July 16, 1945

Palomar · 2005-07-11 07:37:56

Now]http://www.spacewar.com/news/nuclear-doctrine-05zi.html]"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds..."

*I still don't want to visit that site.

and a shallow 800-meter (yard) crater that was coated in green glass had appeared where the heat had melted the desert sand.

::shakes head::

I've read that before. Also, that folks in El Paso, TX saw the flash...which would be (roughly) 200 miles away.

--Cindy

Grypd · 2005-07-11 16:41:39

Think of this.

What would have happened if Nazi Germany or Japan had made the first bomb.

Both countries where attempting to do so and Germany had a Nuclear reactor. The only reason that Hitler did not succeed was the bravery of some Norwegian and British commandoes and a raid on a heavy water production site.

Palomar · 2005-07-11 21:07:35

Think of this.
What would have happened if Nazi Germany or Japan had made the first bomb.
Both countries where attempting to do so and Germany had a Nuclear reactor. The only reason that Hitler did not succeed was the bravery of some Norwegian and British commandoes and a raid on a heavy water production site.

*Hi Grypd: Yes, understood. It's just death...I don't handle it very well (funerals are difficult, etc.). :-\ And something of this magnitude...

But yes, I can only imagine if the Germans had gotten it first. I'm surprised they didn't, but they were already spread out so thinly I suppose...

Small favors.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-07-16 16:17:15

The]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050716/ap_on_re_us/trinity_anniversary]"The sun rose in the west that day..."

*Interesting 1st-hand accounts I've not read before.

--Cindy

Dook · 2005-07-17 04:16:12

Using the nuclear bomb to end the war saved lives compared to an invasion. It's invention was inevitable just as other, even more dangerous, weapons are.

But we could use a nuclear bomb to deflect a planet destroying asteroid. Or use it to terraform a planet. Nuclear power can provide electricity to a colony on mars.

Fledi · 2005-07-17 06:34:54

What would have happened if Nazi Germany or Japan had made the first bomb.

Hitler didn't believe in the bomb, he thought it was impossible to do. Therefore the scientists working on it only got minor support.
Later on one of the scientists working on the Manhattan project wrote after reading through descriptions of the German bomb program he thought one of the leading scientists was deliberately misleading the whole project in a really impossible direction (creating the H bomb first, which requires an A bomb to ignite)

It's another irony of history that the Jewish scientists who were chased away to the USA by the Nazis played a key role in developing the US bomb later on.

Palomar · 2005-07-17 07:30:38

Nuclear power can provide electricity to a colony on mars.

*Hi Dook: I am pro-nuclear as an energy source for probes, domestic electricity, powering spaceships goes, etc.

I'm not sold on terraforming, and as to specific plans involving nuclear devices...well, I'd have to know more about what exactly it'd entail.

Nuclear as weapons scares the hell out of me. Probably because I remember the final 1-1/2 decades of the Cold War oh so well... :-\

Hitler didn't believe in the bomb, he thought it was impossible to do.

Really? ??? Hmmmmm. Why exactly did he think it was impossible, do you know? Maybe he just didn't have enough working knowledge of the processes involved? I mean, he also thought he knew more about war tactics and strategies than his generals, IIRC. Did he have a solid basis for thinking the bomb was impossible or did he merely dismiss the idea based on his own peculiar "know-it-all" attitude?

It's another irony of history that the Jewish scientists who were chased away to the USA by the Nazis played a key role in developing the US bomb later on.

Yep.

I'm not greatly versed in fine specifics regarding WWII, but does anyone think the U.S. would have dropped a nuclear bomb on Germany ala Hiroshima/Nagasaki, if by late 1945 the war in Europe wasn't where it was? I'm GLAD it didn't go to that point of course...I'm just wondering.

--Cindy

Fledi · 2005-07-17 14:12:25

Did he have a solid basis for thinking the bomb was impossible or did he merely dismiss the idea based on his own peculiar "know-it-all" attitude?

It was the latter, of course, as with almost everything. I guess he just couldn't imagine any bigger explosions than what he had seen in ww1.

I'm not greatly versed in fine specifics regarding WWII, but does anyone think the U.S. would have dropped a nuclear bomb on Germany ala Hiroshima/Nagasaki, if by late 1945 the war in Europe wasn't where it was? I'm GLAD it didn't go to that point of course...I'm just wondering.

I've heard the Nagasaki bomb was originally planned for Hamburg, but then Germany surrendered before it was ready.
A lucky thing for the citizens...

el scorcho · 2005-07-17 16:01:12

I'm not greatly versed in fine specifics regarding WWII, but does anyone think the U.S. would have dropped a nuclear bomb on Germany ala Hiroshima/Nagasaki, if by late 1945 the war in Europe wasn't where it was? I'm GLAD it didn't go to that point of course...I'm just wondering.

I don't know for a fact, but I don't think there's any doubt the U.S. would have dropped hell on Germany if the need had arisen. For that matter, whoever had it first would have used it simply because of the stakes of that war.

As an interesting sidenote, my grandfather was slated to be in the first wave of the invasion of Japan. Had we not used the A-Bomb, I probably would never have been born. Not saying that justifies it, of course. :laugh:

srmeaney · 2005-07-21 09:55:12

Considering the way the US Govt described the targets to its own people...Nagasaki and Hiroshima are naval bases like San francisco and New york are Naval bases. If Hitler had nuked San francisco and New York to 'end the war' it would have been called Genocide...

Palomar · 2005-07-21 11:55:03

*Since the topic came back up again...

I've been meaning to ask (while trying not to sound naive) what you think Hitler would have done with the A-bomb, if the Reich had successfully developed it? Merely dangled it over others' heads with threats? Actually use it -- and on whom first? If he'd had half a dozen of them, do you think he would have used them all without a second thought? Would his generals have tried to stop him, even via assassination? Would he have been strategic in their use or would he have dropped them on a whim?

Usually I don't get into speculation. History is history, done and over. I don't know what that dingbat would have done exactly...but I'm curious to know others' speculations.

--Cindy

srmeaney · 2005-07-21 12:04:13

Based on what he was like, he probably would have worshiped it like a god...

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-21 12:16:17

I've been meaning to ask (while trying not to sound naive) what you think Hitler would have done with the A-bomb, if the Reich had successfully developed it?

Without a doubt it would have been used against the Russians. If the Reich had a half-dozen as you mention likely they would have used two or three to halt the Soviet advance immediately, then gone on the offensive to the East (albeit hobbled) while trying to use the bombs to saber-rattle the Western allies into backing off.

There were plans to bomb New York and aircraft designed specifically for that purpose, but it's of dubious strategic value given the more pressing issues facing Germany. While Hitler wasn't the most rational man (at this point in the war he was completely off his nut) his Luftwaffe generals would probably not have been enthusiastic about using such weapons in a long range psychological bombing campaign against London, New York or Washington when the Red Army was at the door. Whether military or "Hitlerite" concerns would out would likely be a result of the chain of command and the backbone of certain officers.

This Russia-centric thing is out the window though if they had nukes by the time of D-Day. Hitler's the sort of fellow that would happily drop a nuke or two over occupied territory to halt an invasion. I suspect if he could have blown up the entire planet during those last days in the bunker he would have done it.

However I must say that if Germany had developed nuclear weapons and used them to crush the Soviet advance. . . Well, let's just say I have greater respect for the conduct of German military forces (even most Waffen SS units) than the vast bulk of the Red Army that swept through, raping and pillaging like the Huns of old.

One thing is almost certain, Germany would not have made the mistake we did. Having developed the bomb first, they would not have allowed enemies to do the same if at all in their power to prevent.

No offense to the modern Russian people, but letting the Soviet Union develop the atomic bomb was a mistake, particularly if one truly believed that war was almost inevitable. Maybe, just maybe being a wee bit looser with a nuke or two would have saved the people of Eastern Europe and elsewhere a great deal of misery.

And that's Cobra's "read in stuff that isn't there to call me a Nazi" rant of the day.

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-21 12:23:19

Back to the morality of using the bomb on Japan. What's often overlooked is that it not only saved the lives of countless thousands of US troops and Japanese that would have died as a result of the invasion, but far more lives were saved from famine and disease.

See, to invade an island chain like Japan you'd want to cut the enemy's supply lines. Bomb rail lines, disurpt shipping, things like that. A good chunk of Japan's food was grown on one island (I can't recall which, keeping thinking Honshu but doesn't seem right) so a good chunk of the food supply would be cut off right there. What remains would be further disrupted by bombing and redirection toward repelling the invasion.

Nuking two cities saved lives in the long run. Hundreds of thousands of them most likely.

Palomar · 2005-07-21 13:18:23

*Why not Tokyo (the military center), instead of domestic areas like Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Hitler stuff:

There were plans to bomb New York and aircraft designed specifically for that purpose

I'm a bit familiar with that, from a History Channel special. They already had some of those aircraft actually built, IIRC. Or nearly so.

This Russia-centric thing is out the window though if they had nukes by the time of D-Day. Hitler's the sort of fellow that would happily drop a nuke or two over occupied territory to halt an invasion.

Mmmmm-hmmmm.

I suspect if he could have blown up the entire planet during those last days in the bunker he would have done it.

I think you're right about that. He did say the German people would deserve to be destroyed if his plans failed, and that he'd abandon them. He was true to his word on that account (cowardly suicide). If he could be that malicious and hateful to his own people...sure, he would likely have happily destroyed all of Earth if it'd been in his power. ::shakes head::

One thing is almost certain, Germany would not have made the mistake we did. Having developed the bomb first, they would not have allowed enemies to do the same if at all in their power to prevent.

Barn door's open, horse has bolted. :?

Thanks for the response.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-21 13:33:13

*Why not Tokyo (the military center), instead of domestic areas like Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

A big part of it was wanting to avoid killing Emperor Hirohito. The idea being that if the Emperor surrenders, the Japanese people have to go along. If he's killed in the war, honor and loyalty demand they fight on.

The old "if we kill all the leaders who's left to accept our terms" situation.

Palomar · 2005-07-21 13:43:09

*Why not Tokyo (the military center), instead of domestic areas like Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
A big part of it was wanting to avoid killing Emperor Hirohito. The idea being that if the Emperor surrenders, the Japanese people have to go along. If he's killed in the war, honor and loyalty demand they fight on.
The old "if we kill all the leaders who's left to accept our terms" situation.

*Oh...I see.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-07-22 06:49:19

*I am still puzzled, though, at the attitudes of the pilots/crew members of the Japan bombings. They (or most of them) said to the end (I think the pilot of the Enola Gay is dead now) -- or continue to assert -- that they were proud to be a part of the mission and had no regrets. :?

A now-deceased elderly friend once told me (pre-9/11) I couldn't understand because I wasn't there. She had no regrets/qualms about Hiroshima or Nagasaki either.

Post-9/11 I still don't understand the attitudes of the pilots/crew. If they'd felt reluctant, felt it was a "necessary evil" to strike back in that fashion, had serious 2nd thoughts before hitting the bombs-away button, felt some sort of sympathy and/or conflicted feelings for the people below...that I could comprehend to a point.

Of course it's been done now. After 9/11 I didn't (and still don't) feel hateful nor vengeful towards the common Middle Eastern/Muslim person. The terrorists, yeah; different story -- get 'em (but with as minimal harm to the common person as possible).

Also, the pilot's mother for whom the Hiroshima bombing was named:
Enola Gay; IIRC, she was proud to have her name on that plane. I wouldn't be. No matter how much people would try to convince me it's for the greater good, is necessary, etc., I'd always be thinking about the people literally disintegrated into fine ash while waiting for a bus or mothers clasping their babies to their chests and turning instantly away from that horrific blinding flash; a lot of dead mothers with infants were found that way.

I just don't understand the cold "proud of it, no regrets" attitude on their part. If they'd done it with some real trepidation, 2nd thoughts, emotional turmoil...

Just some thoughts. I have a very strong maternal instinct which can extend itself quite far and which makes many situations NOT "cut and dry."

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-22 07:06:42

*I am still puzzled, though, at the attitudes of the pilots/crew members of the Japan bombings. They (or most of them) said to the end (I think the pilot of the Enola Gay is dead now) -- or continue to assert -- that they were proud to be a part of the mission and had no regrets.

For what it's worth, I think I understand their feelings on the matter. They were right there in the middle of a war against a relentless enemy that attacked their country and no doubt killed several friends and comrades of theirs during the ensuing fighting. They also knew that the only alternative would be to invade the islands, leading to even more friends and comrades dying as well as more Japanese women and children, though it's doubtful that was a first-tier concern at the time. Likely they viewed the Japanese people (not entirely without reason) as a fairly monolithic block in support of the war and its goals. If one holds that perception, there are no "innocents" on the other side.

Imperial Japan was kind of a strange case, a layer of recently acquired (not developed, which has profound social implications) modern industrial technology glazed over a very old and extremely militaristic culture. Everyone was a part of that machine, the idea of "innocent Japanese civilians" could understandably seem a bit foreign to those fighting the war.

I can't say for certain, but I believe that if I were in that position I too would carry out the mission with no reservations about what must be done and probably a certain amount of pride in having played a role in ending the killing and misery swiftly. Sure, I'd have moments of doubt and guilt that would never go away, but like the crew of the Enola Gay I'd never talk about them.

Which might be the entire point. We used to do what must be done and move on instead of worrying about "feelings", ours, theirs, uninvolved third parties.

But then I'm on record as questioning whether two nukes on Japan were enough to really end the whole war, so I'm a little out of the mainstream on this one.

Palomar · 2005-07-22 08:01:52

Sure, I'd have moments of doubt and guilt that would never go away, but like the crew of the Enola Gay I'd never talk about them.

*Perhaps you're right; maybe they simply didn't want to talk about those aspects of their involvement...perhaps because they'd be criticized for doing so, and I mean by people in general. I've noticed this (IMO) strange tendency on the part of -many- people, it seems, to want others to be either All or Nothing on an issue (or happenstance). Any variation away from All For or Entirely Against is disliked and disdained. That too is puzzling to me, because some circumstances cannot be so neatly and ultra-rigidly delineated.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-08-06 10:32:15

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050806/ap_ … ]Hiroshima marks 60th anniversary of bomb

*They ladel out water for the dead. I remember reading how injured/wounded people, mostly burn victims, could only say "water, water"; pleading for water. No one could give them any.

Prayers for the dead, and water, and paper lanterns representing souls of those who perished.

---
On a different note, the article says the Nagasaki bomb was a plutonium bomb? Maybe I knew that and forgot. But it doesn't seem to matter...

Also, I read last week in an online news article that Hiroshima residents are concerned about (what they perceive as) a growing militaristic mindset in Japan. Hiroshima residents are generally very pacifist.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-08 21:38:41

This is one more thread I've only just got to after a lengthy absence!
Going back to the 'German Bomb' question, I have to say I think CC, as usual, has hit the nail on the head. Hitler regarded the Russians as 'untermensch', or subhumans. While he would have hesitated (even if only momentarily) to drop nuclear bombs on Western Europe, he would have absolutely delighted in incinerating Russian towns and personnel. If he'd known Stalin was in Moscow, for example, .. well .. ! :shock:
Having witnessed the devastation in the Soviet Union, I think it highly likely the Allies would have withdrawn from the fight in the west, even if Hitler's Bomb hadn't arrive on the scene until late 1944 when American and British troops were at the German border.

As for Hitler's attitude to nuclear bombs in general, it's true to say he was essentially a 19th century man in his way of thinking - dragged only partially into the 20th century by the realities of WWI. For example, he was offered jet bombers by German engineers in the mid-thirties but sent the delegation away, preferring to stick with proven piston-engine technology. (What if he'd said yes?! )
-- And nuclear capability was undoubtedly delayed for the Nazis by the condemnation of nuclear research as "Jewish science" (just as a great deal of artwork was decried as 'degenerate Jewish art') in the pogroms leading up to the war. And, of course, the fact that half the Reich's nuclear scientists were Jewish and fled to Britain or the U.S. didn't help them either.
-- It was only later, especially when the invasion of the Soviet Union got unexpectedly bogged down, that Hitler became more amenable to the prospect of 'superweapons'. The development of the immensely-impressive-for-the-time V2 rocket was one of the results. In fact, tests were purportedly under way in 1944/45 of a missile which could be launched from a submerged submarine. Thus, by the end of the war, Nazi Germany had invented the cruise missile (V1), the ballistic missile (V2), and was close to developing a primitive kind of non-nuclear Polaris or Trident submarine-launched missile! (It never ceases to amaze me just how much stuff the Nazis were working on, which was years ahead of the rest of the world.)
-- Some experts estimate that, if D-Day had been delayed for only another 6-12 months, the Nazis would probably have had weapons in their hands which could have turned the tide of the war in their favour.

-- Sorry. Started to ramble a bit there!

Palomar · 2005-08-09 06:19:58

Some experts estimate that, if D-Day had been delayed for only another 6-12 months, the Nazis would probably have had weapons in their hands which could have turned the tide of the war in their favour.

*OMG.

Today's the anniversary of Nagasaki. Saturday night the Discovery Channel aired a special about Hiroshima. So President Truman offered the Japanese a chance to surrender on July 26? They of course refused it. Estimates of 1,000,000 casualties (both sides combined) if the war would have continued (without the bomb). I was surprised some of Japan's military leaders (and one man in particular) didn't want to surrender even after Nagasaki. He had the old warrior mentality: You die, you don't surrender. So...he would have preferred to see the entire nation obliterated rather than surrender?? If that was his personal "code," whatever...but to be willing to sacrifice an entire nation of people out of pride? Of course they didn't think on individualistic terms; it was group mind/group effort. Cooler heads prevailed I guess.

The show was unbiased and balanced, IMO. The facts "as is" were presented, different POV's voiced equally.

Also mentioned was the fact that even Japanese schoolgirls were taught how to attack (U.S. soldiers) with bayonets. They had drills for this, the works.

It's tragic how situations can get so out of hand which leads to such drastic measures. Of course I still feel for the civilians killed in the bombings, on the human level. Brainwashed, doing what they believed was their duty to their Diety (the Emperor), isolated, all media state- controlled, etc. ::shakes head::

The Japanese officials in charge were unforgiveably stiff-necked, IMO. After Hiroshima, they should have surrendered. I would have. Good grief, that'd have been enough! The blood of the Nagasaki residents is on -their- hands, ultimately. Fools.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-09 06:32:00

The Japanese officials in charge were unforgiveably stiff-necked, IMO. After Hiroshima, they should have surrendered. I would have. Good grief, that'd have been enough! The blood of the Nagasaki residents is on -their- hands, ultimately. Fools.

There's another angle to this. The Japanese military, the Japanese people in fact weren't fighting for the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere or some political goal at that point. They perceived that their very way of life was at stake. Surrender, unconditionally as demanded, would have resulted in the destruction of their culture.

And in many respects it did. The Bushido code no longer plays a central role in Japanese society. The Emperor has become a hollow figurehead. The Japan those officials fought to defend has been obliterated.

On some level I admire their steadfastness and resolve.

Palomar · 2005-08-09 07:10:05

The Japanese officials in charge were unforgiveably stiff-necked, IMO. After Hiroshima, they should have surrendered. I would have. Good grief, that'd have been enough! The blood of the Nagasaki residents is on -their- hands, ultimately. Fools.
There's another angle to this. The Japanese military, the Japanese people in fact weren't fighting for the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere or some political goal at that point. They perceived that their very way of life was at stake. Surrender, unconditionally as demanded, would have resulted in the destruction of their culture.
And in many respects it did. The Bushido code no longer plays a central role in Japanese society. The Emperor has become a hollow figurehead. The Japan those officials fought to defend has been obliterated.
On some level I admire their steadfastness and resolve.

*Change is inevitable.

Too many lives lost, too much suffering for the sake of cultural stasis (which, societally speaking, ultimately proves itself to be an illusion).

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-07-11 07:37:56

Re: July 16, 1945

#2 2005-07-11 16:41:39

Re: July 16, 1945

#3 2005-07-11 21:07:35

Re: July 16, 1945

#4 2005-07-16 16:17:15

Re: July 16, 1945

#5 2005-07-17 04:16:12

Re: July 16, 1945

#6 2005-07-17 06:34:54

Re: July 16, 1945

#7 2005-07-17 07:30:38

Re: July 16, 1945

#8 2005-07-17 14:12:25

Re: July 16, 1945

#9 2005-07-17 16:01:12

Re: July 16, 1945

#10 2005-07-21 09:55:12

Re: July 16, 1945

#11 2005-07-21 11:55:03

Re: July 16, 1945

#12 2005-07-21 12:04:13

Re: July 16, 1945

#13 2005-07-21 12:16:17

Re: July 16, 1945

#14 2005-07-21 12:23:19

Re: July 16, 1945

#15 2005-07-21 13:18:23

Re: July 16, 1945

#16 2005-07-21 13:33:13

Re: July 16, 1945

#17 2005-07-21 13:43:09

Re: July 16, 1945

#18 2005-07-22 06:49:19

Re: July 16, 1945

#19 2005-07-22 07:06:42

Re: July 16, 1945

#20 2005-07-22 08:01:52

Re: July 16, 1945

#21 2005-08-06 10:32:15

Re: July 16, 1945

#22 2005-08-08 21:38:41

Re: July 16, 1945

#23 2005-08-09 06:19:58

Re: July 16, 1945

#24 2005-08-09 06:32:00

Re: July 16, 1945

#25 2005-08-09 07:10:05

Re: July 16, 1945

Board footer