Skip to comments.Why dropping the bomb 70 years ago was necessary, and why we need to be ready to do it again
Posted on 08/09/2015 10:16:30 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
On the morning of Aug. 6, 1945, shortly after 8:00 a.m. local time, a lone American B-29 was conducting what seemed to be a reconnaissance flight at high altitude over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. At about 16 minutes after 8:00, the aircraft released an object over the centre of town. Attached to parachutes, the object floated down slowly enough to give the four-engine Boeing Superfortress time to turn and lumber out of the airspace.
The atom bomb exploded at about 1,900 feet above the centre of Hiroshima. The devastation was cataclysmic. Immediate casualties, dead and injured, numbered approximately 115,000. This didnt include another 60,000 who would succumb within a year to the effects of radiation. Three days later, a second similar device was released over the city of Nagasaki, with only slightly less devastating results.
Seventy years passed since the first and only atomic bombs to be used against human populations had been deployed. It wasnt a modern-day Napoleon, but U.S. President Harry S. Truman who had the warship Indianapolis load the Hiroshima bomb, nicknamed Little Boy (the crew called the Nagasaki bomb Fat Man) for delivery to Tinian Island in the northwestern Pacific.
It wasnt at the command of a megalomaniacal tyrant, but a former small-town shopkeeper, that a weapon capable of wiping out all life on Earth came to be transferred into the bomb-bay of an aircraft whose pilot, Lt. Col. Paul W. Tibbets, named his Superfortress Enola Gay after his mother. The most destructive force in human history was first deployed by ordinary people serving the worlds greatest democracy.
It took another week for Japanese Emperor Hirohito to address his loyal subjects in the Jewell Voice broadcast of August 15, announcing his countrys acceptance of the Joint Declaration of Potsdam...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.nationalpost.com ...
It would be an act of kindness. The Japanese are the nicest people around now. Very pacifist. They used to be fanatic flaming A-holes.
Im imagining a moslem world post “attitude adjustment”.
Us or them. period.
The Aug 7, 1945 New York Times quoted the Japanese Domei news agency accusing the U.S. Of breaking international warfare law and social injustice. They began playing the victim card immediately after Hiroshima! I was astonished to read that.
As far as I am able to discover, Little Boy (Uranium weapon) did not use “parachutes” to slow its decent ... And Fat Man was in no way “similar” to Little Boy ... Fat Man was a plutonium weapon. The only reason that the destructive power of this plutonium device was not fully realized on Nagasaki was because of the surrounding hills that deflected much of the blast.
One of my great uncles was machinegunned over france. Another got a bullet between his eyes in some butt suck south pacific island as a seabee. gfys
And if I had any say in it, I’d let Hitler take it.
I read that too. It was off target, and the blast went up a valley - largely comprised of the largest Christian community in Japan if not Asia.
The Art of War is quite educational:
“Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”
The article didn’t go into any details of how we would do it again, let alone be ready to do it again. Dropping it on Teheran or a couple cities in Iran won’t do it to stop Islamic fanatics. They’re like an infestation everywhere in the Middle East and elsewhere. The analogy of using nuclear bombs doesn’t fit against Islamic terror.
Yes, and conspiracy nutjobs are fond of asserting that such outcome was purposefully designed by the “masonic jooooooos” - so to get rid of all the Japanese Catholics ... to which I typically reply (after the standard eye roll) “Oh please, get a life!”
The Japanese fanatics infested every inch of the pacific and the Japanese islands. You have to go to the Islamic world and utterly break their hearts.
It can be done. But they correctly perceive that we do not have the will.
My point is that using nukes to combat Islamic terrorism is a fail. Muslims are everywhere in the world, and it won't stop them. Personally, I think the solution is to expose their religion for what it is, a culture of death. Then we take out their places of worship in the Middle East. Start with Mecca, and lesser places of worship. Do it with non-nuclear tactics, using our military and those of our allies. Break the radical leaders ability to lead. Ramp it up. Once we do that, the moderate muslims will step in and rein in the radicals. Of course, we have to remove Obama and his cohorts first in order to have the will to win. Plus getting our "leaders" to acknowledge that Islamic terror is a problem. A daunting task at the moment. Taking out Teheran with a nuke won't help. Taking out their religious underpinnings will.
At least that is what they want you to think....
Japan routinely carried out atrocities for a decade and then cry foul when the nukes dropped.
The Japanese should use the anniversary to apologize to the U.S. (And the world) for starting the war.
And they need to do it every year.
If the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor, the atomic bomb may never have been created.
It is an easy couple of sentences to overlook but I think they are the most profound in the article.
The result of nations agreeing to actually abide by a ban-the-bomb treaty would lead to no nuclear weapons in the hands of any but rogue nations, such as North Korea. Its unnecessary to spell out what that would mean. The law is a great instrument to use against the law-abiding. Using it against the lawless works only in conjunction with force, which is what you give up when you disarm yourself hoping that the lawless will follow suit.
He is saying if we want the lawless states to follow the law we have to be ready to use force (the Bomb).
He is also saying that if we unilaterally disarm (nuclear) we give up that ability to persuade states like Iran that we will use the bomb against them if they acquire nuclear weapons.
I wish Obama could spend a little time with the author. But even if he did this fellow would have work really hard I think to come down to Obamas intellectual level.
When I was stationed in Germany, I thought the Germans were quite pacifist as well. Two world wars can do that to them.
Tactical nuclear weapons or the really BIG ones?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.