Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News On this day in 1945

  1. Aug 7, 2003 #1
    Actually on the 6th and 9th, but...


  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 8, 2003 #2
    thankyou, we need to remember
  4. Aug 11, 2003 #3
    The two biggest terrorist events this planet has ever seen, and only one person here gave a damn. Interesting.
  5. Aug 11, 2003 #4
    actually recent studies show that johnson used the bomb almsot solely to scare the russians...
  6. Aug 12, 2003 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Actually, more were killed in the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden.

    To me there isn't much difference between a couple of big bombs and a lot of little bombs - the purpose and effects are roughly the same. Both are to be avoided in the future if possible.
  7. Aug 12, 2003 #6
    Mattius, I think you've got the wrong president, wrong decade. Twas Harry S. Truman sent the bomb. As I've heard, there was indeed a final ultimatum to the Japanese, which they did not heed. Use of the bomb was motivated in part by fear of the Japanese - their fanatical devotion to their emperor, and technological prowess. The nation would have been bombed to smitherines before the populace would give up the emperor.
    Lots of dough was spent on the top secret Manhattan project, and a concentration of scientific expertise unmatched in history until then. The nation wouldn't have developed the bomb if there was doubt it would've been needed at least as a deterrant. This is a cold analysis though and a deterrant effect could've been reached with a demonstration of the weapon on a non-civilian target.
  8. Aug 14, 2003 #7

    It was the wrong thing to do but first, what would your country have done at that time? First you dont know and second they didnt have that technology and third you weren't leading the fight against the japanese. And terrorist attack? ha. Wrong thing to do, yes terrorist attack no. Terrorist attacks are World Trade Center type things: un provoked attacks on civilians etc. And funny you say

    If you care so much why was it not you to post this topic?
  9. Aug 15, 2003 #8
    1) Um... Read some history. Australia was in there against the Japanese.

    2) A terrorist attack, to me, is an attack against a clearly civilian target. As you so eloquently put it: "un provoked attacks on civilians etc". That's what happened in 1945.

    3) Please read the material I supplied in the opening post of this thread.

    Look again. It was me.
  10. Aug 15, 2003 #9
    haha! you tell em! why do americains think they are always the only people fighting a war? japanese submarines and bombers made it to our cities and killed our people! but we recognise these actions were orchestrated by a government and not a population of innocent civilians.

    why is it that instead of recognising the mistakes of the past on such a sad anniversary some people choose to continue the fight, hence learning nothing from these mistakes.
  11. Aug 15, 2003 #10
    Let's not turn this into a finger pointing session.

    Those bombs never should have been dropped. One of Einstien's greatest regrets was sending that letter to Roosevelt urging him to pursue development of the weapons to compete with Germany.

    One thing I never understood- why did it take two nukes? They should have capitulated after just one bomb. Two was completely unecessary.

    It's not that I didn't care, but the post heading was obscure.
  12. Aug 15, 2003 #11
    Pure psychology, I think. America only had the two bombs, I think, and certainly couldn't pump out many. Using both of them gave the impression that the first one wasn't a fluke, and America could do it again and again, every few days.
  13. Aug 16, 2003 #12
    funny thing was they had pretty much completely capitulated before the first bomb was dropped!

  14. Aug 16, 2003 #13


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Pretty much? All it takes is two little magic words and they didn't say them. So the second one was dropped.
  15. Aug 16, 2003 #14
    What else where the Americans to do? If they ahd invaded Japan then the amount of casualties to ALL concerned would have been huge. The Americans had to pursue the developement of the Atom Bomb, if they hadnt and the Germans had managed to create an Atom bomb then they would have almost certainly won the war. And the Germans where very close to having a missile that could have reached America so dont think you where out of reach.
  16. Aug 16, 2003 #15

    Well, I'm sure there were many, many, things to consider prior to dropping these new (at that time) bombs. You may not agree with what I’m going to say, but it is nevertheless my own opinion that all other considerations were secondary to providing the world with an invaluable lesson; to demonstrate precisely where man’s destructive warring nature, coupled with an ever increasing degree of technological prowess, could take him.

    Yes, I really think it was meant as a lesson, or do you think my religion is showing?
  17. Aug 16, 2003 #16


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Deterrence of the Soviets may have played a part, but I don't think it was the overriding factor. I think we proved our military prowess without it.
  18. Aug 17, 2003 #17
    It does seem excessive when you think about Truman trying to impress Stalin, yet Stalin already knew all about it by spies at Los Alamos.
  19. Aug 17, 2003 #18
    I think showing off also played a big part, ive got a bigger gun than you was what was being shown there. It was also a quick and easy way to end a war.
  20. Aug 19, 2003 #19
    a couple people here need to learn history, granted, the dropping of the atomic bomb was a horrible decision which was mearly part of a horrible war, let me state some facts.

    1. Almost all analysts state that a land invasion and conventional bombing of Japan would have killed hundreds of thousands more civilians then the atomic bombs did. Remember the Dresden firebombing killed far more than both atomic bombs did combined.

    2. Japan was not about to capitulate, there was a japanese study published a couple weeks ago, there was an article in the local paper, I'm still trying to find the study and I'll post it if I do, anyway, a study by japanese researchers found that even after the second atomic bomb, the military leaders of japan still opposed surrender. the thing that lead to the surrender of Japan was not the bombing of nagasaki, but instead, an american fighter pilot who was shot down sometime in Aug. of '45 who knew nothing about the atomic bomb project, but after being tortured told the japanese that america was planning to blow up every japanese city within the next week. And even after that, many military leaders still resisted the idea of surrender

    3. Just some more emphasis on japan not being ready to surrender, on remote islands, the U.S army was still fighting with Japanese soldiers as late as 1958, who were down in foxholes and refused to surrender.

    4. I believe nuclear war currently would be the most horrible fate, and nuclear weapons should be dismantled now, but at the time when only one nation had them, and that nation had very little knowledge about how powerful nuclear weapons could become, a decision to at that time either kill maybe 500,000 people or 250,000 people, the atomic weapon was the better idea at the time.
  21. Aug 19, 2003 #20
    The Japanese were on the verge of surrender, Little Boy and Fat Man cost 75,000 and 30,000 ... 105,000 lives roughly, and it put us at odds with the Russians when our intelligence was not that good, launching the Cold War. Fear (and morbid curiosity?) motivated us to use them on cities, I bet Roosevelt wouldn't have.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook