The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: mystery-ak on August 23, 2018, 03:06:40 pm
-
The Bombs of August
Victor Davis Hanson
Posted: Aug 23, 2018 12:01 AM
On Aug. 6, 1945, the United States dropped a uranium-fueled atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later, another U.S. Army Air Forces B-29 repeated the attack on Nagasaki, Japan, with an even more powerful plutonium bomb.
Less than a month after the second bombing, Imperial Japan agreed to formally surrender on Sept. 2. That date marked the official end of World War II -- the bloodiest human or natural catastrophe in history, accounting for more than 65 million dead.
Each August, Americans in hindsight ponder the need for, the morality of, and the strategic rationale behind the dropping of the two bombs. Yet President Harry Truman's decision 73 years ago to use the novel, terrifying weapons was not considered particularly controversial, either right before or right after the attacks. Both cities were simply military targets.
more
https://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2018/08/23/the-bombs-of-august-n2512028
-
The good thing is, the next time we drop "the" bomb we will know how to use it!
-
When the bombs were dropped in August, my father was in Honolulu, recovering from injuries sustained on Okinawa, after 45 days of combat there.
Republicans and democrats alike, were very glad to have the war ended.
-
I don't really see the difference between the nuclear bombs dropped on the cities versus the firebombing raids on other cities.
Is the number of planes used really significant on the result?
-
I don't really see the difference between the nuclear bombs dropped on the cities versus the firebombing raids on other cities.
Is the number of planes used really significant on the result?
It mattered at the time. The Japanese fought the planes with the firebombs with all their ability because there were so many of them. They ignored the two flights with only three B-29s.
-
It mattered at the time. The Japanese fought the planes with the firebombs with all their ability because there were so many of them. They ignored the two flights with only three B-29s.
I understand the strategy of using the nuclear weapons.
I mean to ask, when there is public out cry about the horrors of dropping nuclear bombs, was the firebombing that killed far more a more acceptable option?
-
I understand the strategy of using the nuclear weapons.
I mean to ask, when there is public out cry about the horrors of dropping nuclear bombs, was the firebombing that killed far more a more acceptable option?
"Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?"
-
"Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?"
Apparently it does to many.
-
"Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?"
LOL. That was about gun deaths but it still has legs!
-
I understand the strategy of using the nuclear weapons.
I mean to ask, when there is public out cry about the horrors of dropping nuclear bombs, was the firebombing that killed far more a more acceptable option?
The question gets asked all the time...about Tokyo and Europe, too. There was a total war in progress, so it's only asked in retrospect.
-
The question gets asked all the time...about Tokyo and Europe, too. There was a total war in progress, so it's only asked in retrospect.
Yep, the Left constantly whines about Dresden.
-
The question gets asked all the time...about Tokyo and Europe, too. There was a total war in progress, so it's only asked in retrospect.
That is my question. I don't understand people from today's viewpoint looking back at WW2 and saying it was horrible to drop the nuclear bombs but the firebombing was just a normal part of war.
Nuclear bombs get public outcry that they should not even exist. Bombing attacks that killed more people, and arguably was worse to live through, are not even discussed as an issue.
-
I don't really see the difference between the nuclear bombs dropped on the cities versus the firebombing raids on other cities.
Is the number of planes used really significant on the result?
In part the main issue, is intentionally bombing civilians.
It was claimed for a time, that the Germans had not done so. Then they did.
My service was in a medium sized German city, which was bombed many times. There is a model of the rubble, in the city hall building. Only the old church downtown was spared.
It was thought maybe civilian pressure, would move the dictators (or others in charge) to stop the wars.
It eventually worked.
Proper treatment of civilians in warfare, dates to the Abbot of Iona, Adomnan, and his treatise in "Law of Innocents."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adomnán
-
I learned long ago to stop worrying and love the bomb. Not only is it a deterrent, but when used properly it can effectively eradicate an entire population of bad actors.
-
I learned long ago to stop worrying and love the bomb. Not only is it a deterrent, but when used properly it can effectively eradicate an entire population of bad actors.
I find it "reasonable" to worry, about bombs in the hands of bad actors.
Seldom discussed qre equally dangerous biochemical weapons, like poisoning food and water.
-
Yep, the Left constantly whines about Dresden.
But not Coventry.
I guess the easy deciding question is this:
"Would either the Germans or Japanese in WWII have hesitated to drop such a bomb on New York, San Francisco, Washington, or Chicago, given the opportunity?"
Nope. They wouldn't have so much as batted an eyelash.
-
Indeed Vic Hanson transforms history from static
place and time data, giving it a dynamic vision.
A colleague, Barbrara Tuchman did the same in
"The Guns of August, 1914"; telling the story
of arguably the greatest self-inflicted tragedy
ever caused by Mankind.
-
It was "total war." That means there are no civilians. Everybody was involved in the war effort.