Oh, I'm sensing "political correctness" here.
BTW, aren't we already over the boundaries set by the forum rules? A Bomb being a taboo topic and all?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
BTW, aren't we already over the boundaries set by the forum rules? A Bomb being a taboo topic and all?
And I'm sensing that it would have been better to spare all the radiation which is still infecting the area nowadays, and which will for so many centuries still...
Truman did threat to drop more bombs. Japan did not publicly announce its surrender until 15th August, 6 days after the bombing of Nagasaki.
Of course it would be better not to use atom bombs, it would also be better if the war wouldn't even happen while we look on the matter from such perspective. I'm not a cheering fan for the use of weapons, any weapons - either sharp sticks from the stone age or atom bombs from today. But I can't close my eyes and pretend warring is not part of our species. It has been an essential part of being a human. The main difference between the atom bomb and conventional bombs is that the first one radiates and has cross-generational effects - that's adds to the "moral" dilemma but the end result is both types of weapons kill and destroy and cause suffering.
We probably won't come to any solid results debating this since after so many decades no real conclusion has been made whether the use of atom bombs was justified or not, if it saved lives or not. We can solely express our personal believes and mine is that Japan would surrender (a bit) later if those two bombs wouldn't have been dropped which would mean a higher number of people killed then the casualties sustained by those two bombs. Bombs added to the general pressure upon the Japanese and were probably not as dominant reason for Japanese surrender as Allies tried to show in the aftermath.
While I'm not trying to minimize the horrible post-detonation effects of atom bombs like radiation and cross-generation related diseases I do believe you are attributing too much of an importance in those things. Reading the min. and max. assessments/reports of radiation related suffering it is not as big/dreaded as general public believes. Terrible still but not such a boogy men.
Since those first detonations more then 2.000 atom bombs went off. You probably have all seen this nice clip showcasing detonations from 1945 onwards:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY
May I chime in with a somewhat unconventional view:
I am a fan of alternate history (so I am obviously well placed to play and mod AoD). I have wondered what would have happened if the nuclear bomb at been developed somewhat later and while the world was at peace or rather in a state of cold war. Much of the cold war era was ruled by the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and people were seriously afraid of the bomb being used again (I am 50 years old and have lived through the late cold war era). So if people were to think that the nuclear bomb is just another very large bomb, it might have been used in a later conflict with less consideration. So (whatever the real reasons for using the bomb) the world may have been lucky that it was used exactly when it was used.
Had the bomb been invented earlier in the war, with 10 to 20 bombs being used (maybe by both sides) the consequences may have been considerably worse, too. So we may well be living in the "best of all possible world" ....
I am a fan of alternate history (so I am obviously well placed to play and mod AoD). I have wondered what would have happened if the nuclear bomb at been developed somewhat later and while the world was at peace or rather in a state of cold war. Much of the cold war era was ruled by the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and people were seriously afraid of the bomb being used again (I am 50 years old and have lived through the late cold war era). So if people were to think that the nuclear bomb is just another very large bomb, it might have been used in a later conflict with less consideration. So (whatever the real reasons for using the bomb) the world may have been lucky that it was used exactly when it was used.
Had the bomb been invented earlier in the war, with 10 to 20 bombs being used (maybe by both sides) the consequences may have been considerably worse, too. So we may well be living in the "best of all possible world" ....
1. Development of an Atomic Bomb is only possible once you have reached the conclusion that a chain reaction is possible. AFAIK only the Allies every reached that conclusion before the dropping of the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The German Nuclear program was looking at power generation not weapons manufacture, although it took the best part of an afternoon for the captured German Physicists to work out what had happened when they heard of the dropping of the Atomic bombs.
2. When discussing the use of Nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in this context, you have to do so from the perspective of Truman and his staff not on the basis of what history professors think (with the full benefit of primary Japanese sources and the benefit of hindsight). On that basis you have to conclude that there was no reason for Truman to expect an early Japanese surrender.
3. Casualty estimates for an allied invasion of Japan were in excess of 500,000. The US went so far as to manufacture this number of Purple Hearts (awarded for being wounded or killed in action by the US president), this stock of medals still has not been exhausted some 68 years later.
Given the expected level of losses and misgivings held by a number of US and British senior officers about Mac Arthur's invasion plans IMHO Truman's decision was the correct option at the time. Speculation about the Soviet dimension to the problem and the possibilities of the internal debate in Japan leading to a surrender while interesting while interesting do not, again IMHO, substantially change the decision process of Truman at the time.
2. When discussing the use of Nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in this context, you have to do so from the perspective of Truman and his staff not on the basis of what history professors think (with the full benefit of primary Japanese sources and the benefit of hindsight). On that basis you have to conclude that there was no reason for Truman to expect an early Japanese surrender.
3. Casualty estimates for an allied invasion of Japan were in excess of 500,000. The US went so far as to manufacture this number of Purple Hearts (awarded for being wounded or killed in action by the US president), this stock of medals still has not been exhausted some 68 years later.
Given the expected level of losses and misgivings held by a number of US and British senior officers about Mac Arthur's invasion plans IMHO Truman's decision was the correct option at the time. Speculation about the Soviet dimension to the problem and the possibilities of the internal debate in Japan leading to a surrender while interesting while interesting do not, again IMHO, substantially change the decision process of Truman at the time.