• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

Eyewitness accounts of Hiroshima

Thanks Neo.

An excellent reminder that after all the political and social agendas of different countries are pushed aside, we are all the same. No matter where we may live, we all love our children, our families and our friends. Its impossible for me to comprehend what it would be like having my kids on that streetcar with me.

Lets all pray that nothing like that happens again, anywhere.
 
Interesting read as Biobanker says once all political and social agendas are pushed aside we are all the same. Reading that is truley depressing and horrifying as to what those people must of gone through regardless of whether they agreed with their politicians or not.
 
Thanks Neo, that's an excellent link.

It's important for all of us to think of the human element when we say "nuke the bastards" or "turn the desert into glass" without a second thought. In the end, we're all human beings with families and lives, and the innocents are the ones that end up paying for the arrogance of their leaders.
 
Lets all pray that nothing like that happens again, anywhere.

Amen.

I spent two days in Hiroshima while I was living/studying in Japan back in 1994. While I had read a lot about Hiroshima prior to my visit, I was still dumbstruck by my time there.
 
Nuclear war is a horrible thing... talk about wanting to put the genie back inside the bottle. Keep in mind that bomb was something like 10 megaton payload and during the cold war the Soviets detonated a 500 megaton bomb. The potential for so destruction is mind blowing.
 
Nuclear war is a horrible thing... talk about wanting to put the genie back inside the bottle. Keep in mind that bomb was something like 10 megaton payload and during the cold war the Soviets detonated a 500 megaton bomb. The potential for so destruction is mind blowing.

Actually, I believe it was in the multi-kilo ton. I think the largest hydrogen bombs are about 20MT, but I don't think any are strategically loaded. I think most SCBM and ICBM use 100kt - 500kt warheads. Details can be researched on fas.org.

edit: hiroshima bomb = 12.5KT
 
Last edited:
I've been to peace park several times. Nuclear power is amazing in many ways but makes a terrible weapon. I believe one of the bombs was a 10K,"FAT MAN" and "Big Boy" was 15K.
 
Nuclear war is a horrible thing... talk about wanting to put the genie back inside the bottle. Keep in mind that bomb was something like 10 megaton payload and during the cold war the Soviets detonated a 500 megaton bomb. The potential for so destruction is mind blowing.
I was wrong, it wasn't 500MT it was 50MT. Big difference... but this is a great diagram...

A simple graphic showing comparative nuclear fireball diameters for a number of different tests and warheads. From largest to smallest, the sizes are:

Tsar Bomba — 50 Mt — 2.3 km
Castle Bravo — 15 Mt — 1.42 km
W59 warhead (Minuteman missile) — 1 Mt — .48 km
W88 warhead (Peacekeeper missile) — 350 kt — .32 km
Fat Man bomb (dropped on Nagasaki, Japan) — 18 kt — .1 km
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Comparative_nuclear_fireball_sizes.svg
Note that these are only for the fireball component of the explosion — radiation, blast, and heat would extend far beyond these distances (i.e. for the Tsar Bomba, anyplace with 6.56 km would receive 500 rems of radiation, there would be near total fatalities for the air blast within 9.95 km, structural damage at 26.26 km, and third-degree burns at 58 km). This is meant only to give some means of comprehending the differences in scale between different weapon designs.
 
Very powerful. I can't imagine the trauma faced mentally or physcially after having your skin peel off as well as watching your comrades do the same. Then having your body rot away while people try to come up with answers/treatments but generally fail.

I think every college should have a mandatory class regarding matters like these, maybe sub out one of the 15 U.S. history classes or something.
 
Very powerful. I can't imagine the trauma faced mentally or physcially after having your skin peel off as well as watching your comrades do the same. Then having your body rot away while people try to come up with answers/treatments but generally fail.

I think every college should have a mandatory class regarding matters like these, maybe sub out one of the 15 U.S. history classes or something.

Its a good idea, however I suggest maybe that it be discussed in high school as many people never make it to college. It might help dissipate the "nuke em all" mentality. Only issue with having it in high school is how mature are students to handle this subject.
 
I know this might stir up a whole new debate and controversy and I'll be the first to admit that I'm not qualified to comment on it, but here's a quote from one of the comments in the photo link. Historians teach us that the use of atomic force was a grave necessity to end the war -- was it?

----------------

US Responses to Dropping the Bomb

"...the greatest thing in history."
- Harry S. Truman
President of the United States during the Atomic Bombing

"It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."
- General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold
Commanding General of the U.S. Army
Air Forces Under President Truman

"I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' "
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children."
- Admiral William D. Leahy
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

"I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb."
- John McCloy

"P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace."
- President Harry S. Truman
Diary Entry, July 18, 1945

"Some of my conclusions may invoke scorn and even ridicule.

"For example, I offer my belief that the existence of the first atomic bombs may have prolonged -- rather than shortened - World War II by influencing Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and President Harry S. Truman to ignore an opportunity to negotiate a surrender that would have ended the killing in the Pacific in May or June of 1945.

"And I have come to view the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that August as an American tragedy that should be viewed as a moral atrocity."
- Stewart L. Udall
US Congressman and
Author of "Myths of August"

"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
- U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study

"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.
- J. Samuel Walker
Chief Historian
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
 
I'm just curious, and want to hear the opinions of the history buffs on Prime, whether given the chance to surrender peacefully without experiencing direct threat of US invasion :
-would Japan still be "occupying" Korea?
-would western world(US) have let Japan keep korea and part of china?

given the context of power struggle between US and Soviet Union right after WW2, what would have happened if Japan said "i surrender" before the bomb?

oh, and nuklear bomb sucks. nuklear war sucks more.
 
mohaji - good questions, but dealing with "what ifs" are always subject to personal interpretation ... fortunately there's plenty of that on Prime! :D


Intelligence at the time suggest Japan would not surrender; that fighting would be "to the last man" on the streets of Tokyo. I imagine that would be true given honour is integral to the Japanese and how "american invaders" on their homeland would have been seen.

I doubt Japan would have surrendered. The Atomic bomb SHOCKED Japan's emperior (the main decision maker) into surrender.

The US demanded unconditional surrender: there was no clause for Japan to continue occupying the Korean peninsula. So if Japan had surrendered peacefully before being nuked, they had to give up Korea.


Regarding the USA vs USSR power struggle after WW2, if the bomb hadn't been used in Japan the USSR may not have made their own atomic weapons as soon as they did. Its supposedly reported that after Stalin heard the US had atomic weapons he demanded Soviet research be stepped up.

The soviets (and many scientists around the world) were researching the power of the atom back in those days, so its reasonable to conclude they would have made their own atomic weapons eventually. However, without Hiroshima and Nagasaki it's very possible that the USA and/or USSR could have used such weapons on each other.

otherwise, good discussion.
 
Regarding the USA vs USSR power struggle after WW2, if the bomb hadn't been used in Japan the USSR may not have made their own atomic weapons as soon as they did. Its supposedly reported that after Stalin heard the US had atomic weapons he demanded Soviet research be stepped up.

The soviets (and many scientists around the world) were researching the power of the atom back in those days, so its reasonable to conclude they would have made their own atomic weapons eventually. However, without Hiroshima and Nagasaki it's very possible that the USA and/or USSR could have used such weapons on each other.

I think it's widely accepted that the soviets stole the information required to make the bomb from us. Here's a book on the subject

http://www.amazon.com/Mortal-Crimes-Penetration-Manhattan-Project/dp/1929631219
 
I know this might stir up a whole new debate and controversy and I'll be the first to admit that I'm not qualified to comment on it, but here's a quote from one of the comments in the photo link. Historians teach us that the use of atomic force was a grave necessity to end the war -- was it?

The Japanese people, IMHO, would have fought to the death in the event of a US invasion - which in their eye's would have been the "Decisive Battle." Japan built over 7,000 airplanes, stored in large underground shelters, for kamikaze attack during the US invasion. Women were trained with spears as weapons. And they would have done most anything Hirohito asked of them as evidenced by the lack of any armed resistance to American occupation.

Even during Hirohito's "surrender" speech, it was stated that "the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage." Surrender was not mentioned once. During the surrender signing on the deck of the Missouri, Shigemitsu - who signed for the emperorer - procrastinated. Played with his hat, dropped his cane, shuffled papers, and fumbled his pen. All this, an indication of the Japanese mindset and belief in the cultural superiority of their race.

American bombers had already bombed most of the country. Curtis LeMay told the Joint Chiefs that he would run of cities to burn by Oct. 45. And the Japanese, though knowing the war was lost, still would not agree to an unconditional surrender.

Did you know that the lack of Japan's radar development was, in part, b/c they believed in the superiority of their eyesight at night? True story.
 
Just the other week, one of my students was recounting her experience of the bomb in hiroshima. Her eyes were tearing up as she told us, very moving.

Historians teach us that the use of atomic force was a grave necessity to end the war -- was it?

Some of my students agree.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top