It's Hiroshima Day

I don't stand in judgement inasmuch I tried to illustrate the attitudes present at the time. The opinions of the scientists who worked on the Manhattan project certainly weren't uniform, and down the road Edward Teller found himself branded a hawkish lunatic by many of his peers due to his unwavering desire to create weapons of even greater magnitude.

The rest of your questioning seems to hinge on an unreasonable implicit assumption that some civilian target needed to be hit before the Cold War could germinate; I conveyed a sentiment in my earlier writing, from the people working on the problems of the time, at the time, that this need not be a necessity, and it seems your counter is "nuh-uh!"? I do not understand.

Furthermore, I don't care for your simple-minded implication that "an arms race" has existed since the dawn of the human species. This is a null hypothesis and a red herring. Of course there is and always has been a "race" to ensure the safety of some arbitrary group of people with more and more pronounced means of focusing energy, but this does not mean that advances in technology have not altered the shape of warfare and as a result human culture several times in profound ways. The invention of the various metal forging technologies, the long bow, gun powder, the Blitzkrieg, and finally the atom bomb all decided the fates of nations, and the way humanity waged war and perceived war. It is trivial to note that it is equally possible to explode ordinary TNT everywhere on the globe where your planes can fly; the ability to store so much energy to be released by a single device changed the shape of the world. The rocket technology that both parties of the Cold War "salvaged" from the ruins of the Reich in the shape of scientists created a situation unique in human civilization; a group of less than a hundred men, sealed away beneath mountains of stone stood forever on the brink of the choice, whether to end human existence or not. That this is the logical procession from sticks and stones has little to no bearing on the reality of the situation, it only underlines a physical truism, focusing energy into smaller locales is more efficient in creating ruin.

I didn't imply (or intend to imply) that Hiroshima was THE catalyst for the cold war, in fact I thought I did the opposite with my null red herring. My intention was to convey the belief that the A-bomb would have been used on human targets (military or otherwise) at some point in the intervening years if it had not been used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That belief is based as on the Pandoras Box scenario and the ever important "human" element, we are dangerous creatures, some more than others (Edward Teller for example) and we have an incredible ability to learn by a myriad of different means, but by good luck or bad we often learn by experience - which includes what we simplistically call mistakes.

Hiroshima was a lesson, clearly we learned it well and I believe (simplistically) rightly or wrongly that if not for that lesson we would have had to learn it elsewhere in another conflict (take your pick of any conflict since 1945). The US had the bomb, inevitably others would get it, the only variable would be the timeline. I don't think you are claiming that the bomb could have been shelved, without first "experiencing" it - are you?

I think essentially we agree on most of this (I certainly don't feel like I was disagreeing with you), but I was being too simplistic for your liking.

I am just a man that forges metal and makes weapons after all - simple folk we are.

I'm pretty simple-minded too :D

We're still kind of dancing around the issue of whether a show-bombing of a deserted island and surrounding empty fleet could've conveyed the destructive force to the Soviets. Sufficiently to both create a Cold War and keep it cold, I mean.

If we accept the idea that Stalin did not care about the dead Japs (a likely prospect but let's take it for an axiom), then it should not matter whether the bomb levelled a real city or a mock one; the point was the potency of the new technology.

And from a purely moral standpoint it is kinda heinous to think that all those (arguably awful) Japs had to die just so we could have the Cold War in the first place, instead of a limited and primitive atomic exchange. As a European I do appreciate it, this'd all be a glowing wasteland if there had been an exchange in the late 40's, but I'm also not convinced that's an ethical argument for annihilating all those lives in Japan. If the ends don't always justify the means, how on Earth could we accept that results do?

All the above is only relevant if you take as fact that Truman made the decision to drop the bomb to impress the Soviets.

I'm not so sure I can swallow that as the only reason.

If the end result of the bombs being dropped was sinking an empty fleet or scorching a deserted island would it really have had the same effect as an instant death toll? The effect of the bomb was not the flash and mushroom cloud, it was death and misery - these are humanity's guiding examples to live and learn by. Just like the rock to the head (simple I know) but if the ancient apeman simply waved the rock or hit a tree with it the other apeman would have feared nothing, he simply would have had time to get his own rock and show his apeman enemy how to really use it.

As for the point about suffering - Assuming that the suffering of the Japanese civilians is a central concern then imagine if the A-bombing of Japan had never been? Perhaps the lesson would have been different, we'll never know but I can only barely imagine the magnitude of the destruction and suffering in Japan if the Allies continued carpet bombing and launched a land attack. For how long would it have to continue? The death toll would not have been instant but it would have been greater - not just for the Japs. Europe was a bitter lesson with bitter results and they would have been fresh in the minds of all concerned.

The Japanese are at the centre of this whole discussion and yet are only considered as victims up to this point. Yet look at the economic powerhouse they became after the war ended, can anyone imagine that happening so rapidly and comprehensively if they had been spared the A-bomb and instead defeated by slower, more conventional means?

Also, you may know better than I (because I've not studied it much) but just how certain were we that a Cold War would eventuate back in 1945? Surely nobody expected the 40+ years of stalemate and arms escalation that would follow?

Fuck me, its 1am and I have to go to work in 5 hours! :(

Veldan, Truman was a genuine moron who did not understand science any more than he understood scientists. This may not be a bad thing, depending on your world view.

Termite:

The Soviets' reaction to a non-civilian destruction via atomic forces I do not presume to gauge. Stalin was savvy when it came to power and politics, and it is likely he had a grasp of the nuclear future before Hiroshima; the Cold War started mostly in the aftermath of the fall of the Reich and the disillusionment of both sides of the Allies. The Western powers hated Russia, and the feeling was soon reciprocated. And was beforehand, too. The point remains, was the nuclear death of civilians necessary for Stalin to understand the changing geo-political situation?

The coming of the Cold War in some sense or another was foreseen fairly early; the term "iron curtain" was coined by our little doctor Joseph Goebbels, of all people. The form it took was, of course, dictated by the atomic arms discovered, the coldness of the war was dictated by mutual selfishness and MAD, what the Nazis envisioned was a more conventional war between the West and the Bolsheviks, a vision shared by Churchill.

Well, the is no requirement for presidents to be smart.

Anyhoo, it still does not verify that Truman dropped the bomb to Scare Soviets Silly. I'm still thinking it was to End The War Now. So less American Soldiers die...and to end it before the Soviets grab more land in Asia. (Does anyone know if Russia was planning to invade Japan, or just grab her holdings in Asia?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

Well, the is no requirement for presidents to be smart.

Anyhoo, it still does not verify that Truman dropped the bomb to Scare Soviets Silly. I'm still thinking it was to End The War Now. So less American Soldiers die...and to end it before the Soviets grab more land in Asia. (Does anyone know if Russia was planning to invade Japan, or just grab her holdings in Asia?)

---

Stalin was very aloof on Asia insofar as I know, his interests were in Europe. Not surprising, given the situation. This was also a cause of much chagrin in Sino-Soviet relations down the line.

They had a non-aggression pact up until the end did they not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Yeah, pretty much.

The carpet bombing is indeed the crux issue; since it was deemed necessary, the use of the atom bomb per se isn't any more or less horrific. Except for the fallout damage, which is unique to this kind of warfare.

The real moral dilemma, in my eyes, is whether the use of the nukes was necessary in the atmosphere directly before the Cold War. Many historians have argued that Soviet Russia cooled relations and started the Cold War due to perceived hostile acts from the West; whether that is hogwash or not, it is an interesting question whether or not it was necessary to kill all those Nips just to show Russia that this is the shape of things to come. The Allies had already committed to mass murder in the name of freedom, so one technique over another is somewhat irrelevant; the geo-political climate that came after is the true heritage of the atom bomb.

It was discussed in the days before the bombing of Japan whether it'd be sufficient to simply stage a show-bombing of a deserted island, in view of diplomats from Nippon, Russia and so on. The political climate of the War didn't allow for that, but it's an interesting dilemma nonetheless. Certainly Stalin didn't care one whit about the dead Nips, the display of force (of which he was cognizant beforehand) was what pushed the Soviets into the arms race.

---

I'd take the writing of historians covering the origin of the Cold War with a pillar of salt; most of them have a lot of bones to grind. I've never seen any convincing evidence to demonstrate that A) the US dropped the nukes to scare the Soviets, or B) that the Soviets were actually scared off by the dropping of those nukes. For point A, if the US was so intent on limiting Soviet influence in 1945, why allow them to occupy so many countries? The US was in a position of strength, and could have twisted Stalin's arm to withdraw from most of them. For point B, Stalin was unwilling to fight the US at that time because his resources was drained and he didn't think he had a shot of winning. He didn't think particularly high of nuclear weapons, and thought their impact would be no worse than a surprise attack (there's also the fact that the capacity to build nukes was very weak). He was scared by America's industrial capacity and fresh boots on the ground in Western Europe, not by a few nuclear weapons. And the memoirs of the likes of Truman certainly didn't emphasize this revisionist arguments. Some times I wish the historians would professionalize and stop using selective documents to support their highly ideological viewpoints.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

The Soviets' reaction to a non-civilian destruction via atomic forces I do not presume to gauge. Stalin was savvy when it came to power and politics, and it is likely he had a grasp of the nuclear future before Hiroshima; the Cold War started mostly in the aftermath of the fall of the Reich and the disillusionment of both sides of the Allies. The Western powers hated Russia, and the feeling was soon reciprocated. And was beforehand, too. The point remains, was the nuclear death of civilians necessary for Stalin to understand the changing geo-political situation?

The coming of the Cold War in some sense or another was foreseen fairly early; the term "iron curtain" was coined by our little doctor Joseph Goebbels, of all people. The form it took was, of course, dictated by the atomic arms discovered, the coldness of the war was dictated by mutual selfishness and MAD, what the Nazis envisioned was a more conventional war between the West and the Bolsheviks, a vision shared by Churchill.

---

Stalin was a conservative; he was not as good at anticipating the future as you think. The foreign policy he pursued was a 19th century foreign policy: occupations, grand bargains, temporary peaces, deals with enemies, etc. What he cared about after WWII was rebuilding the Soviet industrial base, and then rebuilding the military. To do that, he wanted a major buffer in Europe. He wouldn't say no to half of Japan if offered, but he certainly didn't think it a priority.

Um, the US and Albion did not want the CCCP to control all that it did; the massive hand-wringing that happened behind the scenes during the Allied occupation of Europe was mostly about curbing the Soviets. Stalin wanted a buffer between himself and the "hostile plutocracies" of the West because he was a paranoid lunatic; this didn't keep him from demanding booty despite his "disposition". How was the US in a position to underhand the CCCP? By sacrificing the lives of millions of German and Austrian civilians? That is hardly a moral position.

I wouldn't trust Truman's defence of his own life any more than you'd trust Speer's.

You're attacking a straw man in your last paragraph; the phantom of Stalin was the other piece on the board offered by those against the nuclear bombing of Japan. The Japanese government were insane, to be sure, but it is hardly reasonable to assume they could anticipate Stalin's conviction any more than I could.

And lastly, after 1944 many Manhattan project scientists were of the opinion that they were making the Bomb for a world without National Socialism. And at that point Stalin either knew about it or was about to hear it. Of course the argument for suppressing Japanese resistance was present and at the top of the rationale for dropping the nukes, but there were people working on the problem who also knew to foresee the world after the fall of ultra-nationalism. (Or should I say decline)

Quote:

---

My Friend Ness it only underlines a physical truism, focusing energy into smaller locales is more efficient in creating ruin.

---

But this ultimate focussed energy weapon is so terrible nations are afraid to provoke their use thus ending the upward cycle of ever more horrible war and ushering in an age of comparative peace and respect for life. Ruin, indeed. Pshaw.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...S_Missouri.jpg

And so it ended...

The violence is mind boggling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzOb3UhPmig