Japan fell silent @ 08:15 this morning

Cobra

Cobra

In Memoriam. TPer Emeritus
Admin
Messages
114,434
Name
The real Chris
Edit My Images
No
A US B-29 bomber called the Enola Gay dropped the uranium bomb, exploding some 600m (1,800ft) above the city, at around 08:10 on 6 August 1945.

It may have shortened the war as is the claim, but 70 years on I doubt that they would have done it (today) had they known the devastation it would cause.
An estimated 70,000 died instantly and the same again, died in the months that followed...


Wiki says :- Peace Pagodas were built as a symbol of peace in Japanese cities including Hiroshima and Nagasaki where the atomic bombs took the lives of over 150,000 people, almost all of whom were civilian, at the end of World War II. By 2000, eighty Peace Pagodas had been built around the world in Europe, Asia, and the United States.



IMG_5658 by Chris, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
This is the same model Camera that was one of the ones used on the bomber to take the shots of the explosion and the test

I picked it up a few years ago

I am off to Japan in a few weeks time

perfect.jpg
 
Last edited:
Most newer systems tend to be accurate. GPS guided and tailored explosive charge etc. Obviously it's not fool proof and depends on military intelligence but systems are getting better at only taking out the target not the rest of the town or village.

It also find it quite sad that humans haven't really learnt from dropping these bombs. We still produce them and we seem to get a perverse pleasure from comparing how many times bigger they are then the ones dropped on these two cities.
 
Don't get me wrong I hate war but if we have to then it's better to do it with a system that trys to keep innocent out of it.
 
eeyore said:
Don't get me wrong I hate war but if we have to then it's better to do it with a system that trys to keep innocent out of it.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that seems impossible ....... especially in places like Africa and what is happening in the middle East
 
Trouble is they just now call it collateral damage.....by morons who never go near any battlefield.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mex
simonblue said:
Hindsight is a great thing ;)
Click to expand...

It's not even just hindsight, all the experts of the day were predicting huge losses to both sides with a conventional invasion. There were only 2 beaches that could sustain a full scale amphibious landing and both sides knew it.

The losses to both sides on Okinawa made the Americans realize the chances of huge casualties in a conventional invasion were certain, and the other option of a long term naval blockade and conventional air bombing would have killed far more Japanese civilians.

It really was a case of the lesser of 2 terrible evils...

The Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that Olympic alone would cost 456,000 men, including 109,000 killed. Including Coronet, it was estimated that America would experience 1.2 million casualties, with 267,000 deaths.

Staff working for Chester Nimitz, calculated that the first 30 days of Olympic alone would cost 49,000 men.MacArthur’s staff concluded that America would suffer 125,000 casualties after 120 days, a figure that was later reduced to 105,000 casualties after his staff subtracted the men who when wounded could return to battle.

General Marshall, in conference with President Truman, estimated 31,000 in 30 days after landing in Kyushu. Admiral Leahy estimated that the invasion would cost 268,000 casualties. Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths. The same department estimated that there would be up to 10 million Japanese casualties. The ‘Los Angeles Times’ estimated that America would suffer up to 1 million casualties.

Regardless of which figures were used, it was an accepted fact that America would lose a very large number of men. This was one of the reasons why President Truman authorised the use of the atomic bomb in an effort to get Japan to surrender. On August 6th, ‘Little Boy’ was dropped on Hiroshima and on August 9th, ‘Fat Man’ was dropped on Nagasaki. On September 2nd, Japan surrendered and America and her allies were spared the task of invading Japan with the projected massive casualties this would entail.
Click to expand...
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-pacific-war-1941-to-1945/operation-downfall/
 
Dave1 said:
It's not even just hindsight, all the experts of the day were predicting huge losses to both sides with a conventional invasion. There were only 2 beaches that could sustain a full scale amphibious landing and both sides knew it.

The losses to both sides on Okinawa made the Americans realize the chances of huge casualties in a conventional invasion were certain, and the other option of a long term naval blockade and conventional air bombing would have killed far more Japanese civilians.

It really was a case of the lesser of 2 terrible evils...


http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-pacific-war-1941-to-1945/operation-downfall/
Click to expand...

Yes i fully agree with you the casualties on both sides would have far outweigh the dropping of both bombs,and don't for get the firebombing of Tokyo had cost more live than both bombs put together at the time,look at the casualties on just the Russian side taking Berlin 1 million :(
 
There have always been questions and controversies about dropping the atom bombs in 1945, and I doubt if there will ever be full consensus about this. The main ones I've come across seem to be:
  1. The potentially catastrophic casualties - military and civilian - that would have followed a conventional invasion; given the Allies previous experience and evidence that the Japanese population were being prepared for an Armageddon battle.
  2. Whether the Japanese should have been invited to watch a demonstration at a remote and uninhabited island, and given an opportunity to surrender before dropping the bomb on Hiroshima. The lack of fissionable material to construct more weapons may have been a factor here.
  3. A desire to test the bomb against a 'real' target, when there was an opportunity to do so from a dominant position and little risk of serious criticism.
  4. Did the Allies really know how destructive the bomb would be? I think that they did or, at least, had a very good idea; although they may not have understood the impact of long term radiation sickness.
  5. Whether the Allies would have used the bombs against Germany, a 'white' European nation, if necessary? The fallout risk may, or may not, have been recognised at the time but was there also a racial component?
  6. A punitive motive, given the bestial behaviour of the Japanese in Manchuria and towards Allied prisoners of war and civilians?
  7. Demonstrating the power of the new weapons to the Soviet Union, to discourage any further ambitions in Western Europe.
I don't know the answers, but I suspect they may be some combination of the above, and probably a few other factors too.
 
Last edited:
There was a historian discussing this, and apparently the USA flew a bomber ( it wasn't obvious if it was Enola Gay or not)
a few days before the attack, on a daily basis, so the population got used to the fact that there was a "large plane" flying over head.
Apparently no sirens were sounded nor anyone rushed for cover on the day "Little boy" was dropped.

If its true, it was a cold calculation designed to for maximum human casualties pure and simple :(
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
Shadow of a soldier remaining on the wooden wall of the Nagasaki military headquarters (Minami-Yamata machi, 4.5km from Ground Zero) 1945
Click to expand...
That is sad :(
 
There's so much art been created from this.
The Map by Kikuji Kawada was exhibited at the Tate

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99zN8W7RMnk


While relentlessly tracking the “stains” scattered across walls and ceiling of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, Kawada projects memories of the war through young soldiers’ portraits and letters, ruined fortresses, etc. At the same time, his pictures of iron scraps at factories, Lucky Strike boxes brought in by occupation forces, dumped Coca-Cola bottles, and other indicators of recovery after the war, document the process of overall transformation in postwar Japan. This long-awaited new edition of “Chizu”, renowned as one of the most experimental Japanese photography books, is a complete reprint adopting Kohei Sugiura’s original peculiar design with all photos as double-page spreads.
 
Lastly
081114SDMCover01_3098495c.jpg

An image from the series Hiroshima, 1995. When the first atomic bomb fell on August 6 1945 Kengo Nikawa, 59, was crossing the Kannon Bridge, 1600m from the hypocentre. He jumped into the river, terribly burnt, but later returned home. He died on August 22. This is the watch he was wearing that day. PHOTO: Hiromi Tsuchida
 
Cobra said:
There was a historian discussing this, and apparently the USA flew a bomber ( it wasn't obvious if it was Enola Gay or not)
a few days before the attack, on a daily basis, so the population got used to the fact that there was a "large plane" flying over head.
Apparently no sirens were sounded nor anyone rushed for cover on the day "Little boy" was dropped.

If its true, it was a cold calculation designed to for maximum human casualties pure and simple :(
Click to expand...

Again hindsight,i would say of course you would do test runs before the dropping,to see if an single plane would draw any flack or if their were still any enemy fighter plane still in operation,the last thing you would have wanted was the Enola Gay to been hit by enemy fire,it might come down with the bomb still intact,or stagger to it home base with the bomb still on board,who no what would have happen on its landing :(
 
Last edited:
I suppose that is one way of looking at it.
simonblue said:
hit by emery fire,
Click to expand...
That bloody sand paper can be a right menace :(
( Yeah I know, damned auto correct :D )

simonblue said:
with the bomb still on board,who no what would have happen on its landing :(
Click to expand...
Pretty much the same as happened to Hiroshima I guess ;)
 
MartynK said:
There have always been questions and controversies about dropping the atom bombs in 1945, and I doubt if there will ever be full consensus about this. The main ones I've come across seem to be:
  1. The potentially catastrophic casualties - military and civilian - that would have followed a conventional invasion; given the Allies previous experience and evidence that the Japanese population were being prepared for an Armageddon battle.
  2. Whether the Japanese should have been invited to watch a demonstration at a remote and uninhabited island, and given an opportunity to surrender before dropping the bomb on Hiroshima. The lack of fissionable material to construct more weapons may have been a factor here.
  3. A desire to test the bomb against a 'real' target, when there was an opportunity to do so from a dominant position and little risk of serious criticism.
  4. Did the Allies really know how destructive the bomb would be? I think that they did or, at least, had a very good idea; although they may not have understood the impact of long term radiation sickness.
  5. Whether the Allies would have used the bombs against Germany, a 'white' European nation, if necessary? The fallout risk may, or may not, have been recognised at the time but was there also a racial component?
  6. A punitive motive, given the bestial behaviour of the Japanese in Manchuria and towards Allied prisoners of war and civilians?
  7. Demonstrating the power of the new weapons to the Soviet Union, to discourage any further ambitions in Western Europe..I don't know the answers, but I suspect they may be some combination of the above, and probably a few other factors too
Click to expand...
 
Cobra said:
I suppose that is one way of looking at it.

That bloody sand paper can be a right menace :(
( Yeah I know, damned auto correct :D )


Pretty much the same as happened to Hiroshima I guess ;)
Click to expand...

I no bloody auto correct :eek:

But sometimes we must see things from the time these decisions were made,i don't think anybody was saying let kill as many Japanese civilian as possible,i just think by 1945 everybody just wanted it to come to an end.
 
simonblue said:
stagger to it home base with the bomb still on board,who no what would have happen on its landing :(
Click to expand...
Assuming the bomb was armed before takeoff rather than inflight, I imagine the crew would have dumped the bomb at sea if unable to deliver it to target, just like they would have done with convenient bombs.
 
Llamaman said:
Assuming the bomb was armed before takeoff rather than inflight, I imagine the crew would have dumped the bomb at sea if unable to deliver it to target, just like they would have done with convenient bombs.
Click to expand...

Yes they could of done that,but the seas surrounding Japan at the time were full of the US navy to greater a risk to take,you just don't no how far a shot up plane can travel before it will come down
 
simonblue said:
,i just think by 1945 everybody just wanted it to come to an end.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that's true,
Although a sceptic may add that it was in retaliation for Pearl harbour, (December 7, 1941) albeit some years later, and as also claimed in the "11th hour of the war".
And both attacks too place around 8am ( local time)

And of course lets not forget Nagasaki August 9, 1945.
Which was actually the secondary target, Kokura being the primary target.
Kokura was obscured by clouds ( or smoke from the recent fire bombings, or both)
 
Cobra said:
There was a historian discussing this, and apparently the USA flew a bomber ( it wasn't obvious if it was Enola Gay or not)
a few days before the attack, on a daily basis, so the population got used to the fact that there was a "large plane" flying over head.
Apparently no sirens were sounded nor anyone rushed for cover on the day "Little boy" was dropped.

If its true, it was a cold calculation designed to for maximum human casualties pure and simple :(
Click to expand...

The USA were dropping leaflets prior to the bomb so perhaps that is what is being alluded too.
Wonder if the will hold a similar memorial for Nagasaki, which sadly wasn't the primary target, that was Kokura which was cloud covered

SNAP
 
Cobra said:
Who was "liking" plagiarism?
As above :p
Click to expand...

You were typing same time as me...........................well that's my truthful excuse :p
 
Cobra said:
I'm sure that's true,
Although a sceptic may add that it was in retaliation for Pearl harbour, (December 7, 1941) albeit some years later, and as also claimed in the "11th hour of the war".
And both attacks too place around 8am ( local time)

And of course lets not forget Nagasaki August 9, 1945.
Which was actually the secondary target, Kokura being the primary target.
Kokura was obscured by clouds ( or smoke from the recent fire bombings, or both)
Click to expand...

But by the time the 2nd bomb was dropped,the Japaneses could have surrender,but they didn't,also look at Japan at the time the military were still in control saying that they would fight to the last man woman & child,the civilian government did wanted to surrender,but the emperor who had the last word had locked himself away in his palace.

The ending of wars are never very happy affair :(
 
simonblue said:
But by the time the 2nd bomb was dropped,the Japaneses could have surrender,but they didn't
Click to expand...
Obviously I don't know how these "things" work, but I'm not sure that 3 days would have been long enough TBH.
simonblue said:
but the emperor who had the last word had locked himself away in his palace.
Click to expand...
But that's way of "heads of state" I'm sure Cameron would be straight down his little shelter,should there be this kind of action,
or indeed the threat of.

But as we've said, hind sight is a wonderful thing!
 
Cobra said:
Obviously I don't know how these "things" work, but I'm not sure that 3 days would have been long enough TBH.

But that's way of "heads of state" I'm sure Cameron would be straight down his little shelter,should there be this kind of action,
or indeed the threat of.

But as we've said, hind sight is a wonderful thing!
Click to expand...

Yep hindsight is a wonderful thing :D
 
Llamaman said:
Assuming the bomb was armed before takeoff rather than inflight, I imagine the crew would have dumped the bomb at sea if unable to deliver it to target, just like they would have done with convenient bombs.
Click to expand...

Auto correct is having a field day in this thread ;).


Is a bomb ever really convenient? :p
 
Depends on whose viewpoint you're considering!
 
Cobra said:
There was a historian discussing this, and apparently the USA flew a bomber ( it wasn't obvious if it was Enola Gay or not)
a few days before the attack, on a daily basis, so the population got used to the fact that there was a "large plane" flying over head.
Apparently no sirens were sounded nor anyone rushed for cover on the day "Little boy" was dropped.

If its true, it was a cold calculation designed to for maximum human casualties pure and simple :(
Click to expand...

simonblue said:
Again hindsight,i would say of course you would do test runs before the dropping,to see if an single plane would draw any flack or if their were still any enemy fighter plane still in operation,the last thing you would have wanted was the Enola Gay to been hit by enemy fire,it might come down with the bomb still intact,or stagger to it home base with the bomb still on board,who no what would have happen on its landing :(
Click to expand...

AFAIK, the Enola Gay was used for a reconnaissance/practice run over Hiroshima a few days before the mission. Two other B29s flew with her on the day, carrying instruments and photographic equipment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top