1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Remembering Hiroshima

Discussion in 'Personal' started by coffeekid, Aug 6, 2020.

  1. coffeekid

    coffeekid Star commenter

    75 years ago today.

  2. modelmaker

    modelmaker Lead commenter

    I think it's just as important that we remember Hiroshima as anything else to do with WW2. Possibly more so, as it had a greater impact on preventing a third world war than anything else. It wasn't particularly nice growing up during the 50s and 60s in the knowledge that nuclear powers could launch a nuclear attack at the drop of a hat, but my thinking now is that if the Yanks hadn't dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it will have been inevitable that another nuclear power would have flexed its muscles by dropping nuclear bombs at some point since.

    It's impossible to speculate with any accuracy whether or not Hitler would have used nuclear weapons if he's managed to get them before he was defeated; and had witnessed their destructive power. I suspect the world should count itself lucky that it was almost a photo finish between his death and Little Boy being dropped.

    Awful as it was for the Japanese at the time, it's probable that Japan would never have been shocked into ceasing it warlike ambitions and look to more productive ways to exert its influence.

    I'm not saying it was a good thing the bomb was dropped. Just observing that once the genie was out of the bottle, some nation would have done it sooner of later and we should be thankful that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, stringent efforts have been undertaken to keep the materials required for nuclear technology out of the hands of the nutters who become leaders of their nations.

    Maybe it's worth reflecting that had the Japanese not become a major player in consumer electronics instead of waging war, we might not yet be conversing over the Interweb as we are. History is full of what if questions.
    Jonntyboy and SparkMaths like this.
  3. red_observer

    red_observer Star commenter

    Well done @coffeekid

    There had to be better ways of ending ww2 but I realise this is of course a hindsight judgement.
    LiamD, ajrowing and Lidnod like this.
  4. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    We've had 75 years to think of one.

  5. red_observer

    red_observer Star commenter

    Not really.
    The blockade was working, as was conventional bombing and a joint soviet-IS invasion.

    glad you think killing tens of thousands of people was right. Dear me.
    monicabilongame likes this.
  6. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    What do you think conventional bombing was doing?

    And then the planned November land invasion against soldiers who wouldn't surrender no matter what?

    Would you want to keep sending young men to die in huge numbers with no end in sight? Running onto beaches, clearing tunnels, booby traps, hand-to-hand fighting in jungles?

    No thanks,

    Given the position we were in, it was the right thing to do. The Japanese surrendered pretty quickly.
  7. red_observer

    red_observer Star commenter

    It can never be justified leaving alone the radioactivity caused still felt to this day.
  8. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    And there was Saipan.
  9. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    The US calculated they would have had at least a million casualties to invade and defeat Japan. Terrible price using nuclear weapons but it probably saved more lives than it took.
  10. Dragonlady30

    Dragonlady30 Star commenter

    We need to be careful judging 1945 actions with 2020 mind sets.
  11. WB

    WB Star commenter

    That's not a fair accusation. Nobody wanted to kill tens of thousands of people. But all the others option would have lead to massive loss of life too.

    Thousands of civilians committed suicide at Saipan. Thousands of US soldiers would have died fighting from island to island.

    I respect anybody who says that dropping an atom bomb was wrong; it's a valid point. Dropping the bomb was one terrible option amongst many terrible options.

    If I had lead the US I would have done all I could to get as many US soldiers home as I could.
  12. red_observer

    red_observer Star commenter

    I accept that danger but many of Truman’s admirals were advocating continuation of blockade. Japan was on its knees.

    the real reason was to show the Soviets how powerful the USA was.
  13. red_observer

    red_observer Star commenter

    Blockade was a serious option but it was all about the Soviet Union and showing them who was boss.
  14. artboyusa

    artboyusa Star commenter

  15. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    And there were the prisoners of war. The bomb gave a chance to cool Russia's heels but the island hopping showed how bad things could be.
    Scintillant likes this.
  16. red_observer

    red_observer Star commenter

    I know that. But it was a political decision to drop the A bomb.
  17. red_observer

    red_observer Star commenter

    Absolute complacent attitude. Shocking really that people think this.
  18. WB

    WB Star commenter

    I agree with both of those points. But blockades take a long time and all the time people were dying.
  19. artboyusa

    artboyusa Star commenter

    Today, the background radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the same as the average amount of natural radiation present anywhere on Earth. It is not enough to affect human health.
    lexus300 likes this.
  20. red_observer

    red_observer Star commenter

    Eisenhower was against using the bombs. It was a tough call but it can never be justified.

Share This Page