75 Years Later, It’s Clear Truman
Was Right To Drop The Atomic Bomb
The Federalist,
by
Joshua Lawson
Original Article
Posted By: MissMolly,
8/7/2020 4:05:12 AM
On August 6, 1945, 30-year-old U.S. Air Force pilot Col. Paul W. Tibbets Jr. took to the sky in the Enola Gay, his Boeing B-29 Superfortress heavy bomber. His destination, the Japanese city of Hiroshima, was not an especially notable target. His payload, however, a single bomb nicknamed “Little Boy,” would change the course of history.
True watershed moments in history are rare — the agricultural revolution is one such example, as was the Battle of Salamis, the advent of Jesus Christ, and the fall of Western Rome. Yet in the last 1,500 years, no two distinct epochs of time are as clear as the time before the atomic bombings
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Trigger2 8/7/2020 4:24:28 AM (No. 502247)
" Naval General Staff Onishi Tikijiro and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Umeza Yoshijiro — privately considered 'sacrificing' 20 million Japanese civilians in defense of the Home Islands."
Demonrats have the same mindset as these two generals. They're willing to sacrifice millions of Ameicans as collateral damage to their platform of communism.
17 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
varkdriver 8/7/2020 6:05:41 AM (No. 502283)
IIRC, the original targets were Kyoto and Kokura. Kyoto was scratched due to numerous religious shrines, buildings, etc; Hiroshima was struck instead. Kokura had bad weather, so Nagasaki was attacked as an alternate. A watershed moment, indeed; horrible but it needed to be done.
9 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Lazyman 8/7/2020 7:03:14 AM (No. 502306)
If it saved one American life and a family's grief it was worth it. They started the war and their atrocities are still on record until the history is changed by future Libs.
17 people like this.
It was a bit like chemo. It destroys so much, in hopes of saving the patient.
2 people like this.
Without a doubt, millions of lives were spared, on both sides.
16 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
NorthernDog 8/7/2020 8:07:30 AM (No. 502376)
As the article points out, war offers only terrible options. Dropping the atomic bombs ended the war abruptly and unambiguously.
9 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
mathman 8/7/2020 8:35:40 AM (No. 502414)
Because of the bomb, I had a dad. If we had invaded, he would have come home in a body bag.
There were 1,000,000 bags on order.
12 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
bighambone 8/7/2020 9:13:13 AM (No. 502466)
Interestingly enough there was a big problem in fitting the two nuclear bombs into the bomb bays of the B-29 as the bomb bays were too small and a big modification had to be made to the specific B-29’s used to bomb the two Japanese cities. If the modifications could not be successfully made, the next option was to have the Royal Air Force drop the bombs from Lancaster bombers that flew a hundred miles an hour slower than the B-29 but had a much larger bomb bay. Apparently the RAF had also come up with a rudimentary way to refuel the Lancaster bombers in flight using Lancaster tankers. That did not happen as the B-29s were successfully modified in time.
5 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
JimJr 8/7/2020 9:18:36 AM (No. 502472)
The casualties calculations were probably greatly underestimate. Post-war analysis found the Japanese had determined that the course of action for an Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands would be begin with landings in southern Kyushu. As there are only a few suitable landing areas they had prepared an extensive defense in depth for the area. Unlike the previous defense plans, the allied landings would be vigorously contested with presighted artillery, and suicide air, boat and subsurface units . It is likely that Japanese would have been able to inflict the massive casualties they hoped would cause the Allies to accept a negotiated armistice/peace. What the Japanese might have not known is that the U. S. had been secretly stockpiling millions of tons of chemical munitions in the Pacific theater. Had the landings on Kyushu been a bloodbath, it is likely that Truman would have acceded to MacArthur and approved the wide-spread delivery of these munitions. [Note: The U.S. would have not seen this as a violation of the Geneva Conventions as 1. Japan was not a signatory and 2. it was documented that Japan had employed chemical and biological weapons in China (the no first-use principal).] The aftermath would have (in most likelihood) left Honolulu, Hawaii as the center of what remained of Japanese culture.
4 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
hoosierblue 8/7/2020 10:27:29 AM (No. 502559)
Never a doubt in my mind that it was the correct thing to do. That was 110,000 to a high of 210,000 Japanese causalities in place of American causalities if we would have went in. If the Japanese have any complaints, remind them that they started the war. You get what you sow.
3 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 8/7/2020 12:20:34 PM (No. 502667)
War is hell. Firebombing every major city in Japan would have been deadly too, and we would have done it to prepare for the invasion. The devastation from the invasion preparation would have been FAR worse than sacrifice of two cities. I always remind pantywaist liberals that it took TWO cities destroyed before Japan surrendered. Little did they know that we had no more material left to make another bomb, or they would have kept fighting for the "honor" of the Emperor.
3 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
red1066 8/7/2020 2:18:09 PM (No. 502812)
Was there ever a doubt?
4 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Goose 8/7/2021 8:49:22 PM (No. 871509)
How soon after the US landed in Japan would the civilians begin committing suicide as they did on Saipan? Women throwing their children off a cliff then following them.
3 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "MissMolly"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)