Hiroshima- where the first atomic bomb fell 200 metres above

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
18/09/2010 14:05

The picture speaks for itself, very scary. http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=6706056&id=569464993&ref=fbx_album#!/photo.php?pid=6705987&id=569464993&ref=notif¬if_t=like&fbid=471175144993

Judging by the molten metal and tiles, the temperatures on the ground reached 3000 degrees Centigrade, roughly over 5400 degrees Fahrenheit

ismet

YFred


Joined: 06/05/2009
Posts: 1471

Message Posted:
18/09/2010 14:08

To think that the only country ever to use atomic bombs is America, that bastion of Civilization which they keep trying to export by force. Not unlike the spread of Roman Civilization at the point of the sword. Either you are with us or against us mentality.

Crumpy



Joined: 05/06/2010
Posts: 419

Message Posted:
18/09/2010 15:30

Hopefully such things will never be used again ... the mere threat of using them is immoral ... and more so than North Korea or Iran, I am concerned that Israel almost certainly has the capability to use one :-(

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
18/09/2010 16:09

RE msg 2, YFred: (...) To think that the only country ever to use atomic bombs is America, that bastion of Civilization which they keep trying to export by force. (...)

=> I understand that you would have favoured tens of thousands young Americans to die in a prolonged war against the aggressor - Japan - if the atomic bomb wasn't used? Or do you and I do research in different history documents?

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
18/09/2010 16:24

RE msg 3, Crumpy: (...) I am concerned that Israel almost certainly has the capability to use one :-( (...)

=> Israel cannot afford to lose one battle or bow for one threat - I'm convinced of the fact that the days of any new potential aggressor as an atomic power are numbered. And I for one am very pleased with that fact.

P.S. Where do the threats "to destroy etc" come from? Tel Aviv? Don't think so.

PeeCee


Joined: 16/03/2009
Posts: 133

Message Posted:
18/09/2010 19:45

Ismet - you obviously had a great time in Japan. Fascinating country. I believe that the Japanese have almost airbrushed WW2 out of their history. Very few young people there seem to know much about it or wish to discuss.

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
18/09/2010 20:13

RE msg 6, PeeCee: (...) I believe that the Japanese have almost airbrushed WW2 out of their history. Very few young people there seem to know much about it or wish to discuss. (...)

=> For thousands of now old Dutch women it's not so easy. They were used as "troostmeisjes" (more appropriate: whores for the military) in Nederlandsch Indië (now Indonesia) and are still waiting for an excuse and/or financial compensation for the Japanese abuse. Indeed, young Japanese don't know - because the old Japanese have a cult of silence. About many things.

Crumpy



Joined: 05/06/2010
Posts: 419

Message Posted:
18/09/2010 22:58

Hi Hans,



Obviously we are going to differ on this one Hans, but it is my opinion that Ahmedinejad may be a little wacky, but he and other like-minded Iranians regard Jewish lives more highly than most Israelis regard the life of ANY Muslim. When the Israelis retaliate they don't hesitate to kill at least ten Palestinians for every Jew. In the scenario we hate to imagine, most Israelis would have few qualms about escalating a conflict to kill thousands (maybe tens of, hundreds of) of Palestinian-Iranian-whatever Muslims. Ironically it may need the world's most agressive hawk (ie. the US) to stop Israel from escalating a crisis in this way. As I wrote above, of all the countries with the "nuclear-capacity", Israel is the country I trust least :-(



In any case Hans, you wrote in another thread that you were out for the evening. I hope you had a nice time

Geoff


Joined: 25/06/2008
Posts: 1370

Message Posted:
18/09/2010 23:07

Some of us are not on Facebook Elko, can we please have the picture downloaded onto this website?

Geoff

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 08:27

Our recent visit to Japan was very informative and we had an excellent tour guide from Turkey who spoke fluent Japanese and had connections with Japan for many years. However I am no wiser in many respects.

1. The religion: They seem to accommodate Shintoism and Buddhism at the same time and indeed its more a philosophy of living than religion. The young, like everywhere else, are not interested. the numerous temples are visited by the elderly and school children with teachers.

2. Japan is a closed society and began to open to tourism only recently. Hardly anybody speaks English and thus difficult to exchange views.

3. Japaneese do not like to discuss the past: they suffered two atomic bombs but they have been ruthless as well in indo-china.

4. The military and the Emperor wanted to surrender before the atomic bombs but the Americans did not allow them to use wording that would save the face of the emperor-apparently they wanted to see the effects of the bomb. The numbers killed

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 08:32

ctd.

outright by the two atomic bombs were not greater than those killed in Tokyo by the fire bombs. The aftereffects i.e. the radioactive fallout were not known or anticipated. Inbdeed the Americans did their best to help these victims afterwards technically and financially.



My visit to the atomic bomb museum nearby with many pictures taken at the time was a devestating experience.



ismet

pg2464


Joined: 18/07/2010
Posts: 42

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 10:44

Yes, only America has used the Atomic Bomb, and only after Japan failed to quit their aggression during WWII, if you do not understand what the powers in charge had to overcome to make a decision like that, you are unlikely capable of understanding anything. Read your history just like Germany, Japan had ideals of running their part of the world and did everything to accomplish that task, ever been to Pearl Harbour? ever wondered what it was like to be marched thousands of miles from labour camp to labour camp,being beaten and starved along the way, ever wondered what it was liked to be raped by your prison camp guards yet, were denied the right to complain? ever wondered why the Germans were hunted down one by one and punished but the Japanese who conducted, and recorded various experiments on captured prison detainees, were never tracked down. The American People at the time demanded that Japan pay for what they had done, and the demand was paid. By the way what language do you speak

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 10:55

Hi Ismet



Are you trying to 'force' folk to join up to facebook ? ;) [ you can only view as a member ..]



It always amazed me that this building survived at all ..

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 11:11

RE msg 10, elko2: (...) 4. The military and the Emperor wanted to surrender before the atomic bombs but the Americans did not allow them to use wording that would save the face of the emperor-apparently they wanted to see the effects of the bomb. (...)

=> Ismet, is this what you learned in Japan? If so, I rest my case. Because "if so", you have swallowed Japanese propaganda or let me put it bluntly: you were fed falsified history. "Denial and twisting the facts of history" (Korea, China, Indo-China, Nederlands Indië) has been Japan's attitude for decades - even until today.

=> There are plenty of books (the best ones by British authors) contradicting what you state. There were no American soldiers on the main Japanese islands yet and Emperor Hirohito, the top-militairy, the soldiers and the population were far from surrender - on most islands in and (occupied) around Japan the militairy fought till death. The bombs saved tens or hundreds of thousands young American lives.

Crumpy



Joined: 05/06/2010
Posts: 419

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 11:23

Re ; msg 12 - "America has used the Atomic Bomb, but only after Japan failed to quit their aggression."



I can almost understand that pq2464, but couldn't the US have waited a little more than three days before they dropped the second one on Nagasaki - the poor Japanese didn't really know what had hit them in Hiroshima ... though in America's defence, they didn't really know either what had hit Hiroshima.

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 11:38

Crumpy,

In America,s defence !!!!!!!!!!!!



Do you really think that America dropped an "UNTESTED WEAPON".They carried out tests before the attack..The only thing they couldn't calculate was whether they killed 50,000 or 250,000 or even 1,000,000 very civilised?

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 11:44

RE msg 15, Crumpy: Whatever happened to Japan - it was America's rightful answer to the (utmost sneaky) Sunday attack on Pearl Harbour - without a declaration of war. Japan asked for what it got from the beginning to the end.

Crumpy



Joined: 05/06/2010
Posts: 419

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 11:44

Hi Martin ... compared to other bombs it was relatively untested - they didn't know enough about the chain reactions involved and the long terms effects ... as you'll appreciate Martin, this was another good reason NOT to use such a bomb.

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 11:52

crumpy,

so you are saying America was wrong?Or are you defending there ignorance of the weapon when you say "IN Americas defence" ??

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 12:00

RE msg 18, Crumpy: (...) this was another good reason NOT to use such a bomb. (...)

=> I'm sure hundreds of thousands prisoners of war and others, made slaves by Nippon, will disagree. Unfortunately for millions in South-East Asia the bombs came and fell too late.

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 12:02

Dutch Crusader,

"Utmost Sneaky", that would be the same as Churchill's bombing of the French fleet {our allies} at anchor in the MED would it not?

Rottolover



Joined: 21/06/2009
Posts: 519

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 12:04

Sorry Crumpy, but you're looking out of only one eye.



Would you have preferred the US to carry out a testing campaign over some years in order to determine just what the effects of such a dreadful weapon would be on humans? Which humans would you have used?



The Japanese joined WW2 with a sneaky, cowardly attack on Peral Harbour, and were conducting their own campaign of warfare against many nationalities in many places. Australian and NZ soldiers suffered terribly at their hands too, as did a great many others, and for mine, the end of the war couldn't come fast enough.



Hiroshima was a necessity in my opinion, but I also feel that Nagasaki could have waited longer to try for a result. The 3 days were probably set precisely because no one knew exactly what the effects of the bomb would be.

Crumpy



Joined: 05/06/2010
Posts: 419

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 12:07

Dear Martin ... in 1945 the Americans were desperate to end the war and I can understand what they were thinking when they decided to use that weapon, but they didn't really know the destruction it could cause.



When I wrote in "America's defence" I was trying to give a balanced view to appease the hawks on this forum. However, whie at university, I was a signed-up member of CND and will continue to have such views.

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 12:18

Hi crumpy,



Balanced view, appeasement, sounds like you should be a middle of the road liberal MP ....in a place were nothing "NASTY" ever happens.

Crumpy



Joined: 05/06/2010
Posts: 419

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 12:19

Re ; message 22 - "The 3 days were probably set precisely because no one knew exactly what the effects of the bomb would be"



I suggest that because no one really knew the effects, the US should have waited a lot longer than three days. I'm sure if they had waited, then the second one on Nagasaki wouldn't have been necessary.

Rottolover



Joined: 21/06/2009
Posts: 519

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 12:27

Hi Crumpy,



I agree with you about the Nagasaki bomb, as I said in my earlier post.



But that is a very different issue from what you said in message 18, which was in effect that the bomb should not have been used at all.



You didn't answer my questions about testing it.

Crumpy



Joined: 05/06/2010
Posts: 419

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 12:28

Re ; message 24 - "middle of the road liberal MP"



Actually Martin, before the Clegg/Cameron coalition I was thinking of voting Liberal

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 12:30

crumpy Ok mate all the best lol

Crumpy



Joined: 05/06/2010
Posts: 419

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 12:37

Re ; msg 26 - "You didn't answer my questions about testing it"



I know the Americans were desperate to end the war, but yes they should have tested more. If they had done, I'm sure they would have only dropped one bomb.



Have to go now guys - my partner is getting upset with me :-(

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 12:46

RE msg 21, MartinD41: (...) "Utmost Sneaky", that would be the same as Churchill's bombing of the French fleet {our allies} at anchor in the MED would it not? (...)

=> Uncomparable. France, the British ally at the time, asked the Germans for an armistice, of which (Article 8) Sir Winston Churchill and the War Cabinet (including imo defeatist Halifax) opposed. The French fleet sailed for several North African naval bases and the UK had no hard guarantee - only Hitler's "word" - that the Germans would not use the French war ships. That could (would) have made the Mediterranean a German/Italian lake. I think SWC's cold courageous decision was absolutely right and in the very best interest of the UK. Furthermore, defeated France and only an ally on paper, was given four options (before the attack) to save her fleet - all rejected. I don't remember one of the circumstances mentioned above in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 12:54

RE msg 25, Crumpy: (...) I suggest that because no one really knew the effects, the US should have waited a lot longer than three days. I'm sure if they had waited, then the second one on Nagasaki wouldn't have been necessary. (...)

=> Maybe the USA should have waited till Nazi-Germany had a rudimentary atomic bomb also? Do you think he wouldn't have used it on London because the consequences were not quite clear..?!

Crumpy



Joined: 05/06/2010
Posts: 419

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 13:10

Re ; msg 31 - "Maybe the USA should have waited till Nazi-Germany had a rudimentary atomic bomb also? Do you think he wouldn't have used it on London because the consequences were not quite clear".



Hi again Hans ... eventhough my fiance is about to kill me, I have signed in again :-(



A few dates for you :



May 8th, 1945 - VE Day

August 6th, 1945 - Hiroshima

August 9th, 1945 - Nagasaki



I don't want to embarass you Hans, but are you aware of the chronological order?



Sorry, I have to go now :-(

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 13:45

Hi Dutch Crusader ,

Whilst I am fully aware of the agonising plight of the Dutch people under the jackboot of Germany,I have to say that I simply meant that the French Fleet [Allies on paper ,What other sort are there?]in Algeria were bottled in By numerous British War ships and mine laying aircraft and were ruthlessly disposed of with the loss of some

1,250 lives in order to prove to the World [USA] that he was determined to take the War to Hitler..A courageous act but utterly ruthless none the less..

hwilde


Joined: 16/09/2010
Posts: 230

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 13:47

As Gen George S Patton said:



"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his."



You can't win a war by half-fighting it and being nice to the enemy.

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 14:05

RE msg 32, Crumpy: (...) I don't want to embarass you Hans, but are you aware of the chronological order? (...)

=> Thank you, Crumpy, the chronological order didn't escape my attention. You may remember that Nazi-Germany was thought - rightly or wrongly - to be on the brink of developing its own atomic bomb hence the hurry in the States.

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 14:36

RE msg 33, MartinD41: (...) Allies on paper ,What other sort are there? (...)

=> In the alliance between France and the UK there was only one ally prepared to fight to the end. The French Government, excluding PM Reynaud (if I remember his position rightly), and the French High Command gave up against the Germans early. That's why I called France "an ally on paper".

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 14:57

now thats a blast from the past.......

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 15:58

Dutch Crusader.



Let us not forget that without that "horrific attack" on Pearl Harbour ,the US would not have been drawn into the European theatre of War and Britain would almost certainly now be part of the German speaking Nations...Along with France,Spain Italy Holland,Finland etc.;.In a way it was that heinous act that saved us all...

Magbs


Joined: 26/02/2009
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 16:50

Re msg 32



Your chronological order lacks one more important date - August 15, 1945 when the Japanese issued their message of surrender, i.e 6 (!) days delay since the SECOND bombing. It is well documented, even after Nagasaki the Japanese military leaders were not willing to surrender unconditionally. Many hystorians conclude that even the atomic bombings were not 'enough' for Japan's capitulation, but rather the Soviet invasion of Manchuria that started on August 9 and probably the fear of further bombings...

Magbs


Joined: 26/02/2009
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 16:53

...Anyway, it's nice to be a peacenik, but what would have been a morally superior option? Endless strategic conventional bombing of Japanese cities and hundreds of thousands would have died had they continued? Add to that some 400,000 Asians that were dying each month in Japanese-controlled territories. Had the bomb not been dropped and had, as was likely, the war continued beyond August 1945, hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of other Asians would have died from slavery, starvation and diseases.

newscoop


Joined: 23/12/2007
Posts: 2197

Message Posted:
19/09/2010 21:15

martinD41;



Shame on you being taught a (correct) lesson by DC.



That French fleet had options, it declined them so Churchill had no choice. C'est La Guerre!

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
20/09/2010 08:37

newscoop,

OK "shame on me" for getting the facts muddled,But when it comes to mankind's "INEXORABLE APPETITE FOR WAR ", let's not forget the profiteers "Arms Manufacturers "and the fact that we call ourselves civilised,Though we continue to mass armies on one another's borders for whatever reason political or religious, throughout history and in the future, it might be more appropriate to say, "SHAME ON US ALL".................