The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

[Wulfburk]

Since when was nazi germany "fighting for its survival"? Their crimes had no relation to the strategic aspect of the war and were commited on the sole base of racism, unlike the atomic bombs.

[Col. Tartleton]

Yes japan started the war and lost it meaning that the japanese war criminals got hanged while the Americans got praise.Obviously noone expects Americans to be tried.However to claim that the killing of 100.000 people was justified is wrong and opens the possibility of legalizing all massacres and crimes.Its odd how some people rush to condemn Nazi and Soviet crimes committed by states that were fighting for their survival while they support the atomic bombs committed by a state that had already won the war and that even if it lost it, it would survive retaining the status of a superpower.

Of course it's wrong. Killing people is wrong and yet we do the work gladly.

Since when was nazi germany "fighting for its survival"? Their crimes had no relation to the strategic aspect of the war and were commited on the sole base of racism, unlike the atomic bombs.

The GDR and USSR were basically going to annihilate each other if left to their own devices.

There were more war crimes being committed by Germany than the holocaust.

[Ludicus]

Hiroshima was a military target

A "military" target.
Target Committee, Los Alamos, May 10-11, 1945

Psychological Factors in Target Selection

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.

B. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed

That the Japanese were imitating the British in their goal of maritime Empire is fairly clear.

More exactly,
"The Japanese were completely shut out from the European colonies. In the Philippines, Indo-China, Borneo, Indonesia, Malaya, Burma, not only were Japanese activities forbidden, but even entry. Ordinary trade was hampered by unnatural discriminatory treatment. In a sense the Manchurian outbreak was the result of the international closed economies that followed on the first World War. There was a feeling at the back of it that it provided the only escape from economic strangulation"
Mamoru Shigemitsu

[Angrychris]

japan got the short end of the stick after playing ally during WW1.

[Markas]

Also the Nelson touch refers to the UK sinking anothers fleet in port and at peace with uk, taking vast numbers of merchant ships as prizes, without a DOW to prevent Napoleon from aquiring it.http://www.ijnhonline.org/wp-content...2/01/Bjerg.pdf

And who is at fault?, the one that uses force first, or the one that cuases the use of force to be used as a remedy?.

Er.. no it doesn't. The term wasn't used until four years after Copenhagen and refers to the tactic of drawing up a fleet in three columns of battle. When you reject an ultimatum you can hardly claim to be 'at peace' either. That's why it's called an ultimatum.

[Hanny]

http://webspace.webring.com/people/i...nelsonsea.html
The expression "Nelson touch" has been applied to so many things that it almost loses its meaning for such lack of specificity. However it clearly refers to a mode of leadership that depended upon personal inspiration. Nelson's personality was critical in his leadership role, enabling him to inspire all his captains to learn his new concept of naval warfare before Trafalgar.81 Even Mahan remarked on Nelson's extraordinary ability to inspire his subordinates to great efforts.

Your refering top the following:

The term "Nelson touch" seems to originally have referred to the circular which he sent around the fleet on October 8, 1805, laying out his battle plans that would become Trafalgar.86 This memorandum had an effect that astonished even him. He himself used the term in his last diary, referring to sending Collingwood the "Nelson touch."87

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/people/...s/traf1015.txt
With Nelson came
pride and confidence, "the Nelson touch" as he himself called it.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/1812RoyalNavy/message/245
1812 RoyalNavy] Nelson's Touch exhibit @ The Mariner's Museum

The theme of the exhibit is a detailed study of the battles of Cape St. Vincent, Nile, Copenhagen, and Trafalgar. The battles are broken down into three elements: 1. the factors which caused the battle, 2. the factors which are defined as "Nelson's Touch" in the battle, and 3. the outcome of the battle.
Some of the artifacts on exhibit are, a button from Nelson's coat worn at the battle of the Nile, a battle of the Nile award presented to a participating seaman, a reproduction of Nelson's complete uniform from Trafalgar, Nelson's spyglass from Copenhagen(when he turned a "blind eye" on the signal to withdraw), and various period artworks, amongst other things.
It definitely was an enjoyable experience portraying a "Jolly Tar", I wonder if it could be habit forming?

Howard Helmer
Virginia State Navy

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H...nhagen&f=false

"Nelson touch refers to an expoloit by Nelson at Copenhagen"

UK fleet issued an ultimatium to leave the allaince or suffer blockade, which was its orders and instructions from politicians, Nelson instead attacked and started the war.

[Markas]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H...nhagen&f=false

"Nelson touch refers to an expoloit by Nelson at Copenhagen"

I fear I must view sceptically the historical knowledge of a book about the 'Psychoanalytic Theory and Technique in the Kleinian/Bionian Mode'. I fear I will need a more relevant (historical) source as I have never heard 'The Nelson touch' referred to in regards to Copenhagen, and certainly not to your criteria in the post I first answered.

UK fleet issued an ultimatium to leave the allaince or suffer blockade, which was its orders and instructions from politicians, Nelson instead attacked and started the war.

Denmark rejected the ultimatum. The government's order was to ensure an 'amicable arrangement or by actual hostilities'. The rejection of the ultimatum made amicable arrangements null and void. Parker was hesitant by nature, but Nelson's actions were within the criteria given by the government. The blockade was Parker's initial idea but that was just one of several options that was his personal preference.

[Diocle]

I think that the deads caused by the bombs are still today a black page in human history, but Europe started the War, Europe was used to start a new war every twenty or thirty years, for the European culture a good World War was one of the possible options, Europeans were never satisfied killing each other! After the American Bombs, we have had sixty years without a World War!

I was born in 1963, and I'm part of the generations who didn't take part in a World War!

Am I saying that we should thank for the bombs? No, not of course! I'm only trying to highlight one of the most important aspects of the exibition of power of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The 'Atomic Bomb' has been a political weapon!

A weapon able to keep the world in peace for something like 60 years!

An let me being selfish: I'm quite happy and gald I haven't seen what my dad and my mom saw and lived during the last European bloodied and criminal madness between 1939 and 1945!!

[Holger Danske]

The World isn't at peace. There just hasn't been any major wars since 1945...

[Diocle]

The World isn't at peace. There just hasn't been any major wars since 1945...

Indeed! Sadly you are right! But a World War (sorry but the definition of 'major wars' seems to me a little optimistic...) is an inconceivable monstruosity compared to some local conflict? Am I wrong?

[Hanny]

I fear I must view sceptically the historical knowledge of a book about the 'Psychoanalytic Theory and Technique in the Kleinian/Bionian Mode'. I fear I will need a more relevant (historical) source as I have never heard 'The Nelson touch' referred to in regards to Copenhagen, and certainly not to your criteria in the post I first answered.

There is much you have never heard.

Denmark rejected the ultimatum. The government's order was to ensure an 'amicable arrangement or by actual hostilities'. The rejection of the ultimatum made amicable arrangements null and void. Parker was hesitant by nature, but Nelson's actions were within the criteria given by the government. The blockade was Parker's initial idea but that was just one of several options that was his personal preference.

here is the Diplomatic orders the fleet was to operate under and implemt from the Nelson society archies.

EMBARGO UPON RUSSIAN, SWEDISH, AND DANISH SHIPS
At the COURT at St. JAMES', the 14th of Jan 1801
PRESENT
The King's Most Excellent Majesty in Council
WHEREAS his Majesty has received advice, that a large number of vessels
belonging to his Majesty's subjects have been and are detained in the ports of Russia,
and that the British sailors navigating the same have been and now are detained, as
prisoners, in different parts of Russia; and also, that during the continuance of these
proceedings, a confederacy of a hostile nature, against the just rights and interest of
his Majesty and his Dominions, has been entered into with the Court of St.
Petersburgh by the Courts of Denmark and Sweden, respectively; his Majesty, with
the advice of his Privy Council, is thereupon pleased to order, as is hereby ordered,
that no ships or vessels belonging to any of his Majesty's subjects be permitted to
enter and clear out for any of the ports of Russia, Denmark, or Sweden, until further
order; and that his Majesty is further pleased to order, that a general embargo or stop
be made of all Russian, Danish, and Swedish ships and vessels whatsoever, now
within, or which hereafter shall come into any of the ports, harbours, or roads, within
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, together with all persons and
effects on board the said vessels; but that the utmost care be taken for the
preservation of all and every part of the cargoes on board any of the said ships or
vessels, so that no damage or embezzlement whatever be sustained:

[Ludicus]

A weapon able to keep the world in peace for something like 60 years!

A very dangerous weapon...
Pres.Obama has pledged to (sic) "set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it". Obviously, he also stated, until that goal is reached, it´s necessary a "safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary"
I completely agree.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yes, I have a deep admiration for Obama,an extraordinary human being

[Vanoi]

A very dangerous weapon...
Pres.Obama has pledged to (sic) "set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it". Obviously, he also stated, until that goal is reached, it´s necessary a "safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary"
I completely agree.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yes, I have a deep admiration for Obama,an extraordinary human being

Ironic though that he is modernizing the US's nuclear arsenal.

[Diocle]

OK long life to President Obama!!!

But the matter doesn't change, we must feel all the horror for the poor human beings killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but we've to admit that the 'Bomb', as political weapon, did its damn job very well!

Sadly I fear the situation is changing, too many countries with nuclear armament, too many not democratic countries with nuclear arsenals, but mainly, too much human idiocy growing all around, if I was twenty, I would scared about our future.......the next will be the worst one.....

[Hakkapeliitta]

300,000 Chinese soldiers and civilians were killed, and 20,000 women were raped; but you forgot the continuing slaughter of Japanese from ongoing non-nuclear bombing. Tokyo bombing (deaths at over 100,000, injuries at a million) is the single deadliest air raid of World War II, greater than Hiroshima, or Nagasaki or Dresden as single events. But the point is- two, three or four wrongs don´t make a right.
Atomic/non atomic incineration of entire cities is not ethically defensible. It is against all the inherent guidelines of a civilized society. ( by the way, Pres. Obama agrees with me )


... excluding delayed deaths by radiation, etc. A monstrous thing to say.

The deaths from both atomic bombings upper limit is somewherebouts 340 000, after that less than a thousand who died of radiation induced complications. Haven't we established that already?

Now, how many people died in Japanese occupied territories in Asia? Wasn't it something like 35 million? Every month when the Japanese Cabinet was too "honourable" to surrender, hundreds of thousands people died of Japanese brutality, all the while the IJA and IJN was gathering everything they had to the "Home Islands" in order to repel an invasion.

But something happened that prompted the Emperor to break the deadlock. There was a new weapon at play, and the Emperor could see that. Nevertheless, the Cabinet was in a deadlock, and as the Emperor started to waver towards the peace-faction the militarists tried to overthrow the cabinet! Fortunately it failed, and a few days afterwards the Emperor made his first ever address to the nation. And what did he cite as the reason for capitulation? The "New Weapon".

[Hakkapeliitta]

But I hope newcomers to this thread will read from the beginning and see what kind of bullsitter Hanny really is. It's all there.

[Ludicus]

But the matter doesn't change, we must feel all the horror for the poor human beings killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but we've to admit that the 'Bomb', as political weapon, did its damn job very well!

Certainly... but the topic is Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

----

after that less than a thousand who died of radiation induced complications.

Among 79,972 members of the Life Span Study cohort whose radiation doses were known, 8,613 first primary solid cancers were diagnosed between 1958 and 1987, about three-quarters with histological verification. Significant radiation associations were observed for stomach, colon, lung, breast, ovary, urinary bladder, thyroid, liver, and nonmelanoma skin cancers.

Because factors other than radiation can increase the risk of cancer (such as smoking, certain chemicals, various viral and bacterial agents, and so on), RERF researchers are now examining individual types of cancer more carefully to determine what role radiation plays in the mechanism of cancer causation and how it might interact with these other cancer risk factors.

Are radiation-induced cancers still occurring among atomic-bomb survivors?

Yes. The excess risk of leukemia, seen especially among those exposed as children, was highest during the first 10 years after exposure and has continued to decrease throughout the study period. However, the excess risk for cancers other than leukemia continues today, and it seems likely that this excess risk will persist throughout the lifetime of the survivors. About 16% of all cancer deaths and about 25% of the excess--or radiation related--cancer deaths for the period from 1950 through 1990 occurred from 1986 to 1990.


Among the approximately 3,000 in utero exposed atomic-bomb survivors, the following results have been observed: a reduction in IQ as radiation dose increases, a higher incidence of mental retardation among the heavily exposed, and some impairment in the rate of growth and development on average. Monitoring of deaths and cancer incidence in the children of survivors also is continuing"
Source,
Radiation Effects Research Foundation

Some 93 000 exposed survivors are still being monitored. In atomic bomb survivors, it has been shown that the risk of cancer is increased even at doses below 100mSw.

-------

Now, how many people died in Japanese occupied territories in Asia?

Two wrongs don´t make a right.
The Rape of Nanking vs. the incident, 2012

[DarthShizNit]

Two wrongs don´t make a right.

No, but it sure as hell won the war.

[Garbarsardar]

It's a tangent, but I think that a thread in VV deserves a better attitude when it comes to arguments and references.

In the following post Hanny makes an assertion about the meaning of the term "Nelson's Touch". He offers a reference that does not mention anything about any "touch", instead it refers to the genesis of another colloquialism (“to copenhagen ”) meaning preventive or preemptive attack in warfare.

Also the Nelson touch refers to the UK sinking anothers fleet in port and at peace with uk, taking vast numbers of merchant ships as prizes, without a DOW to prevent Napoleon from aquiring it.http://www.ijnhonline.org/wp-content...2/01/Bjerg.pdf

And who is at fault?, the one that uses force first, or the one that cuases the use of force to be used as a remedy?.

When his mistake is pointed at him he attempts to evade by pointing that the term "Nelson's touch" has been used so many times that has lost it's meaning or that generally any meaning can be ascribed to it.
The first use of the term was about the tactical disposition of the fleet at the beginning of battle. It has been used by Nelson himself as a sexual joke, and later it was used (not by Nelson) to denote the spirit of camaraderie in his commands.

But was it ever used in the sense that Hanny states in his post?

Hanny presents 4 sources in the following post. I will omit the parts he copy/pasted from the sources and keep only the sources for economy of space:

http://webspace.webring.com/people/i...nelsonsea.html

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/people/...s/traf1015.txt


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/1812RoyalNavy/message/245


http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H...nhagen&f=false

"Nelson touch refers to an expoloit by Nelson at Copenhagen"

The first source confirms that the term was used (not by Nelson) to describe his leadership style.

The second source contradicts the first stating that Nelson used "Nelson's touch" to describe his leadership style.

The third and fourth source refer to the "touch" as a ruse Nelson used to avoid executing the order of his superior. In Copenhagen. The first source is a messageboard and the second a book about psychoanalysis. There is a lesson here: a source is not a magic validator of whatever comes in one's mind. A source must be in itself trustworthy and there is no reason to trust a book on psychoanalysis about a unrelated topic, referencing an obscure and unverified anecdote.

But even if we accept it, did the source confirm the original post from Hanny? Did the source confirm that "Nelson's touch" has anything to do with pre-emptive strike?

As we can all read, clearly NO.

I'm sorry I went off topic but this was arrogant and irritating:

There is much you have never heard.

Have a nice day.

[Hanny]

I'm sorry I went off topic but this was arrogant and irritating:

http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/3...ester,-George-

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-...gening&f=false

If your prefer the phrase “Copenhagening", to Nelson touch, fine, but Nelson did it, against orders, its part of his command style of knowing best, and part of the Neslon touch.
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Horatio_Nelson
The "Nelson touch" has become a well-recognized term for a naval officer of exceptional ability, with both technical insight and inspirational leadership.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H...nhagen&f=false

The Nelson touch refers to an exploit by Nelson at the battle of copenhagen

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=z...=0CGwQ6AEwCDhQ

Thats the third US Naval War College teaching text that uses the term as i used it.

Have a nice day.

There is much you have never heard either.