Now you're the one writing fiction.It's indeterminate what would have happened if we had nuked an island with Japanese observers after Hirishima, sparing Nagasaki. It could have led to peace or more war, there's no way to know for sure.
My opinion is that Hiroshima was neccesary, Nagasaki was possible over-kill. But I'm damn glad I didn't have to make that decision.
Also, Kamikaze comes from a battle the Japanese were spared. Perhaps they would have avoided battle after seeing 2 nukes, but only one city destroyed. It's certainly plausible.
posted
What would be the point of bombing an island with Japanese observers. I can possibly see, although I still don't agree, the other way around. Bombing an island and then when they still don't listen actually nuking a city. But once you've already nuked a city how is showing them another explosion that doesn't kill anyone going to get them to change their minds? If anything it should convince them that we saw what happened the first time and are too scared to do it again.
Editted to add a "?"
Also we had produced very few, bombing an island for the fun of it would have qualified as a "waste."
posted
The atomic bomb was such a staggering advance in destructive technology that a segment of the Japanese government was convinced that the US had only 1.
They were close.
We had only 2.
The thinking at the time was, since we only have 1 more ready for deployment, do we waste time while the war is still going on and people are still dieing to prove it by arranging somehow, to get impartial observers and Japanese observers to watch us bomb an mostly deserted island, or do we fake them out by bombing another city.
We bombed another city. I don't think that was a mistake.
I am reminded of the comic book Remo Williams. Here the US Government's most secret agency arranges special espionage training for a young man with a disgruntled Korean martial arts expert. A movie was made of it that is quite funny, but not as biting as the comic book.
The first mission that Remo went on was to get the prototype of a new army gun. The gun could shoot over a quarter of a mile. And it shot tactical nuclear bombs that devastated everything in a three mile radius.
As you can imagine, there were not a lot of soldiers willing to carry this into battle.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I remember from Asian History class, the second atomic bomb was dropped because Japan hesitated in surrendering and started to make a move towards a negotiated, rather than unconditional surrender.
And as Dan said, it put the question of "Did we have any more bombs ready?" right out of their minds. There was no question after Nagasaki that we would do this again and again until it was over.
Some have also speculated that the second bomb was dropped as a warning shot to the Soviets, to push them out of the driver's seat in determining the fate of Europe.
But that's really just speculation. I'm not sure Truman would have done it for that reason, he has a reputation for being very straight-forward in his thinking.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry we disagree Imogen, but in an "us" versus "them" dispute, I'll vote for "us" rather than "them."
The idea of sacrificing US soldiers (as I am a US citizen) in order to spare civilian casualties in a war zone is, quite frankly, a needless waste of American lives.
I freely admit this perspective is biased because I happen to be an American, but I would imagine most countries would not be amused at sacrificing their soldiers to spare or even minimize civilian casualties in war zones.
Now, if this callous disregard for non-US citizens or perhaps a more motivated concern for US citizens gives us pause before intervening in foreign affairs, I can only think of that as a good thing.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
