Does anyone know why the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki - specifically? I understood the goal was to display a show of nuclear force to the Japanese. Could this have been achieved in some other way than targeting 2 civilian populations? Why 2? Why not some mountainside? They could have then said "the next strike will be a large city if you don't surrender"
2006-10-08 22:04:51 · 10 answers · asked by extraordinareality 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
In World War 2 the prevailing thought about war was called "Total War" in which you are at war not only with the governments, put the civilian populace as well. It wasn't until after WW2 that new theories of "Limited War" came out in order to prevent a third world war from occuring. For centuries war was between all of the peoples of both nations, as directed by their governements. Limited War, however is less than a century old.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were specifically chosen to show that the US could accurately deliver a bomb over a heavily defended city, and those particular cities chosen because of the relative lack of cultural landmarks when compared to Tokyo for example.
Some historians say that the destruction of those two cities saved more lives than they took. Some say the opposite. I don't think we can ever know the truth now that it has already happened.
2006-10-08 22:18:16 · answer #1 · answered by Big Blair 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's true we lost the moral high ground after use of the nukes on Japan and civilian bombing of Dresden and other cities, but looking at what Truman faced in 1945, i probably would've done the same thing. To compare the moral depravity of state sponsored genocide where the death ovens at Aushwitz/Birkenau were topping out at 2,600 per day or 80,000 killed per month and the aerial bombardment of civilians is looking at different scales.
The "Final Solution" was the policy of only one country during the last century, and it wasn't the U.S. My beef is with the multi-national business cartels that allowed it to happen, the top being IG Farben (now BASF, Bayer, among others).
The fire bombing of Dresden by the 8th Air Force and RAF Bomber Command, caused the destruction of 15 square kms including 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 18 churches, etc. with a conservative estimate of around 30,000 civilians killed. At the time, the Germans used it as propaganda to advocate against following the Geneva conventions and to attack people's perception of the Allies claim to absolute moral superiority. The military claimed the railroad center was a military target, which it was, altho it was up and running a week later. Feb 1945 was only 3 months away from May 1945 (end of the Euopean war), the outcome of the war was not in doubt, so why bomb a 'cultural' medieval city of 600,000?
The firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, genocide should also include civilian victims of aerial bombardment. Even after saying this, i still don't think the Allies were close to the moral depravity of the Nazis and their wholesale holocaust of the Euopean Jews not to mention the rape of Nanking and other Japanese atrocities.
The bombing of civilians is a great tragedy, none can deny. It is not so much this or the other means of making war that is immoral or inhumane. What is immoral is war itself.
2006-10-09 08:23:49 · answer #2 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We could have said, " I'll count to 10 and then if you don't do as I say I will put you in a time out." Remember, if both sides are rational civil people, then you would not have war. Once war starts, diplomacy ends until there is an overwhelming need for one side to quit.
1. When using nuclear weapons, there is not such thing as a surgical strike and there is no way to avoid civilian casualties.
2. We needed to get their attention. If the military did not cave in, we wanted to create enough uproar in the civilian population so that they would turn against their own government/military. Remember, they did not have a president or prime minister as head of state. They had a God as Emperor. It is a different mind set.
3. Bombing the desert, or mountains does not get the immediate attention of the military or politicians, bombing people does.
4. We only had two bombs. We wanted to give them the impression that we had many more and that we were more than capable of delivering them on a regular basis. Also, we wanted to give them the impression that we had no qualms about dropping the bomb. If they wanted to exist after the war, then they needed to make a decision quick.
5. The reason we did not drop a nuclear bomb on Tokyo is that we wanted Japan to surrender. They can not surrender if there is no government to participate in the surrender.
2006-10-08 23:31:07 · answer #3 · answered by Mr Cellophane 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
To prevent the self destructiveness wrought by state Shinto from being wrought on a larger scale than had already been witnessed on Saipan and other islands closer to the home islands.
It took a second bomb because the Japanese leadership decided that 'maybe they only had one such bomb'. The notice given to the US by the Japanese after the first bomb was ambiguously worded and offered only the possibly of surrender not that they actually planned to in the immediate future.
The Japanese leadership was fanatical and deluded. A bombing of a mountain on a volcanic island would have been passed off as an eruption by the governments propaganda apparatus.
The allies bombed plenty of cities with civilians in them. The axis powers did so as well in the areas they conquered. Perhaps you should do a bit of research about the behavior of the Japanese during WW2.
Going to a public library and checking out "The Rape of Nan-king" by Iris Chang would be a fine start. Be warned there are pictures and they are not very nice to see. Iris Chang was so affected by her researches on Japanese war atrocities that she committed suicide.
2006-10-09 04:05:10 · answer #4 · answered by corvis_9 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It was a little revenge for Pearl Harbor. The official reason was that it would save the lives of many US soldiers by stopping an invasion of Japan. But it also served as a warning to the Soviets, telling them to not overstep their boundaries our we might "Hiroshima" their butts. Little did they know, that "fatman" and "littleboy", the two bombs we dropped, were the only two we had at the time.
have a nice day.
2006-10-09 05:03:57 · answer #5 · answered by mjtpopus 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
the objective in Nagasaki replaced into the Mitsubishi Torpedo production unit. it particularly is the place the torpedoes used against the US army at Pearl Harbor on Dec 7 1941 have been made and the place torpedoes used against US army ships were equipped in the process the conflict. hence Nagasaki replaced right into a protection tension purpose, not a civilian purpose. some thing in Hiroshima replaced into additionally a protection tension purpose, yet i don't keep in mind the optimum factors.
2016-10-19 01:51:01 · answer #6 · answered by freer 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Destruction of Pearl Harbour & Threat of defeat from small country like Japan forced US to launch attack on civilian cities that ended second world war.
2006-10-08 22:15:35 · answer #7 · answered by wparkar 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The documents of how the decision was reached are public record, go to this link and read for yourself.
2006-10-08 22:19:44 · answer #8 · answered by Jim P 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
did the civilians jump out of the planes or were they pushed,
2006-10-08 22:30:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
because it had to hurt really bad. that was its message. it had to teach them a lesson. it hurts much worse to see dead children than dead soldiers.
2006-10-08 22:18:53 · answer #10 · answered by ilya 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋