70 Years Since Hiroshima
POSTED BY: Magonsdaughter
UPDATED: Saturday, August 8, 2026 10:26
VIEWED: 23968
PAGE 5 of 16
Signy, I have nothing to say in response to Nazi propaganda - I just ignore it.
As for some of your other arguments:
- Your suggestion that the atomic bombs 'did not serve to shorten the war' is laughable
- You claim that the bomb was used to stop the Russians in their attack on Japan and deny them 'a share of the pie, but as far back as 1943 the Allies were asking Russia to join the war against Japan, and terms were agreed that allowed the USSR to keep new territory in the Far East.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, I noticed that if it's something you want to read, no matter HOW specious or ill-founded, you assume it's legitimate, but if it's something you disagree with you call it "propaganda" (in this case, NAZI propaganda!) despite the fact that it's well-founded in historic fact. Basically, you're a propagandist.
And you still haven't addressed the definition of "terrorism" and whether it includes bombing wide swaths of civilian populations from 10,000 ft.
The agreement between Russia and the USA, from the Office of the Historian
Quote:
The Soviets, who had long been pushing the Allies to open a second front, agreed to launch another major offensive on the Eastern Front that would divert German troops away from the Allied campaign in northern France. Stalin also agreed in principle that the Soviet Union would declare war against Japan following an Allied victory over Germany. In exchange for a Soviet declaration of war against Japan, Roosevelt conceded to Stalin’s demands for the Kurile Islands and the southern half of Sakhalin, and access to the ice-free ports of Dairen (Dalian) and Port Arthur (Lüshun Port) located on the Liaodong Peninsula in northern China. The exact details concerning this deal were not finalized, however, until the Yalta Conference of 1945.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/tehran-conf
So, the Russian were promised the (small) Kuril Islands and southern Sakhalin, and a couple of ports IN CHINA. First of all, talk about reneging on a deal! The Japanese are STILL arguing about the Kurils. The Russians took Sakhalin anyway. And gee, it was mighty white [slight intended] of America to give away a couple of pieces of China to Russia. That's almost like Britain giving Palestine to the Jews!
The fear wasn't that Russia would obtain a few ports here and there, the fear was that the Russians would take the whole damn thing. It was widely thought that in early August, the Russians were within days of invading Japan (and it turns out that the timetable was right) but that US forces wouldn't invade until November.
Now, it just occurred to me that there is ONE argument you can make about why the USA atom-bombed Japan, and it might even be the decisive one. It's certainly worth researching. I'll give you a chance to think about that before I tell you what it might be.
As an aside, did you read the interview with Tatyana Montoyan? It's long, critical of both Kiev and Russia, but overall seems sharp-eyed and insightful. You can find it here
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=59642
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, I have other things to do, here is the idea:
The main point of the argument, that the atom bombs were set off to keep the Russians at bay, are based on the idea that the Russians were ready to invade (clearly, they were) but the Americans weren't.
A point could be made- and research could be done- to decide whether or not American troops really were in a position to invade in early August. If they were, that would tend to support the notion that the atomic bombs were adjunct to an invasion. If not, it would tend to support the notion that the bombs were in response to the Russian invasion.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Air Chief Marshal Arthur Harris, the bomber of Dresden and commonly known as "Bomber" Harris by the press, and often within the RAF as "Butcher" Harris, wrote when he was mildly criticized by Churchill: “I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier.” That is not as catchy as “The only good German baby is a dead German baby” but the Air Chief Marshal's moral calculus is the same.
No - and this is important. Harris's argument and the context for that quote was that by laying waste to German cities with the RAF it would cripple the German war effort, shorten the war, and thereby save the lives of Allied servicemen. This backs up my assertion that the Allies were principally concerned with military objectives. The morality of Harris's quote is, of course, very questionable, but it is very different to the sadistic extermination of German babies.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
nuclear primacy
Maybe in your fantasy, but not in fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile
Early ICBMs had limited accuracy (circular error probable) that allowed them to be used only against the largest targets such as cities. They were seen as a "safe" basing option, one that would keep the deterrent force close to home where it would be difficult to attack. ... Second- and third-generation designs (e.g. the LGM-118 Peacekeeper) dramatically improved accuracy to the point where even the smallest point targets (missile bases) can be successfully attacked.
... The first successful (ICBM) test (BY RUSSIA) followed on 21 August 1957; the R-7 flew over 6,000 km (3,700 mi) and became the world's first ICBM.[4] The first strategic-missile unit became operational on 9 February 1959 at Plesetsk in north-west Russia.[5]
... The first successful (US) flight of an Atlas missile to full range occurred 28 November 1958.[6] The first armed version ... test flight was carried out on 9 July 1959,[7][8] and the missile was accepted for service on 1 September.
So Russia had a slim lead in early (imprecise) ICBM development and deployment. If the US tried to use early ICBMs - which Russia also had - it certainly was not with enough accuracy to take out nukes. At that point the only way the US could bomb Russia and take out nukes was the old-fashioned way - by bomber. Are you claiming the Russians wouldn't see that coming on their radar and deploy their own bombs? Or that if Russian cities were hit by missiles Russia wouldn't launch its own nuclear missiles at European cities?
I have to say, the more fantasy you spew (that the US was capable of launching a first-strike nuclear attack against Russia and disabling its nuclear response) - the deeper you end up in bullshit.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The lessons learned from Hiroshima are quite simple, without all the historical rhetoric of who bombed whom for what, the dropping of the Bomb is, for me, quite clearly both - decisive act and biggest act of terror.
Decisive that it stopped the madness of war, act of terror because it struck fear in the hearts of men. Millions died, yet countless millions were saved. It was a horrifying use of force that stopped everyone in their tracks. I remember the class drills of hiding under our school desks. Scary stuff, little did we know.
The Hiroshima Anniversary should serve as a constant reminder of the horror of War and of what a nuclear bomb could do. I hope that Congress takes the Iran Deal seriously and carefully consider the alternative to mass genocide.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Decisive act that stopped the deaths of millions, or biggest act of terror ever.....?
____________________________________________________________________
Tens of thousands of people will gather in Hiroshima to mark 70 years to the day since the city was destroyed by an atomic bomb.
Representatives of more than 100 countries, including the US ambassador to Japan, Caroline Kennedy, will be among those marking the anniversary in the city’s peace memorial park on Thursday morning.
Standing in the shadow of the shell of what was then the prefectural industrial promotion hall – now known simply as the atomic bomb dome – they will hear messages from survivors, local children and the city’s mayor. Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe, will also attend.
Hiroshima and the nuclear age - a visual guide
Read more
Seven decades ago, the countdown to the first nuclear attack in history began in the early hours of 6 August 1945, when a US B-29 Superfortress bomber, escorted by two surveillance planes, took off from an airfield on the Pacific island of Tinian.
The Enola Gay, named after the mother of the plane’s pilot, Brig Gen Paul Tibbets, was carrying a 16 kiloton atomic bomb, nicknamed Little Boy; its target was Hiroshima, a port and major army base in western Japan, six hours’ flying time away.
As dawn broke in Hiroshima, its 340,000 residents were recovering from another sleepless night of false alarms after radar picked up a succession of US bombers flying overhead on missions further south.
Soon after 7am local time, a US weather surveillance aircraft escorting the Enola Gay triggered yet another air raid alert. The plane left the area and the all clear was sounded at 7.31am. Its message to the Enola Gay’s crew: “Weather good, possible to drop bomb.”
The explosion as the bomb hits Hiroshima
A photograph taken by the US military shows the explosion as the bomb, nicknamed Little Boy, hits Hiroshima. Photograph: Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum/EPA
Forty-four minutes later, the Enola Gay released its payload. Below, people were preparing for an ordinary day at work, while young children set out for school, and older ones to factories to help Japan’s faltering war effort.
The city, the site of a large military headquarters, had so far been spared the heavy conventional bombing that had destroyed much of Tokyo and Osaka. Hiroshima residents were beginning to suspect that their city was next.
Brazilian Hiroshima survivors campaign against new push for nuclear power
Read more
The bomb exploded 580 metres (2,000ft) above a T-shaped bridge at the junction of the Honkawa and Motoyasu rivers, unleashing a blinding flash followed by a deafening boom.
About 70,000 people died instantly in the blast or from the firestorms that raged moments later. The death toll would rise to about 140,000 by the end of 1945. The explosion, equal to 12,000 to 15,000 tonnes of TNT, destroyed more than two-thirds of Hiroshima’s buildings across five sq miles.
Hiroshima three months after the atomic bomb was dropped
Hiroshima, including the prefectural industrial promotion hall, seen three months after the atomic bomb was dropped. Photograph: HirNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm really impressed with your commitment to misleading statements. You have the knack. In the Dresden raid, major industrial areas in the suburbs, which stretched for miles, were not targeted. According to Donald Miller "the economic disruption would have been far greater had Bomber Command targeted the suburban areas where most of Dresden's manufacturing might was concentrated". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#Milit
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
Air Chief Marshal Arthur Harris, the bomber of Dresden and commonly known as "Bomber" Harris by the press, and often within the RAF as "Butcher" Harris, wrote when he was mildly criticized by Churchill: “I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier.” That is not as catchy as “The only good German baby is a dead German baby” but the Air Chief Marshal's moral calculus is the same.
No - and this is important. Harris's argument and the context for that quote was that by laying waste to German cities with the RAF it would cripple the German war effort, shorten the war, and thereby save the lives of Allied servicemen. This backs up my assertion that the Allies were principally concerned with military objectives. The morality of Harris's quote is, of course, very questionable, but it is very different to the sadistic extermination of German babies.
It's not personal. It's just war.
ary_and_industrial_profile
What really counts is what Air Chief Marshal "Bomber" Harris said at the time he was planning the raid. What counts for absolutely nothing is what "Bomber" Harris said after the raid to justify what he did. He was protecting himself and he would say anything, and I mean anything, to deflect responsibility. For the next 40 years he could not shut the fuck up.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
So Russia had a slim lead in early (imprecise) ICBM development and deployment.
From your own link, Russia didn't test an ICBM until 1957 - 12 years after WWII. This backs up what I said about the US having nuclear primacy up until the late 50s.
Here I'll post the passage from the article I linked to before, which you obviously neglected to read:
Quote:
The ability to destroy all of an adversary's nuclear forces, eliminating the possibility of a retaliatory strike, is known as a first-strike capability, or nuclear primacy.
The United States derived immense strategic benefits from its nuclear primacy during the early years of the Cold War, in terms of both crisis-bargaining advantages vis-í -vis the Soviet Union (for example, in the case of Berlin in the late 1950s and early 1960s) and planning for war against the Red Army in Europe. If the Soviets had invaded Western Europe in the 1950s, the United States intended to win World War III by immediately launching a massive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union, its Eastern European clients, and its Chinese ally. These plans were not the concoctions of midlevel Pentagon bureaucrats; they were approved by the highest level of the U.S. government.
U.S. nuclear primacy waned in the early 1960s, as the Soviets developed the capability to carry out a retaliatory second strike. With this development came the onset of MAD...
Quote:
Are you claiming the Russians wouldn't see that coming on their radar and deploy their own bombs?
Radar at this time was quite primitive. For large parts of the 50s the US had high altitude bombers that the Soviets could not reliably track on radar, intercept or shoot down. There were also tactics of flying with low altitude terrain masking flight profiles - from which we get the expression 'flying under the radar' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrain_mask
And even if the Soviets did spot blips on their radar - how would they know what they were, and what they were carrying? Remember this whole 'first strike' strategy was reserved for the scenario where the USSR invades Western Europe, so by this point there would already be lots of planes in the air and blips on the radar. And even if the USSR did make the call to scramble their small fleet of nuclear bombers, NATO would be expecting them, and be in a much better position to track them and shoot them down. Whichever way you look at it the US had a huge nuclear advantage in this period, and an effective deterrent against Soviet aggression.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_level_bombing
Prior to the modern age of precision-guided munitions (PGMs), high level bombing was primarily used for strategic bombing—inflicting mass damage on the enemy's economy and population—not for attacks on specific military targets.
In other words, the US did NOT have the ability to target Russian nuclear launch sites with high-altitude bombers: the bombers simply didn't have the accuracy. (And to reiterate, it couldn't target Russian nuclear launch sites with ICBMs either, as they were also too inaccurate.) In addition, the US didn't have military facilities from which it could deploy low altitude short-range precision bombers that could reach Russian territory.
I have to say, the more fantasy you spew - in this case that the US was capable of launching a first-strike nuclear attack against Russia and disabling its nuclear response - the more you elaborate on it, the farther you extend it -- the deeper you end up in bullshit.
Remember this whole 'first strike' strategy was reserved for the scenario where the USSR invades Western Europe ...
Which means it's NOT a 'first strike', it's a defensive response. Jeeze - can't you understand the simplest words you use?
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
You've made many, many claims, which have proven untrue. I'm not going to waste my time discussing anything with you anymore until you come up with something worth discussing.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
but if it's something you disagree with you call it "propaganda" (in this case, NAZI propaganda!)
If it's Nazi propaganda, like what you posted, I won't even bother watching to see if I disagree. Why would I bother watching any propaganda? That's the difference between you and me Sig. It's funny how communists used to really pride themselves on standing up to Nazis and fascists. But now whether it's Putin, Le Pen, or just random neo-Nazi websites, you don't think twice about cosying up to them - so long as they carry that anti-Western message you want to hear.
Quote:
And you still haven't addressed the definition of "terrorism"
THE definition of terrorism? Do you mean YOUR definition of terrorism? The one that hopelessly blurs concepts together so that any repressive dictator from Stalin to Assad to Putin is labelled a 'terrorist'? No, I do not consider Stalin, Assad and Putin to be terrorists, as they would be by your definition.
Quote:
The only explanation that makes sense to me is that the USA used the atomic bombs to warn off RUSSIA. By agreement with the west, Russian forces were invading Manchuria. However, they were also storming down the Kamchatka, and had made landfall on the Kuril Islands.
The US dropped the bomb on Hiroshima three days before the Russians started invading Japanese territory. How then can the atomic bombs have been to 'stop the Russians in their tracks' when the first one was dropped before Russia even joined in the war?
Quote:
As an aside, did you read the interview with Tatyana Montoyan?
If you liked it, I probably won't.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME