The Best Read of the Year? # 1 - Shockwave Hiroshima.

[Rookie (Rodney)]

Best Read of the year?? Hmm, ill go for Phil Ivey vs Actionjack when heads up in Monte Carlo, raise reraise rereraise stuff on each other on the flop. Brilliant.

[MadYank]

I know why don't we invite them over to a demonstration of how powerful our new weapon is and give them chance to strike at our hierarchy.

I didn't mean the whole country!!! I was more thinking the ambassador! Maybe it wouldn't have worked, the Japanese psyche after all was very much no surrender, but surely it was worth a go.

If it didn't work then yes i would have supported the bomb over invasion.

The logistical and strategic reasons for this are numerous.

1: The Japanese Gorvernment WAS warned about the new SUPERWEAPON and dismissed it.

2: Even after the 1st bomb was dropped on Hiroshima they continued to fight. Discussions about how they were considering surrender and just discussing the terms amongst themselves is at best histoical revisionism.

3: Understand, Japan at this time was completely a military dicatorship. The emperor was maintained for pure appearances of the citizenry.
Also understand that Japanese military forces were continuing to fight (to the last man and even last civilian) before, during, and after Hiroshima.

4: The Japanese military leaders KNEW they had much to answer for (Look no further then their conduct in China and The Philipines) and as many people in these situations reat they will continue fighting until the very credible threat of complet extinction is made clear. That threat would ony be credible for these leaders with the use of the bomb on an actual Japanese target.

5: As another poster has alluded to: It is highly likely that well after WWII, knowing and understanding the effects of these weapons upon real people and real cities significantly added to the credibility of the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) threat which in some large part at least kept the superpower blocs of the Cold War from taking the final insane step of launching on each other.

I spent 3 years on an OHIO class submarine (SSBN http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/ssbn-726.htm) armed with Trident Missiles (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/d-5.htm), so I spent a long time podering these types of issues. Tis a rather ominous job to not only operate one of the most complex and dangerous pieces of machinery in history, but also know that ultimately you could be called upon to end the world using it.

Fortunately and unfortunately the nuclear genie cannot be put back in the bottle.
Fortunately, because my sincere belief is that peaceful nuclear power is the only viable significant energy source for humanity in the future.
Unfortunately, because this technowledgy was born from and produced weapons of barely comprhensible power.

On a different note:
In repsonse to CelticGeezer's notion that bombing a city is sheer cowardice; Agreeing or disagreeing wth the decision to drop the bomb is one thing but cowardice? Absolutely wrong! It takes sheer courage to make that decision knowing the likely outcome.

This cowardice statement belies an absolute misunderstanding of almost ALL of WWII history, and in fact most of the histories of mans' wars. The population of a warmaking state is a fundamental weapon in it's warmaking abilty. This applies specifically to the Japanese of WWII who were certainly engaged routinely against all enemies.

See Saipan, see Tarawa, see China, see The Philipines, see Okinawa, see Korea, see Siam(Thailand), see Burma, see any other country touched by the Japanese war machine from 1930 onward.

In Summary: The United States Government and Military had much to answer for at the conclusion of the war. Most of which was reasonably committed to the horrid acts committed to prevent even further horrid acts category. Some which perhaps may never reasonably be answered (In my mind the firebombings, along with the British of numerous German cities for little to no strategic gain). And then some questions we shall and probably don't need to know of or understand.

Along with this though, the Germans and Japanese had a FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR greater toll to answer for at wars conclusion.
Additionaly, The British and other allies also had items to answer for.

No unit or country goes through a significant conflict without numerous moral dilemmas being confronted. Noone escape these conficts with clean hands. To assume it were possible or likely would be the height of naievity and is nearly as ridiculous as making blanket "XXXX was sheer cowardice" statements.

[RED-DOG]

I hope Tony's next book is Fly Fishing by J R Hartley.

[TightEnd]

its a book about mathematical theorems actually...his book #2 that is...three minutes in to his sneak preview of it tonight various listeners were losing the will to live.

[MadYank]

One Final Note:

An Event during WWII I find more disturbing than the atomic bomb drops.

Interesting read re: barbarism of man in warfare.

]http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Dresden/index.html]

[Royal Flush]

1: The Japanese Gorvernment WAS warned about the new SUPERWEAPON and dismissed it.

There is a big difference between a warning and a demonstration.

5: As another poster has alluded to: It is highly likely that well after WWII, knowing and understanding the effects of these weapons upon real people and real cities significantly added to the credibility of the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) threat which in some large part at least kept the superpower blocs of the Cold War from taking the final insane step of launching on each other.

Of that i happen to agree, however it doesn't make Truman's decision a good one, just a lucky one (just like stacking off with 72 and hitting quads)

I spent 3 years on an OHIO class submarine armed with Trident Missiles, so I spent a long time podering these types of issues. Tis a rather ominous job to not only operate one of the most complex and dangerous pieces of machinery in history, but also know that ultimately you could be called upon to end the world using it.#

Of course you have both more experience and have spent more time thinking about this than i have, however like i say i agree that on the whole both the development of nuclear technology and in particular the bomb have SAVED more lives than they have taken.

On a different note:
In repsonse to CelticGeezer's notion that bombing a city is sheer cowardice; Agreeing or disagreeing wth the decision to drop the bomb is one thing but cowardice? Absolutely wrong! It takes sheer courage to make that decision knowing the likely outcome.

Yeah i was puzzled by this as well, we seem to call people 'cowards' when they do things we don't like. What he did was not cowardly.

[wader leg]

One Final Note:

An Event during WWII I find more disturbing than the atomic bomb drops.

Interesting read re: barbarism of man in warfare.

]http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Dresden/index.html]

David Irving?
Not the best choice of author for someone looking for historical facts imo

[MadYank]

One Final Note:

An Event during WWII I find more disturbing than the atomic bomb drops.

Interesting read re: barbarism of man in warfare.

]http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Dresden/index.html]

David Irving?
Not the best choice of author for someone looking for historical facts imo

OH SHT! didnt notice that arse was the author. Anywayz look a little deeper (there are numerous books on the subject) and you might see that the Dresden fire bombing was it's own horror.

[Eyeofsauron]

Historically there are arguements the pure devistation these bombs caused prevented further wars, would the us and ussr have been so hesistant to use them during the cold war if  they had not been aware of the consequences?

The Russian's seemed pretty keen to target the UK with ICBMs during the Suez Canal Crisis in 1956.

One other thing to think about. Modern nuclear weapons are far more powerful in destructive power than those dropped during World War II, and can be launched from anywhere in the world.

Here's something I've just learned from searching the internet....

"There have been (at least) four major false alarms, the most recent in 1995, that almost resulted in the U.S. or USSR/Russia launching its weapons in retaliation for a supposed attack. Additionally, during the Cold War the U.S. and USSR came close to nuclear warfare several times, most notably during the Cuban Missile Crisis. As of 2005, there are estimated to be at least 29,000 nuclear weapons held by at least eight countries, 96 percent of them in the possession of the United States and Russia."

Quoated from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons

[kinboshi]

Interesting points on both sides.  There might even be logical and humanitarian arguments for dropping the first bomb on Hiroshima (not that I agree with them, but they are there).

However, the rationale for the second bomb dropped on Nagasaki is very loose.  Effectively it boils down to the opportunity to test a 'different' sort of bomb.  Not in terms of the death and destruction, but just in terms of the technology and physics.

The bombing of Dresden, the persecution of the Allied forces by the Japanese, the genocide of the Jews by the Germans, the use of the a-bomb on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  All works of evil, and not proportional acts of war. 

I had the opportunity to visit the museum of the atomic bombing in Hiroshima - and it's a haunting place.  Not in terms of 'us versus them', or how war puts two groups of people separated only by geography against each other; but in terms of how the human mind can focus so well on science to create a weapon that can destroy so many people in the blink of an eye - it's frightening and spellbinding.  It really is sickeningly awesome to think that mankind has the ability to create a weapon of such obscene brilliance.

I haven't read the book Tikay mentioned, but I might look it up.  I've got about 10 poker books that I want to read before Copenhagen (I need to read them), and another 10 books of general interest (including several by Richard Dawkins that look very, very interesting).  But once they're done, I might have a look at this one.  This sort of book certainly helps to make you look at your own humanity in a more critical light.

Merry Xmas everyone, by the way...

[CelticGeezeer]

One Final Note:

An Event during WWII I find more disturbing than the atomic bomb drops.

Interesting read re: barbarism of man in warfare.

]http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Dresden/index.html]

I agree with you  entirely and cant see and cant really see the difference apart from the fact that the Americans did it twice.

[MadYank]

One Final Note:

An Event during WWII I find more disturbing than the atomic bomb drops.

Interesting read re: barbarism of man in warfare.

]http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Dresden/index.html]

I agree with you  entirely and cant see and cant really see the difference apart from the fact that the Americans did it twice.

Without getting too deep into moral bodycount scale measuring, I think a reasonable case can be put forth that the atomic bomb drops had certain significant objectives which may or may not have outweighed the horror of their use.

The firebombings of Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo on the other hand were simply cases of weak attempts at terrorizing a population with little to no strategic military objective. The German cities detroyed, had minimal effect upon the European theater in that the end of the war was nigh with a reasonable expectation that X thousands more casualties on both sides would be suffered before the final end regardless of whether Dresden and Hamburg burned or not.

WRT the atomic bombs, it was a reasonable expectaion that >>100,000s lives would actually be saved if they served their purpose and ended that war in two blinding horrific flashes.

PS: For Flushy: The Tokyo firebombing (as vile and seemingly purposeless as it was)  should have served a fair notice upon Japans rulers about the ability, extent, and determination of the Allies to destroy Japan's fighting ability. Their response was nil as it was to Hiroshima. So, one might deduct from this that a non targeted atomic bomb detonation would be even less likely to force capitulation.

[CelticGeezeer]

You appear to be missing the point, if my next door neighbour is a big guy and annoys me but might cause me some damage if I complain so I burn his house down with his family in it. I am not a hero but a coward.

[MadYank]

You appear to be missing the point, if my next door neighbour is a big guy and annoys me but might cause me some damage if I complain so I burn his house down with his family in it. I am not a hero but a coward.

This metaphor does not make much sense to me.

[CelticGeezeer]

Ok then. you are saying that invading Japan would have involved the killing of  a lot of American troops, therefore nuking out over 150 thousand Japanese civilians was not only a good idea but indeed a heroic action worthy of a party.

Perhaps Baghdad should have been nuked too along with North Korea and Iran.