Today in History - August 6 - Hiroshima

[Mushroom]

August 6, 1945 - World War II: Hiroshima is devastated when the atomic bomb "Little Boy" is dropped by the United States B-29 Enola Gay. Around 70,000 people are killed instantly, and some tens of thousands die in subsequent years from burns and radiation poisoning.

the significance of this very day can be disputed but I know that we dropped a bomb to end a war, in the process killing 10's of thousands, but saved 100's of thousands of lives. what if we didn't "drop the bomb"? how many more lives would be lost? Fortunately, now Japan is our ally.

Congratulations to the US in one of it's last real shows of military might. ever since then, pussies have ruled our military with a strategy to back down and show restraint and weakness.

what about the Korean War? If we dropped the bomb on those guys back in the 50's, maybe they would be our friends today, and we wouldn't have some nutcase in command, and a school breeding hatred for the US.

[sadaist]

what about the Korean War? ... maybe they would be our friends today

Well, good ole Bill was just hanging out with Kim Jong Ill. Kim Jong even gave Bill two women as a parting gift. What a flight back that probably was.

[jhale667]

Congratulations to the US in one of it's last real shows of military might. ever since then, pussies have ruled our military with a strategy to back down and show restraint and weakness.

So we should just bomb the fuck out of whomever we disagree with? Kill hundreds of thousands to prove a point rather than take a more diplomatic and humanitarian approach??

[sadaist]

So we should just bomb the fuck out of whomever we disagree with? Kill hundreds of thousands to prove a point rather than take a more diplomatic and humanitarian approach??

I wouldn't call WW II a disagreement. Pearl Harbor wasn't a very diplomatic nor humanitarian approach.

[jhale667]

I wouldn't call WW II a disagreement. Pearl Harbor wasn't a very diplomatic nor humanitarian approach.

True, but the body count wasn't in the hundreds of thousands, and this tool is implying we should settle EVERY conflict in that manner.

[Seshmeister]

[I]
the significance of this very day can be disputed but I know that we dropped a bomb to end a war, in the process killing 10's of thousands, but saved 100's of thousands of lives.

That is very very debatable and probably just the propoganda used at the time.

Many historians have shown that the Japs were about to surrender anyway and the bombs were dropped to scare the soviets.

[Mushroom]

So we should just bomb the fuck out of whomever we disagree with? Kill hundreds of thousands to prove a point rather than take a more diplomatic and humanitarian approach??

no, you're taking my words to the extreme. I'm referring to our "cut and run" strategy that our enemies laugh at because we don't show any resolve. what's next? run from Afghanistan? I'm not saying we should start wars, Iraq was a big fucking mistake. but I'm saying if we start it, we better finish it. And sometimes to finish it means a show of strength.

[Mushroom]

True, but the body count wasn't in the hundreds of thousands, and this tool is implying we should settle EVERY conflict in that manner.

Again, you're misinterpreting my words. I didn't say the body count was in the 100's of thousands. I said the body count, including the US, could have been raised 10's or 100's of thousands more if we did not drop the bomb!

[Mushroom]

That is very very debatable and probably just the propoganda used at the time.

Many historians have shown that the Japs were about to surrender anyway and the bombs were dropped to scare the soviets.

sorry Sesh, but in War, it's better the enemy, than me or my country. What if some country comes to invade US? A foreign military on US soil. We have a bunch of pansies and pussies in the US that would not show any resolve. compare that to those guys in Afghanistan.

[Seshmeister]

I often wonder why many Americans seem to live in fear all the time about stuff that will not happen.

[jhale667]

What if some country comes to invade US? A foreign military on US soil. We have a bunch of pansies and pussies in the US that would not show any resolve. compare that to those guys in Afghanistan.

That is such a retarded, worst-case scenario premise to begin with. The only country with a large enough army to do that is China, and they don't have the means to physically GET their troops here en masse, so we're probably OK on that one...

[Mushroom]

That is such a retarded, worst-case scenario premise to begin with. The only country with a large enough army to do that is China, and they don't have the means to physically GET their troops here en masse, so we're probably OK on that one...

I know that. the US will be a Super Power Evil Empire for Eternity!!!

[Kristy]

That is very very debatable and probably just the propoganda used at the time.

Many historians have shown that the Japs were about to surrender anyway and the bombs were dropped to scare the soviets.

You mean many revisionist and the anti-nuclear crowd. Japan had no intention of surrender. In fact, if you studied history at all Japan was preparing its citizens for landing invasions by order of the Emperor instead of opting for surrender conditions. As for the Soviets they had no idea what an atomic bomb was at the time apart from what little information their spies had reported back to the Stalin government; Hiroshima itself was a city chosen simply because it had a good share of the pie in airplane manufacturing which had to be crushed before an invasion (which was still on the charts) to begin.

[bueno bob]

August 6, 1945 - World War II: Hiroshima is devastated when the atomic bomb "Little Boy" is dropped by the United States B-29 Enola Gay. Around 70,000 people are killed instantly, and some tens of thousands die in subsequent years from burns and radiation poisoning.

the significance of this very day can be disputed but I know that we dropped a bomb to end a war, in the process killing 10's of thousands, but saved 100's of thousands of lives. what if we didn't "drop the bomb"? how many more lives would be lost? Fortunately, now Japan is our ally.

Congratulations to the US in one of it's last real shows of military might. ever since then, pussies have ruled our military with a strategy to back down and show restraint and weakness.

what about the Korean War? If we dropped the bomb on those guys back in the 50's, maybe they would be our friends today, and we wouldn't have some nutcase in command, and a school breeding hatred for the US.

Here's a good idea - let's just fucking kill EVERYBODY on the planet, other than Americans. I mean, who knows when some country is going to attack us and kill a couple thousand people? Let's blow up the whole fucking middle east - that'll prevent it.

Who knows when some damn illegal immigrant is going to hold up a 7-11 and shoot a clerk? Let's blow up Mexico - that'll prevent it.

Who knows when some damn Canadian is going to come into the country, go for a drive and hit a U.S. citizen and bruise their ankle? Let's blow up Canada - that'll show 'em!

But...what if there are Americans that go Johnny Turncoat over all this and say "Hey, maybe we shouldn't be blowing everybody the fuck up"? Let's get all THOSE Americans into one section of the country and blow it up! That'll stop all dissent!

What if your neighbor then plays his music too loudly and it offends you? What if his kid hits a baseball through your window? What if his frisbee lands on your yard and he runs over to get it - that's trespassing! He's invading your land! Better blow him up before he does it!

Well...how 'bout we just blow EVERYBODY up except for you and then you'll FINALLY have your 'security'?

Fucking idiot.

[Mushroom]

You dreamed up a fantasy concept but you are talking about Pre-Emptive strikes, which I did not suggest.

Here's a good idea - let's just fucking kill EVERYBODY on the planet, other than Americans. I mean, who knows when some country is going to attack us and kill a couple thousand people? Let's blow up the whole fucking middle east - that'll prevent it.

Who knows when some damn illegal immigrant is going to hold up a 7-11 and shoot a clerk? Let's blow up Mexico - that'll prevent it.

Who knows when some damn Canadian is going to come into the country, go for a drive and hit a U.S. citizen and bruise their ankle? Let's blow up Canada - that'll show 'em!

But...what if there are Americans that go Johnny Turncoat over all this and say "Hey, maybe we shouldn't be blowing everybody the fuck up"? Let's get all THOSE Americans into one section of the country and blow it up! That'll stop all dissent!

What if your neighbor then plays his music too loudly and it offends you? What if his kid hits a baseball through your window? What if his frisbee lands on your yard and he runs over to get it - that's trespassing! He's invading your land! Better blow him up before he does it!

Well...how 'bout we just blow EVERYBODY up except for you and then you'll FINALLY have your 'security'?

Fucking idiot.

[FORD]

Shit.... I'd welcome the Canadian invasion, if only for the health care and the "almost legal" BC Bud. The metric system would take some getting used to, and I doubt I'd ever speak French, but either would be more tolerable than continuing to fund the soulless vampire bastards of corporatism in this country.

[lesfunk]

You mean many revisionist and the anti-nuclear crowd. Japan had no intention of surrender. In fact, if you studied history at all Japan was preparing its citizens for landing invasions by order of the Emperor instead of opting for surrender conditions. As for the Soviets they had no idea what an atomic bomb was at the time apart from what little information their spies had reported back to the Stalin government; Hiroshima itself was a city chosen simply because it had a good share of the pie in airplane manufacturing which had to be crushed before an invasion (which was still on the charts) to begin.

There you go again. Clouding revisionist history with inconvenient facts and truth.

[Igosplut]

You mean many revisionist and the anti-nuclear crowd. Japan had no intention of surrender. In fact, if you studied history at all Japan was preparing its citizens for landing invasions by order of the Emperor instead of opting for surrender conditions. As for the Soviets they had no idea what an atomic bomb was at the time apart from what little information their spies had reported back to the Stalin government; Hiroshima itself was a city chosen simply because it had a good share of the pie in airplane manufacturing which had to be crushed before an invasion (which was still on the charts) to begin.

Good post Kristy, I'd read something written similar in school about that.

[Va Beach VH Fan]

The Navy, in it's infinite wisdom, on Aug. 6th, 1985, the 40th anniversary of the bomb, had our ship dock in Kure, Japan, which is right next to Hiroshima....

Needless to say, we got some extremely dirty looks that day, I'll never forget it....

[Seshmeister]

You mean many revisionist and the anti-nuclear crowd. Japan had no intention of surrender. In fact, if you studied history at all Japan was preparing its citizens for landing invasions by order of the Emperor instead of opting for surrender conditions. As for the Soviets they had no idea what an atomic bomb was at the time apart from what little information their spies had reported back to the Stalin government; Hiroshima itself was a city chosen simply because it had a good share of the pie in airplane manufacturing which had to be crushed before an invasion (which was still on the charts) to begin.

Opinion is divided on whether it was necessary to get a surrender. It was only after dropping the bomb on Nagasaki that Truman started to offer the deal whereby Japan got to keep her emperor. The reason that Hiroshima was chosen was less to do with her airplane manufacturing and more to do with the fact it wasn't cloudy overhead there on the day and it was a relatively fresh place to see what would happen having not been bombed much conventionally.

It will be interesting to hear Nick the WWII geek's take on it. It certainly wasn't as black and white you might think and included motivations about getting the war over asap before the Russians got involved in that theater.

[Kristy]

The reason that Hiroshima was chosen was less to do with her airplane manufacturing and more to do with the fact it wasn't cloudy overhead there on the day and it was a relatively fresh place to see what would happen having not been bombed much conventionally.

No, it was pegged as a military target.

[Seshmeister]

If it was such an important military target then it would have been bombed by conventional weapons for weeks.

The attack on Hiroshima was a terror attack and to maximize that effect they wanted to make sure it killed and destroyed the most people possible.

[lesfunk]

it worked

[Blackflag]

The attack on Pearl Harbor was a terror attack and to maximize that effect they wanted to make sure it killed and destroyed the most people possible.

War is hell, as they say. But save your "terrorism" rhetoric. Just save it.

[Nickdfresh]

August 6, 1945 - World War II: Hiroshima is devastated when the atomic bomb "Little Boy" is dropped by the United States B-29 Enola Gay. Around 70,000 people are killed instantly, and some tens of thousands die in subsequent years from burns and radiation poisoning.

the significance of this very day can be disputed but I know that we dropped a bomb to end a war, in the process killing 10's of thousands, but saved 100's of thousands of lives. what if we didn't "drop the bomb"? how many more lives would be lost? Fortunately, now Japan is our ally.

We can debate what ended the War and what actions had what reactions...

But the Soviet blitz of Manchuria that routed and entire Japanese Army group no doubt had the Japanese high command pissing themselves and reconsidering their strategy of forcing the US to negotiate by inflicting ever higher casualties even with no prospect of victory. Because in the end, they'd rather be occupied by the US allowing them to keep their emperor than the commies who could give a fuck how many men they threw into the meat grinder of battle...

There are those that say the bombs had little real impact on the bloodthirsty cunts in the Japanese Imperial Army command who were very eager to fight to the last Japanese. The US firebombings of Tokyo and other cities were in fact far more hideous and killed far more than even the atomic bombs did...

Congratulations to the US in one of it's last real shows of military might. ever since then, pussies have ruled our military with a strategy to back down and show restraint and weakness.

I've never heard the wanton slaughter of tens of thousands of women and children so callously and idiotically phrased as heroic. In the end, I guess I believe the bombings were somewhat necessary, but I'm certainly not proud and would never gloat over such butchery. I'm not sure what makes one not a pussy by dropping a bomb which kills civilians? By your logic, Osama Bin Ladens and other terrorists are badass motherfuckers filled with courage...

what about the Korean War? If we dropped the bomb on those guys back in the 50's, maybe they would be our friends today, and we wouldn't have some nutcase in command, and a school breeding hatred for the US.

Try reading about it sometime, dumbfuck.

If we had dropped a bomb in Korea, then the Soviets may well have dropped one back, and we'd be fighting a nuclear war.

Secondly, using nukes would be an admission that the US was a bunch of pussies unable to take the Red Chinese with conventional forces, and that we were in fact decadent and weak. MacArthur was a fucking tool, and an old man incompetent. The US rebuilt its conventional Army after he was fired and General Matthew Ridgeway singlehandedly retrained the US Army from a bunch of "pussies" back into a very good and tough fighting force that gained credibility as a fighting force that could beat back the red hordes without needing to resort to doomsday bullshit...

[Nickdfresh]

no, you're taking my words to the extreme. I'm referring to our "cut and run" strategy that our enemies laugh at because we don't show any resolve.

Like from where?

...what's next? run from Afghanistan? I'm not saying we should start wars, Iraq was a big fucking mistake. but I'm saying if we start it, we better finish it. And sometimes to finish it means a show of strength.

Dude, read a fucking newspaper or magazine sometime, you're clearly out of touch...

[Nickdfresh]

That is very very debatable and probably just the propoganda used at the time.

Many historians have shown that the Japs were about to surrender anyway and the bombs were dropped to scare the soviets.




...

Many historians are also full of revisionist shit. When the bombs were dropped, the US had little incentive or motive to "scare the Soviets." The Red Army was also War weary and would have had severe logistical difficulties without US and UK production on their behalf of foodstuffs, transport lorries, and various weapons to fill out their armies...

The bombs were dropped simply because we had them and had spent a lot of money to create them largely in response to the Nazis, who no one would have cried for if we dropped them on. They were also used because US invasion of mainland Japan would have (at least initially) been bloody. But I personally don't think the invasion would have been as bloody as many predicted as the Japanese resistance would have crumbled when the US massed armor on the Tokyo Plain. But the fact remains that an insanely extremist Japanese Imperial Army command was committed to mobilizing the entire population and even using children to attack US invasion forces...

[Nickdfresh]

You mean many revisionist and the anti-nuclear crowd. Japan had no intention of surrender. In fact, if you studied history at all Japan was preparing its citizens for landing invasions by order of the Emperor instead of opting for surrender conditions. As for the Soviets they had no idea what an atomic bomb was at the time apart from what little information their spies had reported back to the Stalin government; Hiroshima itself was a city chosen simply because it had a good share of the pie in airplane manufacturing which had to be crushed before an invasion (which was still on the charts) to begin.

I agree and think you're mostly correct here. Except Stalin knew almost as much about the bomb as FDR did as the Manhattan Project was thoroughly compromised with well intentioned Utopian communist physicists acting as spies...

[standin]

Well, getting back to what WWII was about the systematic destruction of Jehovah Witness and their place as God's chosen people. Someone must stand up and bring attention back to the destruction, as God's chosen people shun worldly government and won't point out the near destruction. And had it not been for the Big Bomb. Michael Jackson's mother might had taken another path.
And if you deny this, you are a denier. The research and forensic data is all there and documented. It is shameful to bring focus any other place other than the destruction of God's chosen people, Jehovah Witnesses.

(parody)

[Nickdfresh]

Opinion is divided on whether it was necessary to get a surrender. It was only after dropping the bomb on Nagasaki that Truman started to offer the deal whereby Japan got to keep her emperor. The reason that Hiroshima was chosen was less to do with her airplane manufacturing and more to do with the fact it wasn't cloudy overhead there on the day and it was a relatively fresh place to see what would happen having not been bombed much conventionally.

The problem was that there was absolutely no communication between Japan and the US at that time. The Japanese did approach the Soviets as intermediaries as they were still sort of "neutral" in the conflict as they had a separate non-aggression pact with the Japanese (which helped save Moscow as this pact released thousands of fresh troops and tanks from Siberia during the dark days of 1942 to fight the Germans). The Soviets decided they wanted a piece of the Far Eastern pie and invaded Manchuria during the "August Storm" operation and crushed an immobile, second-rate but large Jap Imperial Army on the steppes of China with their T-34s...

It will be interesting to hear Nick the WWII geek's take on it. It certainly wasn't as black and white you might think and included motivations about getting the war over asap before the Russians got involved in that theater.

LOL I agree it was anything but black and white. And both the Japanese and the US found common cause for not allowing the Soviets to get any territory Japanese beyond the Kuril Islands. But it's debatable if and how the Soviets could have launched large scale amphibious assaults as they had a small surface fleet and no real experience in what is the most difficult of operations...

Indeed, one of the reasons Stalin was said to have signed off with a quick conclusion of the War was that the USSR mounted one amphibious landing on a Japanese held Island, the kind the US Marines and Army had been doing all along. They suffered heavy casualties and embarrassing set backs to their timetables and the Japanese soldier was capable of fierce resistance when fighting from fortifications and when his enemies' mobility and firepower were hindered by geography. And there was no way the Soviets were going to make large scale landings --on say-- Honshu...

[Nickdfresh]

If it was such an important military target then it would have been bombed by conventional weapons for weeks.

The attack on Hiroshima was a terror attack and to maximize that effect they wanted to make sure it killed and destroyed the most people possible.

I sort of agree. The problem was that Japanese industry was scattered and strategic bombing was completely overrated and fluffed up by the "bomber generals" such as Air Marshall Arthur Harris (RAF), Carl Spaatz, and the fucking nutty Curtis LeMay...

In fact, the US conventional firebombings were far more brutal and killed more civilians than did the A-bombs. And in fact the US was running out of decent targets to bomb and the Japanese had learned, like the Germans before them, to scatter and send production underground. But there definitely was a 'shock and awe' effect desired. But I do wish the US had dropped at least one of the bombs on a military target such as the Tokyo Naval Yard or something...

After the Emperor decided on surrender, it is worth noting that officers of the IJA tried to overthrow the high command, kidnap the Emperor, and continue the war even after all this happened.

[Kristy]

Many historians are also full of revisionist shit. When the bombs were dropped, the US had little incentive or motive to "scare the Soviets."

Trying not to get in the argument here but Seshmeister seems to overlook that Emperor of Japan was about to to incorporate the aristocratic Bushido code and essentially create a uniquely Japanese version of fascism upon which surrender wasn't even in the picture.

As for the dropping of the bomb many, if not all Americans were for it at the time. Try Googling and posting some photos of The Rape Of Nanking or The Bataan death march. Maybe the Burma Railway?

[Nickdfresh]

Trying not to get in the argument here but Seshmeister seems to overlook that Emperor of Japan was about to to incorporate the aristocratic Bushido code and essentially create a uniquely Japanese version of fascism upon which surrender wasn't even in the picture.

Um, "about to?" They'd been doing this since at least the early 1930s. The Japanese Army's version of the "Code of Bushido" was a bastardized, revisionist one that was completely absurd when looking at Japanese History. In fact, the idea of committing suicide in defeat was ONLY to apply to the high ranking Samurai (in 1945 terms, the senior officer class of the Japanese Army), and not the average enlist soldier. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers surrendered during the Russo-Japanese War of 1906 with no particular shame. And in turn, hundreds of thousands of Russians were taken prisoner and treated comparatively well.

By the 1920s, the Japanese decided that they could in no way face a Western Army in terms of industrialization, tech., and firepower; so they needed to fabricate a pseudo-Bushido suicide cult of fanaticism to motivate their soldiers to inflict maximum casualties on the armies of the West. One that never really existed prior in Japanese history....

Read Bradly's "Flyboys" for more information...

As for the dropping of the bomb many, if not all Americans were for it at the time. Try Googling and posting some photos of The Rape Of Nanking or The Bataan death march. Maybe the Burma Railway?

Of course all Americans were for it. We were conditioned to hate the evil subhuman Japs via propaganda.

And yes, the Imperial Japanese High Command of fascist murdering bastards deserves the most blame in all of this. Their wanton and disgusting disregard for human life and treatment of conquered peoples is a complete shame. The post-War Japanese gov'ts have never really owned up for as they play the "martyr-card" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and labor in denial of their history of militaristic belligerence from about 1931-1945...

The Japanese gov't likes to gloss over facts like that they abducted and fucked to death Korean and Chinese women as 'comfort girls.' And that their junior officers in China had whimsical be-heading contests over which lieutenant could cut off the most heads of Chinese prisoners with a samurai sword. Or that (I believe) they managed to kill more people percapita in China than Hitler ever did in any other single country...

[Seshmeister]

My posts have really been in response to the tone of the initial post.

In terms of civilian deaths the firebombing of Dresden by the British or Tokyo by the US were pretty much in the same league as the atomic bombs. The winners write the history and make the prosecutions although all 3 could have been argued as being war crimes.

Different times thank fuck and we can't really apply our standards of morality today to those times of total war. Still not something to be celebrated though and I stand by a couple of points.

If the idea of dropping the bomb was to get a surrender then it made sense to drop it on a fresh target. There are reports that a few cities like Hiroshima were left untouched for this purpose. If that's the motive then you don't want to confuse the message but it's still undeniably a terror attack in the same way as Allied(and German) nighttime bombing of cities was. It wasn't about aircraft production.

Secondly I think Nagasaki was definitely avoidable and is the best evidence for the argument that a lot of the use of nukes was as a test in the field and a demonstration of power. The Nagasaki bomb was a plutonium bomb and more powerful and much more complex than the Hiroshima one and was dropped before giving the Japanese an adequate opportunity to surrender. There was just 3 days between the bombs being dropped whereas the surrender wasn't for another 6 days after Nagasaki.

There was one good thing about the bombings though in that because the horror of them had been demonstrated it perhaps increased the power of deterrent during the cold war.

[Seshmeister]

The Japanese gov't likes to gloss over facts like that they abducted and fucked to death Korean and Chinese women as 'comfort girls.' And that their junior officers in China had whimsical be-heading contests over which lieutenant could cut off the most heads of Chinese prisoners with a samurai sword. Or that (I believe) they managed to kill more people percapita in China than Hitler ever did in any other single country...

I dunno what you think but cruelty seems to have been more indemic in the Japanese forces than the Germans. With the Germans you had the SS units and some dodgy units made up of troops from the Baltic who seem to have been responsible for most of the atrocities but with the Japanese the evil bastards seem to have been throughout their forces.

On the point of the Koreans I've seen estimates that up to 20 000 Korean slave workers died at Hiroshima which is yet another of those grey items that don't make for good movie scripts or cursory national histories.

[thome]

sorry Sesh, but in War, it's better the enemy, than me or my country. What if some country comes to invade US? A foreign military on US soil. We have a bunch of pansies and pussies in the US that would not show any resolve. compare that to those guys in Afghanistan.

It's not our first day you don't have to make unreal wierd E-Entertainment type shock sentences to get this tread started and keep it going.



Mm.K

P.S. Did you buy a car to keep america alive, we have till friday and they we are all going to D...but first these commercials......

[thome]

I often wonder why many Americans seem to live in fear all the time about stuff that will not happen.

I wonder if Fozzie is ever going to pop that nut poor li'l Kermie has been dutifully stroking him for like ever.

Why can't the Scotish ever satisfy thier lust for bieng jacked off by muppets.

No-Harsh dude just making a broad generalization like you did the nuts you see thru the media are not mainstream America .

The only thing that would have our real attention is if China crashes into the left coast, till then we is pretty relaxed and trust -the them- to keep us safe.

[thome]

Shit.... I'd welcome the Canadian invasion, if only for the health care and the "almost legal" BC Bud. The metric system would take some getting used to, and I doubt I'd ever speak French, but either would be more tolerable than continuing to fund the soulless vampire bastards of corporatism in this country.

What if they -MADE- you speak French, and don't forget about the ZOMBIES Canada is loaded with them.

[Seshmeister]

Wocka Wocka!

I was just pointing out that tha vast majority of countries have tiny armies and never dream that anyone might attack them.

SImilarly I have no idea why the UK is about to buy a brand new shitload of nukes. The politicians seem to think it gives them great international influence but the older I get I can't actually see how that filters down to a benefit to the 99.9999% of the population.

Even in the US where 'defence' really means projection of international power you wonder how a cost analysis of money spent on defence v. money that generates/protects would work out. I'd love to see that figure on paper...

[Nickdfresh]

My posts have really been in response to the tone of the initial post.

In terms of civilian deaths the firebombing of Dresden by the British or Tokyo by the US were pretty much in the same league as the atomic bombs. The winners write the history and make the prosecutions although all 3 could have been argued as being war crimes.

Different times thank fuck and we can't really apply our standards of morality today to those times of total war. Still not something to be celebrated though and I stand by a couple of points.

I think we have a thread on that at the WW2 board I mod, specifically on Sir Arthur Harris. It could be argued that "area bombing" was not necessarily terror bombing as the British were mostly flying at night and the only way to hit a target was to destroy the entire city block around it. The problem was that there were no precision munitions. One could also argue that although the Germans and Japanese could have hypothetically tried Allied generals for war-crimes regarding strategic bombing, the Allied generals defense would have been that the cities they bombed were "defended" and not "open cities," and thereby legitimate targets under the Geneva and Hague Conventions...

If the idea of dropping the bomb was to get a surrender then it made sense to drop it on a fresh target. There are reports that a few cities like Hiroshima were left untouched for this purpose. If that's the motive then you don't want to confuse the message but it's still undeniably a terror attack in the same way as Allied(and German) nighttime bombing of cities was. It wasn't about aircraft production.

Well, terror was a motive. But it should be stated that strategic bombing was no easy task, and that targets were prioritized. We can argue that cities were "saved" for something special. But we can also say that there were fewer and fewer targets to hit in Japan by 1945, as they had been blockaded, and their industry was crippled and spread out through out Japan already as far as production went.

So, what do you bomb?

Secondly I think Nagasaki was definitely avoidable and is the best evidence for the argument that a lot of the use of nukes was as a test in the field and a demonstration of power. The Nagasaki bomb was a plutonium bomb and more powerful and much more complex than the Hiroshima one and was dropped before giving the Japanese an adequate opportunity to surrender. There was just 3 days between the bombs being dropped whereas the surrender wasn't for another 6 days after Nagasaki.

But there is also little evidence that the Japanese gov't, deeply fractured and beset by infighting by this time, seriously wanted to surrender...

There was one good thing about the bombings though in that because the horror of them had been demonstrated it perhaps increased the power of deterrent during the cold war.

I couldn't agree more. The vivid demonstrations of horror and a little slice of nuclear hell only showed a taste of what awaited the US and USSR after a full exchange of weapons dozens if not hundreds of times more powerful than "Fatman" and "Littleboy."