The A-bomb Saved Lives

[hytga]

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpos...76-e8dc748e31aa

 

i just cannot understand, how someone in his right mind could try to justify this

[Nakharar]

I really hope that the author of this article suffers the same fate, on the condition that he surives with radiation sickness and lives to tell the story.

 

He shouldn't wait very long I presume. London and New York are probably next on the list.

 

A foreman, Tommy, at a factory I worked at in Lancashire in 1980, told me that in July, 1945, he was in the Pacific doing exercises for the invasion of Japan. He expected to die. He thanked the bomb that he became a grandfather.

 

Such humanism brings tear to my eyes.

 

The historian Herbert Feis explains the mood of American people then, saying they had "impatience to end the strain of war blended with a zest for victory. They longed to be done with smashing, burning, killing and dying -- and were angry at the defiant, crazed, useless prolongation of the ordeal."

 

They can't get lower and hypocritical than this.

 

The casualties of Hiroshima were mainly from blast and heat. Radiation killed far fewer and these mostly suffered acute damage from the massive direct radiation that struck fast-growing cells in the gut, skin, marrow, blood and in foetuses, causing hideous deaths and abnormalities. Chronic radiation effects, the long-lasting effects, were quite small. By 1990 the total number of the survivors from both bombs who died from cancer caused by the radiation was estimated at 428 -- an average of 10 a year since the bombs were dropped. The figure for genetic damage done by the radiation is more precisely known. It is zero. No increase in genetic defects in children born to survivors who conceived after the bomb has ever been seen.

 

Another good reason to drop the atom bomb?

[armjan]

the bomb was a great engineering/scientific achievement.

The use of the bomb was/is/will be delegated to politicians.

 

Please don't think that if a bomb goes off in London or NY, GOD FORBID, you'll be safe. Your ass is grass too. Expect retaliation, global economic bankruptcy, total choas. The sort of thing Anonymous often talks about. Several authors have sketched scenarios of a chain of events that may occur and none of them are in your favor/interest

You might have wished you were in the blast radius and not see the day after.

[Nakharar]

That the bomb was a scientific achievement doesn't make it any better. It's self-evident that the use of the bomb will be delegated to politicans. No one would argue against that.

 

The outcome of a nuclear explosion is not important at all as long as everyone loses.

 

Man will ultimately destroy Man.

[Armen]

If dropping the A-bomb on civil population was right, than modern nuclear terrorism (dirty A-bomb) if it happens, will be justifed as well cause it will be directed towards winning with fewer casualties.

[Arpa]

To my understanding the original premise of the news was in reference to Pearl Harbor. And it does have some merit. Has there been another Pearl Harbor since?

 

However, there is yet another angle to the debate.

 

Hiroshima and Nagasaki may easily be the most horrible events of the history of mankind, perhaps next to our horrible recent past, yet ever since that time, during the entire duration of the Cold War, when the contestants were (and some still are), in a mad race of one upmanship, as to which could develop an even deadlier device. With all that sabre rattling and bravado, yet none of the "rattlers", not even the maddest of the mad scientists, or the evilest of the "evil empires" dared to see what those devices could accomplish. Was it the fear of pip for pop, tit for tat or was the pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that stopped them short of dropping one of those again?

 

How did Hiroshima and Nagasaki save lives?

 

Has one of those "firecrackers" been dropped since?

 

Maybe some day, hopefully WE will be in a position to play that game of baravado too!

 

Note. You may ask where would we drop it? A few miles from Yerevan? Then ask yourself where the state of Israel plans to drop them, on Damascus or Beghdad, or even Tehran? How many miles between those capitals and TelAviv? Does radiation recognize and honor state borders?

Edited August 7, 2005 by Arpa

[hytga]

whatever reasons or outcomes, dropping A-bomb on a city, which is not a military city, just because you want to avoid casualties, is simply wrong.

 

btw even if the author of this article didn't realise his mistake, i just cannot understand how it could get published in the second place. This tells us how civilized the civilized world is

Edited August 8, 2005 by hytga

[phantom22]

This would have been justified IF it was dropped on military targets, but it was dropped on civilians with little control of what was transpiring at the top.

 

Soldiers expect that they may die in battle. These were just innocent civilians going about their daily business, just like our martyrs.

[armjan]

whatever reasons or outcomes, dropping A-bomb on a city, which is not a military city, just because you want to avoid casualties, is simply wrong.

style_images/master/snapback.png

do you recall how many cities filled with innocent civilians were targeted by russians, germans, brits and anybody else involved in the war.

Name one war where innocent civilians were not targeted?

 

That's why it's a war, they want take each other out.

 

Targeting cities filled w/ innocent civilians always happens, the only difference w/ respect to A-bomb is the amount of killed on impact/thereafter(short time).

Conventional oridnance over a period of few years has infact caused more damage than those A-bombs.

Edited August 8, 2005 by armjan

[armjan]

The outcome of a nuclear explosion is not important at all as long as everyone loses.

and how can one note a loss without looking at the outcome!

 

Man will ultimately destroy Man.

style_images/master/snapback.png

how long do you give this?

[hytga]

That's why it's a war, they want take each other out.

yes, but an A-Bomb not only is way too clumsy that destroys pretty much everything around it, but it also has negative sideeffects. i don't suppose you need me to tell you what these can be.

It's the equalent of mongols that swept through cities massacring the innocent populations just because they were at war. It's the equalent of genocde.

It's not a simple bombing, it's much too clumsy.

[armjan]

yes, but an A-Bomb not only is way too clumsy that destroys pretty much everything around it, but it also has negative sideeffects. i don't suppose you need me to tell you what these can be.

It's the equalent of mongols that swept through cities massacring the innocent populations just because they were at war. It's the equalent of genocde.

It's not a simple bombing, it's much too clumsy.

style_images/master/snapback.png

hi hytga,

do you agree with this...

"Conventional oridnance over a period of few years has infact caused more damage than those A-bombs."

[hytga]

Conventional oridnance over a period of few years has infact caused more damage than those A-bombs.

so you're saying dropping an A-Bomb is justified as long as the cumulative amound of people killed because of A-Bombs has been less? just drop a few in several big cities, and it will be more. Would you in that case consider it a worse thing?

[armjan]

so you're saying dropping an A-Bomb is justified as long as the cumulative amound of people killed because of A-Bombs has been less? just drop a few in several big cities, and it will be more. Would you in that case consider it a worse thing?

style_images/master/snapback.png

I am not sure I know how to justify the use of A/nuclear weapons, but what I was trying to point out is that the only difference between the two is numbers of people killed, and that may be misleading b/c over time, conventional weapons have done far greater damage than A bombs.

 

the use of A/nuclear weapons must be very carefully planned, executed, and sustained.

There are various sizes of nukes, they don't all come in one size fits all.

Different threats would be resolved using different types of ordinanace.

But no matter how you look at it, it is envoirnmentally unfavorable to release large amounts of radiation.

Edited August 8, 2005 by armjan

[hytga]

conventional weapons have done far greater damage than A bombs

no doubht about that.

But nonetheless it doesn't make them more evel than the A-Bomb.

 

The A-Bomb is like a bear shewing a head in one bite while the conventional one can be compared with a few chewawa bites. It's just that one has been more or less kept away from humans.

Edited August 8, 2005 by hytga

[ED]

I am not sure I know how to justify the use of A/nuclear weapons, but what I was trying to point out is that the only difference between the two is numbers of people killed, and that may be misleading b/c over time, conventional weapons have done far greater damage than A bombs.

 

the use of A/nuclear weapons must be very carefully planned, executed, and sustained.

There are various sizes of nukes, they don't all come in one size fits all.

Different threats would be resolved using different types of ordinanace.

But no matter how you look at it, it is envoirnmentally unfavorable to release large amounts of radiation.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

your absolutely right armjan, I totally agree with you, to save those young solders of ours we should of just dropped WMD on Iraq, by now rebuilding would have been much ahead and justified, if fact we should drop few nuked on Iran and Syria as well to avoid casualties, aBush is going to go to war anyways.

[armjan]

I guess it's always better to give than to recieve

[DominO123]

do you recall how many cities filled with innocent civilians were targeted by russians, germans, brits and  anybody else involved in the war.   

Name one war where innocent civilians were not targeted?

 

That's why it's a war, they want take each other out.

 

Targeting cities filled w/ innocent civilians always happens, the only difference w/ respect to A-bomb is the amount of killed on impact/thereafter(short time).

Conventional oridnance over a period of few years has infact caused more damage than those A-bombs.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Entirly agree.

 

The worst is that in all this, people forget Japanese serious war crimes like the Nanking massacres that hasn't done much lesser victims than the Bomb. The Bomb was a dumb and stupid mistake, they've build it, and later refused to realise that the war was soon to be over without needing to throw a nuclear bomb, but they did it regardless. Wars are full of irresponsable such acts, and it is always populations that loses because of politicians inspirations. The Armenians should be the first to know.

[Nakharar]

I guess it's always better to give than to recieve

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

What goes around comes around.

[Nakharar]

Entirly agree.

 

The worst is that in all this, people forget Japanese serious war crimes like the Nanking massacres that hasn't done much lesser victims than the Bomb. The Bomb was a dumb and stupid mistake, they've build it, and later refused to realise that the war was soon to be over without needing to throw a nuclear bomb, but they did it regardless. Wars are full of irresponsable such acts, and it is always populations that loses because of politicians inspirations. The Armenians should be the first to know.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Someone, somewhere said to put ourselves in Truman's shoes. It is superfluous to put ourselves in Truman's shoes. Why not put ourselves in Talaat's shoes? He also did what he thought was best for his nation right?

 

Nowadays the use of an a-bomb would be considered genocide and rightly so. As would the rape of Nanking, firebombing of Dresden and the annihilation of Japanese cities. Wars are fought like that and they still are, let's not kid ourselves. Grozny and Fallujah are a case in point. "Smart" bombs and "precision bombing" have put a sanitized and hallowed face on warfare these days. War has become a perfectly acceptable form of entertainment for American households now.

[Nakharar]

Will we take opportunity to reflect?

 

By Marianna Torgovnick

Posted August 5 2005

 

This Saturday, Americans will be reminded by the media of the 60th anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Most likely, we will miss once again the true impact of this event, not just for the Japanese who experienced it, but also on us and on how we now live.

 

It's not, of course, that we don't know that Americans flew the planes that killed at least 60,000 Japanese, most of them civilians, in Hiroshima and, three days later, 40,000 more in Nagasaki. It's not that Americans don't know that the United States remains the only nation ever to have used atomic weapons against civilian populations.

 

It's that the events, unlike D-Day, say, or the liberation of the concentration camps, place Americans in ambiguous, unpleasant or even guilty roles.

 

It seems natural that, as a culture, we prefer to look away. It seems natural that we prefer to emphasize events that reflect how we like to think of ourselves, that show a face we like to show to the world.

 

So don't expect to see Aug. 6, 2005, marked by day-long ceremonies like June 6, 2005, the 60th anniversary of D-Day. Don't expect to see President Bush fly to Hiroshima to make a policy speech there in the way that he and other presidents, most notably Ronald Reagan, have flown to Normandy.

 

The anniversary is likely to be mentioned, but quickly, almost as a kind of stealth event, under the radar screen and under the claim -- always controversial and often inflated -- that the bombings prevented an invasion and saved, and were designed to save, millions of American and Japanese lives.

 

And yet I would claim that the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have marked us strongly as a nation ever since 1945 and continue to do so in many ways.

 

The Cold War, the bogeyman of my childhood and most likely of yours, was driven by the fear that the Soviets would have nuclear weapons -- as they did by 1949 -- and would use them. In fact, some historians believe, and documents support the belief, that fear of the Soviets helped motivate the bombings, that our display of atomic power was designed as a warning to our likely future enemy as World War II came to an end.

 

Since 2003, U.S. foreign policy has been driven by the need to prevent Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- the so-called axis of evil -- not just from deploying but also from developing nuclear weapons. That need proved specious in Iraq, but it ushered in a controversial and costly war.

 

And developing nations could only learn from Iran and from North Korea that, although nuclear capacity draws strong and potent disapproval from the United States, it does tend to ward off the kind of invasion Iraq experienced, and its ongoing, messy aftermath.

 

So, my fellow Americans, in this summer of World War II anniversaries, enjoy films like War of the Worlds, with their disruption of ordinary families and domestic life plot lines. Watch civilization disappear around American characters once again in what has become an annual summer ritual.

 

But be aware that maybe, just maybe, the anniversaries that pass quickly each August are re-enacted, in disguised and distorted terms, in our annual summer disaster films. Remember, too, that Japan actually experienced the devastation of cities and the willful creation of a nightmare-world, and that the giants in the machines were, on that occasion, us.

 

The impulse to think about the atomic bombings in terms of public and foreign policy issues like deterrence and disarmament -- a notable tendency of American writing about nuclear weapons -- evades the reality of what occurred in Japan 60 years ago.

 

But that impulse may point to a useful truth for the present day. Bombs, like terrorists, are here, and likely to be here, to stay for our lifetimes. They are likely to condition our lives, but need not control them. Sixtieth-year anniversaries can be a time to revisit and rethink. Will we take it?

Marianna Torgovnick is professor of English at Duke University and author of the new book "The War Complex: World War II in Our Time." (Chicago, 2005)

[MosJan]

http://www.tert.am/am/news/2015/08/07/hiroshima-stalin-westernarmenia/1758396

 

 

КГБ-ի նախկին պաշտոնյան բացահայտել է Հայոց հարցի և Հիրոսիմայի ռմբակոծության կապը. մանրամասներ

 

Հիրոսիմայի ատոմային ռմբակոծության ողբերգության 70-ամյա տարելիցի ֆոնին «Կոմսոմոլսկայա պրավդան» նոր ու անսպասելի վարկած է ներկայացրել Հիրոսիմայի ռմբակոծության պատճառների, Հայոց հարցի ու Արևմտյան Հայաստանի հետ կապված Ստալինի պլանների կապերի առումով:

Աղբյուրը հիշեցնում է Հիրոսիմայի, ապա և Նագասակիի ատոմային ռմբակոծության «պաշտոնական վարկածը», այն է` ճապոնական քաղաքները ռմբակոծվեցին, որպեսզի այդկերպ Ճապոնիային ստիպեն կապիտուլյացիայի ենթարկվել, միաժամանակ` նաև ԽՍՀՄ-ի ղեկավարությանը վախեցնեն նոր տիպի զենքով` ատոմային ռումբով:

Սակայն այս ամենի ֆոնին «Կոմսոմոլսկայա պրավդան» ներկայացնում է խորհրդային ՊԱԿ-ի (КГБ ) նախկին փոխգնդապետ և հակահետախույզ Իգոր Ատամանենկոյի նոր վարկածը` նույն հարցի շուրջ:

Ի դեպ, КГБ-ի նախկին պաշտոնյա Ատամանենկոն ի պաշտպանություն իր վարկածի վկայակոչում է ԽՍՀՄ-ի թերևս ամենաազդեցիկ հայերին` Ստալինի մերձավոր շրջանակից Անաստաս Միկոյանին և լեգենդար հետախույզ Գևորգ Վարդանյանին, որի հետ նաև լուսանկար է հրապարակել:

[MosJan]

Ըստ Ատամանենկոյի` Երկրորդ համաշխարհայինից հետո արևմտյան դաշնակիցները Արևելյան Եվրոպայի ճակատագիրը որոշել էին` Ղրիմի ու Պոտսդամի կոնֆերանսներին, նոր հանդիպումներ չէին նախատեսվում: Եվ այդ ֆոնին Ստալինը որոշել էր խորհրդային կարգերը տարածել նաև Փոքր Ասիայի վրա: Իսկ ԱՄՆ-ն` ի դեմս նախագահ Թրումնեի փորձում էր կանխել հենց դա:

Նախկին պաշտոնյան հիշեցնում է պատմական փաստն այն մասին, որ ԽՍՀՄ-ը 20 դիվիզիա զորք էր պահում Թուրքիայի հետ սահմանին: 1941-ի օգոստոսին տեղեկություններ էին հայտնվել, որ Թուրքիան Հայաստանի հետ սահմանին մոտ 1 մլն զինվոր է տեղակայել` նպատակ ունենալով օկուպացնել խորհրդայնացված Անդրկովկասը: Այս լուրի ֆոնին` ԽՍՀՄ-ը Թուրքիայի սահմանին (Իրանի տարածքից) նախ 12, ապա 8 դիվիզիա է տեղակայում: Սա թուրքերին ստիպում է փոփոխել իրենց ծրագրերը և սպասել «մինչև Հիտլերը կգրավի Մոսկվան»:

1945-ի մայիսի դրությամբ, ինչպես բացատրում է КГБ-ի փոխգնդապետը, խորհրդային ղեկավարության որոշ անդամների շրջանում տարածում էր գտել պատմական հայկական հողերը ԽՍՀՄ-ի տարածքում ներառելու գաղափարը, որոնք «1918-ին բռնակցվել էին Թուրքիային»: Այդկերպ ծրագրվում էր խորհրդային կարգեր հաստատել Փոքր Ասիայում:

Ատամանենկոն նաև մեջբերում է 1945-ի փետրվարին Յալթայի կոնֆերանսին հնչեցված անհայտ հայտարարություն, որը նա վերագրում է Ստալինին: Նա նշում է, որ այս հայտարարության մասին իրեն հայտնել է հետախույզ Գևորգ Վարդանյանը, որին իր հերթին դրա մասին հայտնել է Անաստաս Միկոյանը:

Ըստ այդ հայտարարության Ստալինը իբր ասել է. «Թուրքերի կողմից գրավված հայերի հողերը ժամանակակից Թուրքիայի ամբողջ տարածքի մեկ երրորդն են կազմում, ըստ էության` դրա ամբողջ հյուսիս-արևելյան մասը` Կարս քաղաքից մինչև Էրզրում ու այդպես էլի դեպի արևմուտք: Ընդ որում` Հայկական լեռնաշխարհը` Վանա լճի հովտով, ամբողջ Թուրքիայի ամենաբարեբեր մասն է, որը այսօր ոչ միայն Թուրքիային է կերակրում, այլև ամբողջ Փոքր Ասիային, այսինքն` թուրքերը հացահատկային կուլտուրաներով են ապահովում բոլոր հարևան երկրներին` հայերի հաշվին ապրելով: Ժամանակն է վերջ դնել մեր եղբայրական ժողովրդի թալանին»:

Հաջորդիվ Ստալինը կարծիք է հայտնել, թե Թավրիզում կենտրոնացած «մեր երեք բանակների» հզոր առաջընթացով կարելի է իրանական սահմանից մինչև Ստամբուլ հասնել: Համապատասխան առաջարկ մշակելու հանձնարարություն է տրվել Միկոյանին և Մալենկովին: Մեծ կարևորություն է տրվել Ստամբուլի գրավմանը, որին Ստալինը ցանկացել է վերադարձնել պատմական` «Կոստանդնուպոլիս» անվանումը:

Խորհրդային փոխգնդապետը անսպասելի նորություն է հայտնում, թե ծրագրվել է կոմկուսի Ստամբուլի քաղկոմի 1-ին քարտուղար նշանակել լեգենդար հայ հետախույզ Վարդանյանի հորը: Վերջինս ոչ պակաս կարևոր դեմք էր խորհրդային հետախուզության մեջ. նա` Անդրանիկ Վարդանյանը, առևտրականի անվան տակ հետախուզությամբ էր զբաղվում Իրանում:

[MosJan]

Հաջորդիվ Ատամանենկոն վստահեցնում է, որ Ճապոնիան ատոմային ռմբակոծության ենթարկելու որոշումը Թրումենը վերջնականապես կայացրել է այն բանից հետո, երբ նրան հայտնի է դարձել Թուրքիայի` Արևմտյան Հայաստանի հետ կապված Ստալինի պլանների մասին:

Իր «Ստամբուլյան արշավանքը» Ստալինը հետաձգել է այն բանից հետո, երբ տեղեկացել է Հիրոսիմայի և Նագասակիի աղետների ծավալների մասին: Ըստ լեգենդի` այդ ժամանակ Ստալինն ասել է. «Թուրքերը պիտի ամբողջ կյանքում շնորհակալ լինեն ճապոնացիներին»` նկատի ունենալով, որ ամերիկացիները ատոմային ռումբ կգցեն նաև Թուրքիայի վրա, եթե այդ երկիր մտնեն խորհրդային զորքերը: