If you had a nuclear bomb...

[Westdene Seagull]

Honourable sentiments but how would you have resolved the situation in 1945?
The European conflict was over but the Far East was still at war. The Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child standing. The war could rage for another ten or more years, with the Japanese mainland being invaded. A whole nation of tens of millions stood to be wiped out, completely destroyed. It would have reduced Japan to a tiny peasant, farming community and the world would have been deprived of the technological giant that we see today. There was no negotiation to be had. Not with war-mongers. It would have ended with total annihilation.
The USA could foresee hundreds of thousands of its servicemen getting killed in the months/years ahead. What option did it have? Surrender was not on the agenda so something drastic had to be done to curtail the bloodshed. In times of war decisions have to be taken to sacrifice lives to achieve the ultimate goal of peace. Stalin committed millions of his own men to certain death, knowing that sheer manpower was his only answer to the Nazi war-machine. Churchill blew up the French fleet, so it wouldn't fall into Nazi hands, knowing he would kill many Frenchmen ( supposedly our allies ) and suffer wrath and indignation from all quarters.
None of us like the idea of ' sacrifice for the cause ' but if there is no other option, isn't that preferable to continued b loodshed. The USA could have dropped nuclear bombs on the Japanese mainland and the effects of that don't bear thinking about. They chose two far-outlying areas, killed approx 200,000 people and condemned many more to years of radiation sickness and death as a result.
It would have been great to have secured a ' bloodless surrender ' from the Japanese but circumstances dictated otherwise and a massive lesson was learnt by the whole world as to the frightening consequences of nuclear activity.

Actually, the Japanese had started to consider surrender and some senior military commanders had secretly started negotiations with the Americans. The Americans um'd and ah'd for about 8 months about dropping the bombs. FDR actually over ruled his senior advisers who thought it worth holding out for the secret talks to conclude. FDR didn't want to lose the military advantage the Americans were gaining at the time, albeit at a great cost in lives, so decided to drop the bombs.

 

[ExmouthExile]

I'm surprised nobody's said number 10 Downing Street yet

 

[JCL666]

Honourable sentiments but how would you have resolved the situation in 1945?
The European conflict was over but the Far East was still at war. The Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child standing. The war could rage for another ten or more years, with the Japanese mainland being invaded. A whole nation of tens of millions stood to be wiped out, completely destroyed. It would have reduced Japan to a tiny peasant, farming community and the world would have been deprived of the technological giant that we see today. There was no negotiation to be had. Not with war-mongers. It would have ended with total annihilation.
The USA could foresee hundreds of thousands of its servicemen getting killed in the months/years ahead. What option did it have? Surrender was not on the agenda so something drastic had to be done to curtail the bloodshed. In times of war decisions have to be taken to sacrifice lives to achieve the ultimate goal of peace. Stalin committed millions of his own men to certain death, knowing that sheer manpower was his only answer to the Nazi war-machine. Churchill blew up the French fleet, so it wouldn't fall into Nazi hands, knowing he would kill many Frenchmen ( supposedly our allies ) and suffer wrath and indignation from all quarters.
None of us like the idea of ' sacrifice for the cause ' but if there is no other option, isn't that preferable to continued b loodshed. The USA could have dropped nuclear bombs on the Japanese mainland and the effects of that don't bear thinking about. They chose two far-outlying areas, killed approx 200,000 people and condemned many more to years of radiation sickness and death as a result.
It would have been great to have secured a ' bloodless surrender ' from the Japanese but circumstances dictated otherwise and a massive lesson was learnt by the whole world as to the frightening consequences of nuclear activity.

This is actually a highly contentious and disputed point. At the time numerous high ranking American military leaders did not agree that it would save lives or end the war any quicker.

For example Eisenhower
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him 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"

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."

Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. 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 not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

 

[JCL666]

I'd deactivate it, open it up and plant flowers in it.

Whatever it took to find 'another way'.
Nothing has ever been accomplished by fighting fire with fire.
History has been repeating itself for thousands of years, and yet the human race has learned nothing.
All the while maintaining a sense of injustice when then next group appears and does something horrific.
At some point, someone needs to stand up and say 'you know what the metaphorical 'I' created this mess, and 'we' are going to make it right, by doing something different'.
We are going to take the power away from extreme thinkers simply by listening to and understanding the majority.

If earth were a clock, human life has been on his planet for the equivalent of one second to midnight, at the end of the year.
It's taken an almost impossible chain of events billions upon billions long to finally create humans for that last second, and yet the miracle of existence is consistently and effortlessly being thrown away.

So what if planting flowers or going on a bike ride does nothing, it's still better than the alternative, which is just killing more people in the name of a bogus righteousness.

You've been a great audience.



Peace out.

Awesome post

 

[Stat Brother]

Honourable sentiments but how would you have resolved the situation in 1945?
The European conflict was over but the Far East was still at war. The Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child standing. The war could rage for another ten or more years, with the Japanese mainland being invaded. A whole nation of tens of millions stood to be wiped out, completely destroyed. It would have reduced Japan to a tiny peasant, farming community and the world would have been deprived of the technological giant that we see today. There was no negotiation to be had. Not with war-mongers. It would have ended with total annihilation.
The USA could foresee hundreds of thousands of its servicemen getting killed in the months/years ahead. What option did it have? Surrender was not on the agenda so something drastic had to be done to curtail the bloodshed. In times of war decisions have to be taken to sacrifice lives to achieve the ultimate goal of peace. Stalin committed millions of his own men to certain death, knowing that sheer manpower was his only answer to the Nazi war-machine. Churchill blew up the French fleet, so it wouldn't fall into Nazi hands, knowing he would kill many Frenchmen ( supposedly our allies ) and suffer wrath and indignation from all quarters.
None of us like the idea of ' sacrifice for the cause ' but if there is no other option, isn't that preferable to continued b loodshed. The USA could have dropped nuclear bombs on the Japanese mainland and the effects of that don't bear thinking about. They chose two far-outlying areas, killed approx 200,000 people and condemned many more to years of radiation sickness and death as a result.
It would have been great to have secured a ' bloodless surrender ' from the Japanese but circumstances dictated otherwise and a massive lesson was learnt by the whole world as to the frightening consequences of nuclear activity.

Sorry but you've completely missed the point.

You're trying to retro-fit an entire cultural shift in human beings into a nano second of time.

All conflict resolution has always had the bottom line of violence, as this thread clearly shows.
Whether it be the play ground, the Cuban missile crisis, Iraq, or Brighton v Tottenham.

What if that bottom line was no longer there?

Would WWII happened if American hadn't fought the War of Independence?
Would the UK be fighting in Iraq if the Victorians hadn't tried to conquer the world?

It's impossible to look back and change one event, because of the butterfly effect.
But what is so easy, and yet seemingly impossible, to do is look back and say 'well I won't make that mistake again'.

Sure it's just a load of hippy-dippy cod philosophy (the acknowledgements inc Ghandi, Richard Dawkins, Greg Proops, Richard Bacon, Dr Helen Czerski)but given what the obvious end game is, total destruction, surely anything is better than the current status quo.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

Loving the dichotomy of those answering with joke locations (Eastbourne, Croydon, Cheam) who have obviously not given any thought to the fact that with a northerly breeze, they'll soon be fried in the fallout.

For those attempting serious locations (ISIS, Pakistan, Syria, France, Africa), still not sure you've thought this through.

For those who have come up with non violent solutions (Flower-bed, lost property), I commend you.

My view, not sure I could live with the fact I had just killed so many fellow human beings - crew of the Enola Gay and Bockscar are the only people to have ever experienced the use of such a weapon in warfare. This is too serious a mater to joke over ......

 

[The Truth]

Blackpool could do with a nuclear bomb, i'm sure the locals wouldn't object.

 

[Wilko]

The dog shit I unfortunately stepped in yesterday is more educated then you

Oh the irony.

 

[maltaseagull]

A big one on the middle east would remove a lot of the worlds trouble spots (but most of the oil too)

 

[Nibble]

I gotta dick...you gotta pussy

Wow. Comeback of the year?

 

[Dick Head]

Nuclear Detonation Timeline "1945-1998"

 

[Blackadder]

PMSL
How the hell would a lot of people know what im like?
I hardly know anyone on here including yourself...You trying to get a big groovy gang on to me?

Your username tells me you're a confused person going down the wrong path

Not getting involved in the topic of this thread..... but purely on a pedantic note...

A fair few of us on here have met you... At the NSC MEAT ups? (Nelson, Prince Albert, King and Queen). Admittedly that was over 10 years ago.

 

[BrianWade4]

The old Goldstone chant:

One man went to blow,
Went to blow up selhurst,
One man and his atom bomb,
Went to blow up selhurst

(Repeat)

 

[pasty]

I would like to place my bomb under a seat at Wembley in very close vicinity to that 'kin band.

 

[AmexRuislip]

Sidley, what a dump

 

[Huple]

Worthing

Don't drop it before Saturday as I'm going out for a Thai meal that night.
Really would put a dampener on the evening.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Tony Blair....mind you that snakey git would probably wriggle out of it with letter box mouth Mrs.

 

[Mowgli37]

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

 

[Czechmate]

The American government , congress , white house , senate , FBI , NSA etc ! And dropped by a Japanese plane

 

[beorhthelm]

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

very interesting how small the radius of impact and effects are for a Nagasaki sized bomb.