identified the Soviet Union as the most likely enemy of the United States, helping to focus the efforts of military planners. At first it was unclear how sea power could be brought to bear against the Soviet Union, a land power without even a moderate-sized oceangoing navy that was not susceptible to a naval blockade or a guerre de course waged by U.S. submarines.

http://www.history.navy.mil/history/history4.htm


We get some hard numbers as of the strength of the Soviet Navy here:

...the Soviet Navy (Pacific Fleet and Amur River
flotilla) had distinct superiority on the seas (600 fighting
ships as touted by Gorelov) and an additional 1500 A/C. 38]

It is ludicrous that such a naval force could launch an effective amphibious assault against the home islands. But number crunching is unnecessary, if the United States would not have been ready until November (as the article suggests, it would have taken the Soviets much longer.

The Soviets invaded Manchuria on August 9. Both the United States' and Japan's intelligence did not suspect a Soviet offensive until September at the earliest. Is it possible that Stalin rushed up his time line in the wake of the Hiroshima attack? Japan had only 700K-1M inexperienced and poorly armed troops in Manchuria when Stalin attacked with 1.3 million and 5,000 tanks yet the Japanese put up a determined resistance against the attack that caught them off guard.
Japanese resistance prematurely dissolved due to the surrender of Japan. Japan announced their surrender on August 14 and Japanese command told their military in Manchuria to stand down on August 17. By then, the Soviets had not yet even entered the Korean peninsula, a mountainous region that the Japanese could have regrouped in and put up a determined defense against the Russians. As it stands now, with the great majority of the fighting lasting from August 9 to August 18, over 80,000 Japanese soldiers and 8-20K Soviets were killed with no mention of Manchurian civilians killed in the cross fire. If the Japanese troops and command in Manchuria had not been demoralized by the evaporation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Imperial surrender of August 14 and the orders to end resistance on August 17 it is nearly certain that fierce and determined Japanese resistance would have continued all the way down to the tip of the Korean peninsula. How many more hundreds of thousands Japanese and Russian soldiers, Manchu and Korean civilians would have been killed in the month of August?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/RMF.htm
I am still not certain as to whether I believe the A-bombs were strategic in ending the war prematurely but I have to go now.

[nofurylike]

22. it shows you are willing to examine, question. keep on! and

thanks for the information and links.


peace

[nofurylike]

4. gotta run. kick, important observance today. eom

[dbt]

5. All we ever hear is "Hiroshima."

Thank you for posting about Nagasaki!

[alarcojon]

7. It has always struck me

that we dropped a second nuke, three days later. This statement from the Wasserman article sums up my unease:

Statements from American strategists include one to the effect that the first bomb showed we had it and were willing to use it, while the second showed we were willing to use it irrationally.

[Tesha]

9. We used the second nuke because it was of the other design.

If we'd only had the one design, we'd have stopped after vaporizing
one group of Japanese civilians.

Tesha


Note: The Trinity "Gadget" was a plutonium "implosion bomb"
The Hiroshima bomb ("Little Boy") was an untested Uranium "gun-type" bomb.
The Nagasaki bomb ("Fat Man") was the productized plutonium implosion bomb.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nofurylike]

25. it kills me. kills me every time i think of it! i just shriek.

from the abovementioned article by Harvey Wasserman:

>Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two cities of very marginal military value. They had been purposely preserved from heavy bombing precisely so aerial photographs would cleanly illustrate the A-bombs' power. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have long been listed by the US military as "announced nuclear tests."

repeat:
****The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have long been listed by the US military as "announced nuclear tests."****

!!!!!

kills me

breathe...


peace

[bpilgrim]

11. Hiroshima is the 2nd most HORRID word in the American lexicon

succeed only by NAGASAKI" - Kurt Vonnegut

Yet, almost 50% of DU'ers think they were necessary...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4271977

I am truly surprised and saddened by this considering all that we now know and it fills me with great fear for our future.

what will it take before us humans realize NUCLEAR WEAPONS are a CRIME against HUMANITY to develop and use :shrug:



original discussion here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4275977&mesg_id=4275977

peace

[alarcojon]

14. Wow!

That poll really depresses me.

[nofurylike]

28. i sympathize. me too. so many will not even wonder if they have been

convinced by propaganda. unyielding.

keep on!


peace

[nofurylike]

26. "what will it take before us humans realize..." and going backwards now.

one of so many reasons we must persist on insisting people look, really look.

you educate very well, bpilgrim. i am, again, heartened and inspired by your human compassion and tenacity.

please keep on!


peace

[nofurylike]

24. it gets me too, that statement. what a message the u.s. sent the world by

that.

*that* is terrorism.
global terrorism for empire-building

at any cost!!!


peace

[nofurylike]

23. too true, sadly. thank you! eom

[brentspeak]

13. Japan may have been trying to surrender in the wake of Hiroshima

I don't know for a fact that their messages to the US military were received in time to prevent the Nagasaki bombing, but it would have been prudent for the US military (and Truman) to hold off on the 2nd bombing, giving the Japanese enough time to establish clear communication channels to the allies.

[bpilgrim]

15. Japan was looking for peace negotiations before Hiroshima

& we knew it...
http://www.doug-long.com

the above site has the latest scholarly research on the subject

peace

[alarcojon]

16. Thanks for the link

That site looks very interesting and it will take me some time to work my way through it.

Have you read the book on the bomb by Gal Alperovitz? If so, what do you think? I have considered getting it for some time.

[nofurylike]

30. thank you for the info about the book. looking into it now. eom

[CONN]

27. Yes, conditional vs unconditional

The Japanese tried through the Soviet Union to negotiate an end to the war. I believe the only real condition they had was retention of the emperor. After the bombs they agreed to unconditional terms, but were allowed to keep the emperor.

[nofurylike]

31. well put. arrrrgh!!! thanks! eom

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nofurylike]

29. "to hold off on" both. thanks! eom