| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Hiroshima
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Hiroshima

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Hiroshima
    Posted: 12 Apr 2014 at 16:09
As part of his discourse on nuclear weapons, academic Ward Wilson proposes some curious re-telling of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in his book Five Myths about Nuclear Weapons. He claims that the bombings were not all that decisive in ending the war at that time; it was really the Soviet entry into the conflict that did it.

He states that the Japanese were not all that shocked by the bombings, given the context of the time. Scores of cities had been razed to the ground, and in some cases the damage was greater than in Hiroshima. This was a new twist on things to be sure, but future complications such as radiation were not well understood, and so these were just a few more events in the bombing campaign, which had almost completely destroyed Japanese cities in any case. Truman promised a "rain of ruin" on Japan, but it was already ruined. Their plan to fight on was undiminished.

After the event, there were strong reasons for inflating the impact of the bombs, both on the Japanese and American sides. The emperor and military elite wanted to deflect blame from themselves, and the awful strategic mistakes they made. If the decisive factor in ending the war was a new scientific invention, rather than their own blunders, it would look better for them. Many also guessed that they would face retribution for their excesses during the war. The more they could claim that Japan, in the end, received its own share of excess, the more they might stay out of the spotlight.

It was also in US interests to stoke as much awe about Hiroshima as possible, as they now faced off against the Soviets, still with powerful conventional forces. Holding an immensely powerful weapon gave them an ace up the sleeve, and so the more feared the weapon, the better.

I don't agree with Wilson's other ideas on nuclear weapons in his book, but the Japan story is interesting. Any thoughts?
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4923
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 04:06
Captain:
 It was always my understanding that one of the main reasons Japan surrendered was because it was in fact shocked by the power of the atom bomb, and feared total annihilation.
 
Japan, imo, was always going to have difficulties due to the length of its supply lines.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Apr 2014 at 20:55
I can remember old army training manuals from the '50s that suggested various maneuvers for dealing with nuclear explosions on the battlefield, taking it all in stride as it where, and continuing on with basically standard practice. It was actually quite a while before the true potential of such weapons sunk in. The vastly greater power of the H bomb was also in the future in the time in question. Given the Japanese mind-set of the time, I think it quite probable they would have continued on, for  a while anyway, if not for the threat of imminent Soviet invasion.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4923
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Apr 2014 at 04:04
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

I can remember old army training manuals from the '50s that suggested various maneuvers for dealing with nuclear explosions on the battlefield, taking it all in stride as it where, and continuing on with basically standard practice. It was actually quite a while before the true potential of such weapons sunk in. The vastly greater power of the H bomb was also in the future in the time in question. Given the Japanese mind-set of the time, I think it quite probable they would have continued on, for  a while anyway, if not for the threat of imminent Soviet invasion.
 
Do you think China, or for that matter the US, would have allowed Russia to invade Japan?
 
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Apr 2014 at 17:19
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

I can remember old army training manuals from the '50s that suggested various maneuvers for dealing with nuclear explosions on the battlefield, taking it all in stride as it where, and continuing on with basically standard practice. It was actually quite a while before the true potential of such weapons sunk in. The vastly greater power of the H bomb was also in the future in the time in question. Given the Japanese mind-set of the time, I think it quite probable they would have continued on, for  a while anyway, if not for the threat of imminent Soviet invasion.
 
Do you think China, or for that matter the US, would have allowed Russia to invade Japan?
 
 
 

They would have had no say in the matter. Russia was highly militarized after four years of total war, and had an army waiting only a few miles from the Japanese shore. The US faced a situation with Europe in chaos, Germany still being disarmed, and a still somewhat unknown outcome waiting for US troops landing in Japan. Would fanatic elements fight on for years? The situation so far suggested this might be the case. In fact the US had been urging Stalin to join in the Pacific War for some time, so trying to tell them to butt out at the climax would have been very tough, diplomatically and militarily. The US was not in a position to dictate to the Soviets in 1945, with the world as it was.

China was in an even weaker position, after years of civil war and the fight with Japan. Their fate was going to be whatever was decided for them by the US and the Soviets.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.