WWII

[mjoekingz28]

Can anyone explain to me why Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the recipients of the atom bombs?

Why not Tokyo? Maybe these two cities were building crafts of war.

 

[mjoekingz28]

And while we are at it, dont get mad.....did Japan do the world a favor by getting the USA involved, wheras Ive heard the president didnt want to get involved,, or, was the Pacific totally seperate from Europe.

 

[hotwheels]

Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
Can anyone explain to me why Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the recipients of the atom bombs?

Why not Tokyo? Maybe these two cities were building crafts of war.


The chosen targets offered a higher strategic value primarily due to being ports and because of their massive ship building facilities. Tokyo was already bombed out at that point in time. Also, Tokyo was the seat of the government and emperor. Hard to negotiate with them after wiping them completely out.

hotwheels

 

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
Can anyone explain to me why Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the recipients of the atom bombs?

Why not Tokyo? Maybe these two cities were building crafts of war.


Six different cities were selected. Tokyo had already been fire bombed seriously. Nagasaki was a send choice that day due to weather conditions.

 

[hotwheels]

Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
And while we are at it, dont get mad.....did Japan do the world a favor by getting the USA involved, wheras Ive heard the president didnt want to get involved,, or, was the Pacific totally seperate from Europe.


Since any opinion on that topic is necessarily shaped or rather tainted by political views and is reliant on interpretation of historical facts and various hypotheses and theories, it's a loaded gun that I will not touch.

hotwheels

 

[MolaKule]

According to the last book I read on the background of the making of the atomic bomb and the targeting decisions, Tokyo (as DOOG explained) was extensively firebombed.

The US then asked the Emperor and gov. to surrender but they did not.

After the Plutonium bomb had been tested, a number of primary targets were selected along with a number of secondary targets in case the primary's had bad weather or poor visibility.

The target choices were those where heavy industry and shipping ports were located. Once those were obliterated, this would result in a crushing blow to industry and shipping and cripple the Japanese war effort.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Who celebrated the most when Hiroshima and Nagasaki had the taste of Atomic bomb ? The people of China, Philippine, Indo-China ... So many of them died while occupied by Japanese.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
And while we are at it, dont get mad.....did Japan do the world a favor by getting the USA involved, wheras Ive heard the president didnt want to get involved,, or, was the Pacific totally seperate from Europe.


I'm sort of a WWII buff also. Not sure I understand your question. The Japanese got the US involved because the US cut off their oil supply. The US was a major oil exporter at the time. Their choice was to either attack the US or pull their military out so that the US would restore their oil supply. The US thought that maybe Japan would pull back, but the military in charge of the government felt that if they struck the US quickly, they could negotiate a peace. Of course the timing of the attack made that unlikely.

The US wasn't involved in Europe at the time, they were just supporting the British but wasn't at war with Germany yet. It was Hitler's mistake to declare war on the US a few days after Pearl Harbor because he thought the Japanese would attack the Russian from the West and help out his armies in the east but they didn't end up doing that.

 

[Evanson]

I've always wondered what the reasoning behind dropping the second bomb was. Was it so the Japanese understood there was more than one?

 

[umungus1122]

I've read the selection was based on the requirement for a relatively large city, that had not been previously attacked, or at least heavily attacked, to gage the weapon's effect more accurately.

 

[umungus1122]

Originally Posted By: Evanson
I've always wondered what the reasoning behind dropping the second bomb was. Was it so the Japanese understood there was more than one?

They did not surrender after the first attack.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: Evanson
I've always wondered what the reasoning behind dropping the second bomb was. Was it so the Japanese understood there was more than one?


The other thought was that there were two different designs of the bomb so they wanted to see if the second design would also work. But that's probably a technical reason, the 2nd one was more likely so that Japan would think that more would keep coming if they didn't surrender although that was actually all the US had ready at the time.

 

[Rick in PA]

Ive often wondered if the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented a fierce WWIII. The absolute decimation of these two cities gave world leaders a very clear, and not theoretical, picture of the awesome power of nuclear weapons. Perhaps the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki restrained leaders during the cold war from using these awful weapons.

 

[JetStar]

Originally Posted By: Rick in PA
Ive often wondered if the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented a fierce WWIII. The absolute decimation of these two cities gave world leaders a very clear, and not theoretical, picture of the awesome power of nuclear weapons. Perhaps the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki restrained leaders during the cold war from using these awful weapons.


I have often wondered the same thing. Had they not been used to end the war, would larger more powerful weapons have been used at a later time, with even worse results. I'm sure everybody is aware that conventional bombing in Japan cost more lives than the Atom Bombs. I am convinced that the bombs probably ended up saving more Japanese and certainly American lives had we gone with a traditional invasion. It's unfortunate that the Japanese people paid the price for the "Spirit Warriors" as James Bradley called them.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: hotwheels

Since any opinion on that topic is necessarily shaped or rather tainted by political views and is reliant on interpretation of historical facts and various hypotheses and theories, it's a loaded gun that I will not touch.

hotwheels

I agree..I argue on here too much...lol.

 

[Eddie]

I think the Emperor should have been tried for war crimes and hung.

 

[HerrStig]

Despite it all the Japanese brought to themselves another encounter with "friendly Mr. Atom" not that long ago.

 

[andyd]

I think the Emperor should have been tried for war crimes and hung. Hirohito was isolated from power by the militarists who controlled the armed forces. He had no say in how they conducted the war.The Japanese Army's senior staff was often disobeyed by junior officers who out- Bushido-ed them with their brutality. Those guys were hung.
Kill the Pope and see how much cooperation you get. MacArthur was a megalomaniac, but he cannily overlaid a traditional society's ways with little touches of democracy. There was a fairly orderly transition between civil and military government. As for the bombs,Plan B was an invasion.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: Eddie
I think the Emperor should have been tried for war crimes and hung.


Every member of their government and every military member above the rank of Army Colonel or Navy Captain should have been lined up and shot.

 

[CT8]

We need to worry about WWIII it won't be as fun as WWII.