Historians Propose National Park To Preserve Manhattan Project Sites 150
Hugh Pickens writes writes "William J. Broad writes that a plan now before Congress would create a national park to protect the aging remnants of the atomic bomb project from World War II, including hundreds of buildings and artifacts scattered across New Mexico, Washington and Tennessee — among them the rustic Los Alamos home of Dr. Oppenheimer and his wife, Kitty, and a large Quonset hut, also in New Mexico, where scientists assembled components for the plutonium bomb dropped on Japan. 'It's a way to help educate the next generation,' says Cynthia C. Kelly, president of the Atomic Heritage Foundation, a private group in Washington that helped develop the preservation plan. 'This is a major chapter of American and world history. We should preserve what's left.' Critics have faulted the plan as celebrating a weapon of mass destruction, and have argued that the government should avoid that kind of advocacy. 'At a time when we should be organizing the world toward abolishing nuclear weapons before they abolish us, we are instead indulging in admiration at our cleverness as a species,' says Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich. Historians and federal agencies reply that preservation does not imply moral endorsement, and that the remains of so monumental a project should be saved as a way to encourage comprehension and public discussion. A park would be a commemoration, not a celebration, says Heather McClenahan, director of the Los Alamos Historical Society pointing out there are national parks commemorating slavery, Civil War battles and American Indian massacres. 'It's a chance to say, "Why did we do this? What were the good things that happened? What were the bad? How do we learn lessons from the past? How do we not ever have to use an atomic bomb in warfare again?" '"
Especially Apt (Score:4, Funny)
It's Christmas at ground zero
There's music in the air
The sleigh bells are ringing and the carolers are singing
While the air raid sirens blare
It's Christmas at ground zero
The button has been pressed
The radio just let us know
That this is not a test
Everywhere the atom bombs are dropping
It's the end of all humanity
No more time for last-minute shopping
It's time to face your final destiny
It's Christmas at ground zero
There's panic in the crowd
We can dodge debris while we trim the tree
Underneath the mushroom cloud
Ronald Reagan:
Well, the big day is only a few hours away now.
I'm sure you're all looking forward to it
as much as we are.
You might hear some reindeer on your rooftop
Or Jack Frost on your windowsill
But if someone's climbing down your chimney
You better load your gun and shoot to kill
It's Christmas at ground zero
And if the radiation level's okay
I'll go out with you and see all the new
Mutations on New Year's Day
It's Christmas at ground zero
Just seconds left to go
I'll duck and cover with my Yuletide lover
Underneath the mistletoe
It's Christmas at ground zero
Now the missiles are on their way
What a crazy fluke, we're gonna get nuked
On this jolly holiday
What a crazy fluke, we're gonna get nuked
On this jolly holiday!
--Wierd Al Yankovic
Christmas At Ground Zero
Re: (Score:2)
Party at ground zero Every movie starring you And the world will turn to flowing Pink vapor stew
Please do not fear 'cause Fishbone is here to say Just have a good time, the stop sign is far away The toilet has flushed and green lights are a ghost And drop drills will be extinct
Speed racer cloud has come They know not what they've done Sin has just won The planet is a crumb
Johnny, go get your gun For the commies are in our hemisphere today Ivan, go fly your MIG For the Yankee imperialists have come to play
Jo
Re:Especially Apt (Score:5, Funny)
That's weird; I thought I wrote wierd. Weird.
Re: (Score:2)
Those who forget history (Score:2, Redundant)
are condemned to repeat it. This is one piece of history that no one wishes to see repeated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet this is the same Kucinich who thinks vaccines cause autism, despite all recent history to the contrary: http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/12/04/1740211/congressional-committee-casts-a-harsh-eye-on-vaccination-science [slashdot.org]
I think it's a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
But it all depends on the execution. As with any museum/park/etc. how you structure it sets the tone.
Great example would be German museums dealing with the events surrounding their involvement in the World Wars and the Holocaust. You go into any of those, and while they talk a lot about the Nazi Party, National Socialism, Hitler and the rest, you would be hard pressed to say that anyone would think any of it is an endorsement. Everything I saw really had a tone of: "My God, we screwed the pooch BIGTIME. Let's put this all out here, so maybe people won't let it happen again"
Granted, the atomic bomb isn't quite as clear of a moral area, since while it did kill many, many people, it also ended the war much earlier than was likely without it, and therefore all the casualties that would have entailed didn't occur. Instead of glorifying a WMD, it can help foster discussion about them, and past them.
Re:I think it's a good idea (Score:5, Informative)
Great example would be German museums dealing with the events surrounding their involvement in the World Wars and the Holocaust. You go into any of those, and while they talk a lot about the Nazi Party, National Socialism, Hitler and the rest, you would be hard pressed to say that anyone would think any of it is an endorsement. Everything I saw really had a tone of: "My God, we screwed the pooch BIGTIME. Let's put this all out here, so maybe people won't let it happen again"
Indeed. I was quite surprised to hear the tour guide at Hitler's mountain chalet above Berchtesgaden...she told it like it was, no beating about the bush. Her sentiment was clearly Nie wieder.
Re:I think it's a good idea (Score:4, Informative)
As long as this memorial is done in a way that explains the things that happened, and why they were done, without claiming that "the japz are teh badz" than I think it is a good thing
Re:I think it's a good idea (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately when I was there, we didn't have a chance to get out to Dachau, but did go through the Documentation Center in Nuremburg. Exact same thing. No punches pulled, just straight up "Here's what happened, why it happened, and why it should never be allowed to occur again." I was kind of surprised, and very glad to see it just laid out like that. A dark period of human history, and the best way to deal with it is to let it stand on its own.
Some visitors rightfully feel some pride ... (Score:2)
This is very true. When I was in Germany I went to the dachau camp. It was a very somber experience. There was plenty explaining exactly what happened on the grounds. It was preserved and rebuilt in some ways, but it was never "endorsed"
I felt some pride at the gate looking at the plaques commemorating the U.S. 20th Armored Division and U.S. 42nd Infantry Division, they liberated the camp. A member of my family was in the U.S. 101st Airborne Division and they liberated of one of the sub-camps nearby. I was proud of the guys who shut down these camps and destroyed the government that created them.
But, yeah, once my eyes moved from the plaques to the original motto on the gate things became quite somber.
Re:I think it's a good idea (Score:4, Interesting)
But it all depends on the execution. As with any museum/park/etc. how you structure it sets the tone.
Well, it seems unlikely we could ever agree on the tone to be set.
Let alone how to present it. (see my post upthread about my annoyance with chirpy park service interpreters).
When you look at the death tolls [wikipedia.org], the fire bombings of both Germany and Japan cities killed way more people.
In March 1945, 334 B-29s took off to raid on the night of 9–10 March ("Operation Meetinghouse"), with 279 of them dropping around 1,700 tons of bombs. Fourteen B-29s were lost. Approximately 16 square miles (41 km2) of the city were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the resulting firestorm, more immediate deaths than either of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's not like this would be the only place we've ever presented historical places or material of controversial significance. Hell, I think the Smithsonian has the Enola Gay on display.
It's pretty standard practice to preserve and present the history, and let people philosophize on the subject however they will. Just don't bulldoze major historical places because it has to do with a (maybe) touchy subject. That's juvenile at best, and you don't get to change your mind about it later.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but the Smithsonian doesn't try to guilt trip visitors to the Enola Gay, because its one display with lots of other aircraft.
A park dedicated to the development of atomic bombs would almost certainly devolve to a perpetual guilt trip experience, like the German death camps,
the theme of which would most likely be to convey the whole science is evil, and big science is big evil thing, and gee-wiz look how evil we were.
The more I think about it, the less upside I see.
Re: (Score:2)
Got moved to the annex. I'm told it was too controversial in the main smithsonian, hence the move. That's been turned into a decent size museum on its own.
Re: (Score:2)
First is the realization that war and fighting is not a game. Some like it to be, especially conservatives, because they can con the American people into paying huge sums to watch the game. If we admit we occasionally cannot but war games, but occasionally have to go in solve problems, then people get squeamish. T
Re: (Score:2)
The atomic bombings are seen as a great tragedy in Japan, as were the fire bombings of other cities. Most of the people who died were not fighting in the war, although Japan was in total-war mode at the time so arguable they were contributing to the war effort. But most of them did not want the war and did not support it, so are considered victims.
That is similar to the German attitude, except that the average person did perhaps bare a bit more responsibility since initially the Nazis did rise to power demo
Re: (Score:2)
The atomic bombings are seen as a great tragedy in Japan, as were the fire bombings of other cities. ...
The prevailing view in Japan seems to be that the bombings were a test of the technology. At that time no-one knew what the effects on people and a city would be, and the US realized that eventually other countries would develop their own atomic weapons so they needed to find out.
I have two grandfathers who served in the Pacific theater. One is still alive, and the other lived to almost 90. They lived long, happy lives after the war ended. My grandmother is the kindest, sweetest, most thoroughly Christian old lady you have ever met in your life. I have literally never seen her raise her voice or get angry. Except once, when she was talking about 21st century revisionist history and how smarmy academics sit around pontificating about how evil the U.S. was for using those bombs and st
Re: (Score:2)
Did it ever occur to her that they could have bombed an uninhabited area first, then said "surrender or this happens to your cities"? They didn't even try, they just skipped ahead to bombing civilians.
Re: (Score:2)
Bombing an uninhabited area first was considered and rejected because U.S. leaders believed it would simply look to the war-crazed Japanese that we had a superweapon but were too soft to use it. It would be a waste of a bomb, and those were already in short supply (so the thinking went). Turns out that was probably a spot-on analysis, because after Hiroshima, the Emporer (who had already been leaning toward a conditional surrender), was pretty much ready to toss in the towel. But the senior military leaders
Re: (Score:2)
...
Granted, the atomic bomb isn't quite as clear of a moral area, since while it did kill many, many people, ....
Atomic bombs don't kill people, people kill people.
Re: (Score:2)
100 million? Stone age people? In the new world?
What are you smoking and can I have some?
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia? LOL.
There is no way stone age people had that kind of population on that amount of land. Current estimate of stone age population in Europe (where it isn't hopelessly politicized) is 50,000 - 500,000.
The same people who claim 100 million Indians also still claim you can spread smallpox with blankets (outside a person smallpox remains infectious for about a day). Facts don't bother them.
Not that it matters, my ancestors arrived in North America in 1963.
Answer to THE Question (Score:1)
"How do we not ever have to use an atomic bomb in warfare again?"
Assad, Hamas and Iran know...Sarin is the neutron bomb of the 21st century. It destroys civilians without destroying the infrastructure so the attacker can just move in and get rid of the bodies and it has a ready made infrastructure in place to use to continue their conquest.
I may sound "off topic" or "trolling" but Syria's activities today show the reality.
Godwin's Law be damned (Score:2)
Why don't we just bulldoze concentration camps too? You know, just so we don't appear to be supporting the Holocaust.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we just bulldoze concentration camps too? You know, just so we don't appear to be supporting the Holocaust.
lol, who is going to want to build on the site? Who would want to live, or go there?
The ground is spoiled now. Only good thing would to be a memorial to those who died and suffered there.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but I think you have it mixed up. A monument to the camps, or say in Japan where the bombs fell is good. But a monument to the bomb is bad. Understand? It would be like making a monument to Hitler, or to the SS. In other words, a monument to the tragedy from some
Re: (Score:2)
Humbling, troubling (Score:5, Interesting)
For those who've never visited, a tour of the museums at Los Alamos (the town) is incredibly humbling and thought-provoking. Except perhaps for psychopaths, there is nothing celebratory about it. On the contrary, the atmosphere is deeply troubling and anxiety producing. However, I for one would appreciate the opportunity to visit the lab grounds as a national park, to better understand how the Manhattan Project transpired. I believe this is important for humankind to grasp the darker sides of its nature.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
T
Re: (Score:3)
For those who've never visited, a tour of the museums at Los Alamos (the town) is incredibly humbling and thought-provoking. Except perhaps for psychopaths, there is nothing celebratory about it. On the contrary, the atmosphere is deeply troubling and anxiety producing.
But you see, that is exactly what the debate will be about.
It was a war, an all out war. And the Bombs shortened that war. They were far from the biggest death tolls in the war.
So overwrought somberness might not be the best approach. All you do is guilt trip every visitor, and the science achievments and
the historical context is lost.
There might be differing opinions about better ways to present it.
Re: (Score:2)
It could be argued that simplistic demonization of nuclear weapons is actually a whitewash tactic.
Yes, they are, by far, the most efficient examples of their genre; but the logic of "total war" had been grinding on with horrific civilian casualties for a few years by the time nukes were available. The people in charge of Allied air power(which, toward the end of WWII basically meant "American air power", since the US was the main allied nation not a smouldering heap of rubble) had already embraced the notio
Re: (Score:2)
The people in charge of Allied air power(which, toward the end of WWII basically meant "American air power", since the US was the main allied nation not a smouldering heap of rubble)
UK was not a smoldering heap of rubble toward the end of WWII. And, while huge swaths of the USSR were, there were enough remaining for it to pump out combat planes like hot cakes (I mean, there's a reason why the most mass-produced combat airplane in history was Soviet IL-2, and that's not because it was cheap).
US was an undeniable king of strategic bombing air power, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I've visited war memorials and museums in many parts of the world, including the US, and neither the intention nor the result has been to guilt trip anyone.
A generation of children has been born who don't remember the cold war, and a generation will soon be born who have had no contact with anyone who remembers the last world war.
The manhattan project sites in particular are an important chance to say "this war happened. This was the price we paid to end it. Don't let it happen again."
Generations who don't
Re: (Score:2)
The manhattan project sites in particular are an important chance to say "this war happened. This was the price we paid to end it. Don't let it happen again."
So regardless of your first sentence, it is a guilt trip after all.
Don't let it happen again? Are you serious? Did you really say that?
Did the US have vote about whether Pearl Harbor should be bombed?
Did the US have a choice but to go to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor, other than immediate surrender of the western half of the US to Japan?
"Don't let it happen again" can just as well be used to justify preventive strikes on other countries, as well as any thing else.
Should we "Not let it happen again" b
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Are you feeling a little defensive about something? You just took that ball and ran straight to crazy town.
No, what I said is not a guilt trip. Try this one: "I bought a car from Joe. He ripped me off. Don't buy a car from Joe." Do you feel guilty? Everything is not about you.
"Don't let it happen again" also doesn't mean that anybody in particular was to blame for the world wars, or that anybody should scrap their navy or anything else. The wars happened, and escalated, because of shortsightedn
Re:Humbling, troubling (Score:4, Insightful)
I've toured several sites on the "Atomic Tourist" list and seeing this places in person is much different than looking at pictures in a book. And, at several places, I had tour guides who had actually been posted at the locations in pretty senior positions. That's something that even a museum won't be able to replicate and, quite frankly, those people aren't going to be around much longer. If you ever want to have a full day to bend the ear of someone in the heart of nuclear weapons development, take the public tour at the Nevada National Security Site (nee: Nevada Test Site). I can't recommend it enough and it's free. It's booked well in advance but a few people can usually get on standby because there are usually a few open seats.
The guys conducting those tours are the real deal. They're the ones who were working on the base when they were lighting off nuclear explosions, lighting off even bigger ones out on the pacific atolls, and may or may not have worked at Area 51. If you want to understand the mentality of that era, these are the guys to talk to. One thing I wish was on the regular NNSS tour is a walk through the Ice Cap building. Seeing the instrument rig of the last scheduled full scale test hanging over that hole really drives home the scale of what went on there. (Yeah, I pushed it and watched it swing.)
I've also had a tour of a Titan Missile silo from a man who was stationed in that very silo. Again, he was able to give insights to that experience that no book will ever capture. Half a day exploring every nook and cranny of that place with someone able to explain exactly what everything did and provide anecdotes about living in a silo.
I've been to the Trinity site and that just wasn't the same experience. Informational signs, a short presentation, exhibits at the McDonald Ranch. But there was nobody there who could provide a first-hand account of the spirit of what occurred there. Nobody to look you in the eye and explain how it felt to be part of that event. But being able to go there and see the site was still pretty meaningful. I'm glad I had the chance to see it. Another decade or two and the previous two sites will be the same. Second and third hand accounts.
My most recent nuclear explosion site visit was Project Faultless. That's the only test site I've been to with absolutely no access controls. Just a single plaque and some graffiti.
Re: (Score:2)
Celebrating Nuclear weapons? (Score:3)
Critics have faulted the plan as celebrating a weapon of mass destruction, and have argued that the government should avoid that kind of advocacy.
I've been to plenty of Holocaust museums and memorials and I don't recall any of them focusing on a celebration but rather the educational aspect.
Re: (Score:3)
Critics have faulted the plan as celebrating a weapon of mass destruction, and have argued that the government should avoid that kind of advocacy.
I've been to plenty of Holocaust museums and memorials and I don't recall any of them focusing on a celebration but rather the educational aspect.
Exactly. I remember going to the Hiroshima memorial and museum during a visit to Japan when I was only 10 or 11 years old. It has stuck with me probably more than any other museum experience before I became an adult.
I remember a few years later debating issues of the use of nuclear weapons in WWII in my American history class in high school, and I had a completely different perspective on it compared to many of my classmates.*
Whatever side of the nuclear debate you fall on, it's better to remember and
It's a National *Historic* Park (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between a National Park and a National Historic Park. The proposed "National Park" is a National Historic Park, about 3 notches below a National Park in terms of visitors, staff, and funding.
But perhaps National Monument status would be more appropriate. Somebody to mow the grass every other week, and pick up the trash daily.
Sounds cost effective to me! (Score:2)
Given the, um, totally excellent, standards for handling of radioactive goodies that were adhered to by unpracticed people rushing like crazy and shielded by secrecy, declaring the whole thing a "national park" and forgetting about it is probably cheaper than rehabilitating the place....
atomic bombs probably will be used again (Score:2)
How do we not ever have to use an atomic bomb in warfare again?
Well, one obvious solution is to kill everyone with some other superweapon so nobody is around to use atomic bombs in warfare. Otherwise, I think sooner or later atomic bombs will be used again. There are huge disincentives to using them, but there's no reason to expect those disincentives to always be good enough.
Consider for example, Syria's situation in the Middle East. The current government is facing its doom by a massive rebellion. But it might be able to hold on by using sarin nerve gas on the reb
Whay are atomic bombs the exception? (Score:2)
Why are these weapons so different, in that "we must never use them again"? No one ever says that about, say, TNT, or even bullets.
Somehow it is accepted in war that we can shoot, blow up, stab, bludgeon, or strangle the enemy, but using an A-bomb is immoral.
Maybe what we should be concerned about is war itself.
I can't confirm it, but I think it was Sir Arthur Harris [wikipedia.org] who said something like "Tell me one thing that is moral in war. Is sticking a bayonet in a man's belly moral?"
History should be preserved, both good and bad: (Score:2)
How is this different than if Russia set up a set of historical preservation sites of the nuclear facilities leading to its first nuclear bomb? Or China?
You may not have approved, but it IS history.
Else, you might as well be saying to demolish anything that reminds you of something negative.
Perhaps you'd like to see the Peenemunde Historical Technical Museum in Germany razed and forgotten?
How is your position any different than others who have tried to erase "inconvenient" histories?
Nobody does stupid like the USA can do stupid. (Score:2)
'At a time when we should be organizing the world toward abolishing nuclear weapons before they abolish us, we are instead indulging in admiration at our cleverness as a species,' says Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich.
That's the sort of thing that you people elect to represent you. Wow.
Re: (Score:2)
then build it in hiroshima stupid people
been done
Re:Only Americans... (Score:5, Insightful)
arc de triomphe, Trafalgar square, brandenburg gate, etc?
Whatever you may think of the two bombings in particular lots of countries have killed a lot more people in their wars, and built varying types of monuments. Should the war museums in britain not have lancaster bombers given how they were used to obliterate cities? How about any monument to the royal navy which was basically built to starve continental adversaries into submission?
For all it's faults the manhattan project was also one of the largest research projects in history, if not the largest, and I think it's important to remember just went into making it, how much money and resources can be spent testing ideas in a desperate hope to find one that works, and a tribute to the people who did the work to make it happen at all. It's important to recognize the consequences of that work too, but it really was tremendous work and genius to realize the potential of uranium and plutonium, good and bad.
Re:Only Americans... (Score:4, Funny)
arc de triomphe, Trafalgar square, brandenburg gate, etc?
Nothing in comparison.
Brandenburg Gate: Built to represent peace, so Napoleon could come and visit the city.
Trafalgar square: built after Napoleon's defeat, to remind the British Nation that French people are funny.
The Arc de Triomphe: built after Napoleon's victory, to remind the French Nation not to discriminate against short people.
Re: (Score:2)
Randy Newman: built to remind us all that it's OK to discriminate against short people.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Nuclear weapoms have saved more lives than people could possibly imagine, simply by making all out war between the major powers unthinkable.
And regardless of how many died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, far more lives were spared from the hideously destructive ground war that would have occured had the US been forced to invade Japan. The military junta ruling Japan was training childred to fight with sharpened sticks and would have gladly sacrificed them to protect themselves.
Never in history has pea
Gloria et Patria (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear mass murder of civilians and "victory" by murder blackmail of the non-combattant population are not glorious.
hence my reference to the royal navy, who's primary purpose was to starve france or spain into submission when the need arose (as they did, repeatedly). How about any of russias war memorials from WW2, given that they killed millions of germans in the process. How about the first world war memorials? Would a memorial to the ships of the US navy be acceptable if rather than nuking japan they had just let them starve? That was after all the plan, the British were going to blockade Japan until 49 and then
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only Americans... (Score:5, Insightful)
It shortened the war by years, sparing millions of lives at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.
Also, there is a difference between honoring something like this and remembering something like this.
Go to Dachau, take the tour - the difference between honoring and remembering becomes obvious.
Re: (Score:3)
But but, you spoiled the little Hate-America-First poster boys cleverly set up one liner.
Still one has to fear the pablum that would be spat by perky Park Service summer intern "interpreters".
I've seen my fair share of parks, and the drivel that flows is pretty annoying.
Ask them anything off script and they are at sea.
Re: (Score:2)
It also proved/developed the atomic theories of Einstein and Oppenheimer and the rest. This paved the way for and made possible nuclear energy/reactors, letting harness the power of the atom for more than just bombs. Nuclear energy remains one of our best options to meet the energy demands of the world, particular as china and india modernize.
Re:Only Americans... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Japanese have already agreed to capitulate
No, they didn't. What had happened is that some Japanese had decided to seek surrender through odd channels (such as via the USSR), but there's no indication either that the ones seeking surrender had the authority to do so or that the US knew that status either.
I see no reason stemming from those diplomatic activities to question the use of the atomic bombs or the allegation that the war would have continued otherwise and resulted in hundreds of thousands of allied deaths and millions of Japanese deaths.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Japanese were negotiating in earnest with Truman
No, they weren't. I doubt even that the people who were attempting to negotiate with the US had the authority or power to do so.
It was a heinous act, even if done out of ignorance and especially if contemplated as a show of force to deter the Russians ambition to claim Japan as their own.
And even if that were true, that probably saved millions to tens of millions of lives by stopping a hot war between the USSR and the "First World".
Aside from which a National Park should be preserved for its natural beauty and source of recreation through the appreciation of the out of doors, as has been the tradition since Theodore Roosevelt advocated for Yellowstone NP. Los Alamos doesn't begin to qualify for consideration in that regard. In addition, the National Park Service budget has been under assault for years out of sheer ignorance on the part of those who believe we should cater to the RV set and those who believe that every non-essential service of the federal government should be paid for on a fee-for-service basis.
Whine whine whine. I guess it's better to not pay for a National Park Service and simply let people and businesses do whatever they want on NPS land Fee for service at least funds some protection of those lands which is more than you can
Re: (Score:2)
"History has been updated"
In the words of Will Rogers: "Things ain't what they used to be and probably never was"
History gets re-evaluated to match political doctrine all the time. North Korea just announced that they'd found a unicorn's lair, thus validating their assertion that the capital of an ancient kingdom was Pyongyang rather than some other possibilities.
You've defined your reality, and I doubt that anything could sway you, but it's unlikely that the Japanese leaders who had the ability to deliver
Re: (Score:2)
When WW2 began, there were highly placed members in the imperial cabinet who made predictions. Predictions such as "Japan will win all naval engagements with the US for at least the first 2 1/2 years", or "It will take the US at least 18 months to take any location where they can base bombing runs against the Japanese mainland.". Both of these predictions, and many similar ones turned out to be directly, factually wrong. The Doolittle raid was a successful strategic bombing mission against the mainland, onl
Re: (Score:2)
The Doolittle raid was a psychological attack. It was not something that we could replicate en masse, it required massive stripped of the bombers, and the bomb loads for the bombers did negligible damage to the Japanese.
Midway was weird. The US won predominantly because of better intelligence and some luck with the flight groups. The attack that sunk 3 of the Japanese flatops was an uncoordinated simultaneous attack which kind of overwhelmed anti-aircraft defenses for the flat tops. Had the uncoordinated at
Imperial Japan was still a potent foe ... (Score:4, Informative)
The war was basically over. The main part of the Japanese Army was on the Chinese mainland.
The forces in Japan were more than sufficient to inflict massive casualties on the US. Look at what they managed at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the previous two battles on Japanese soil. Plus they were training their civilians to resist and fight. Plus we now know they were planning on using chemical weapons on the invasion beaches when the US landed. Plus they had been holding back kamikaze aircraft and suicide boats, again look at Okinawa. Plus they had also perfected the aerial dropping of bubonic plague infected fleas, they even tested it on Chinese villages, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 [wikipedia.org]. Marry this with their new submarines that could launch 2 or 3 aircraft, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400_class_submarine [wikipedia.org], and they would have the capability to target San Francisco not just invasion beaches. We have no idea what would have happened if the war went on until Spring 1946, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_japan [wikipedia.org].
The Russians were already invading in the north.
Wrong, Russia did not invade Japan until after the atomic bomb was dropped, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan [wikipedia.org].
Even if Russia would have attacked with the atomic bombing they would be quite busy on the mainland for many more months. Plus the Russians did not have an amphibious capability, they could not invade the Japanese home islands in force even if they wanted to.
Again, the vast majority of the Japanese army was on the Japanese mainland.
The millions of Japanese casualties that the previous poster referred to would have been predominately civilian. Some fighting, some caught in the middle, some suiciding ... again see Okinawa.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. The USSR had defeated the Kwantung army (with 600000 vs 12000 dead in favor of the USSR) a couple of days after the first bombing, so militarily Japan had nothing to wage a serious war with.
Re: (Score:2)
"Even if Russia would have attacked with the atomic bombing they would be quite busy on the mainland for many more months." Not really. The USSR had defeated the Kwantung army (with 600000 vs 12000 dead in favor of the USSR) a couple of days after the first bombing, so militarily Japan had nothing to wage a serious war with.
Its not that simple. The terrain favored the massive mechanized assault in that case. Other regions were not so accommodating and the Russians never touched them. Matter of fact they remained in place long after the surrender as a "police" force under Allied control. It would have taken the Russians a while to secure the mainland regions if Japan had not surrendered.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually think that using the nuclear bombs on Japan at that point was justifiable, but still wrong. A demonstration of nuclear capability on uninhabited territory would have probably achieved much the same results.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the russians flatly refused to even enter into the pacific theater until less than three months before the Japanese surrendered.
They didnt even invade Manchuria until AFTER we dropped the first bomb, and the invasion was just as much them trying to grab as much land/influence in china as it was them honoring their treaty obligations from years earlier in the war.
They weren't doing it to fight the japanese. they were doing it to get china just like they had gotten control of nearly all of eastern europe
Re: (Score:2)
and your perception of the invasion is complete BS. my grandfather was with his battalion on one of the ships off the coast of okinawa when the bombs were dropped. they were there because they were waiting for the orders to sail to japan and begin the invasion. his battalion was to be the first on the beach. the plans were in place. they had already done their workups and planning for the invasion. everyone knew their role. and they knew they were probably going to die. news of the surrender was the first a
Re: (Score:2)
Even early in the war the assassinations were a very real threat. The Imperial Japanese Army was the problem in most cases. Yamamoto was asked to move to a more secure location because of the potential that he would be assassinated over opposing the aggression of the IJA.
Re: (Score:2)
Any government that is seriously looking at a ground invasion of their primary territory is going to turn as much of their population as they can into a means of resisting that invasion whether directly by conscripting people to become soldiers or indirectly by forcing factories to switch to producing munitions. They are also going to put out propaganda demonising the enemy.
The strong line dividing civilians and soldiers we draw in the west today is a result of decades of having no real threat of ground inv
Re:Only Americans... (Score:5, Insightful)
The sooner the Americans come, the better...One hundred million die proudly.
-- Japanese slogan in the summer of 1945.
Japan was finished as a warmaking nation, in spite of its four million men still under arms. But...Japan was not going to quit. Despite the fact that she was militarily finished, Japan's leaders were going to fight right on. To not lose "face" was more important than hundreds and hundreds of thousands of lives. And the people concurred, in silence, without protest. To continue was no longer a question of Japanese military thinking, it was an aspect of Japanese culture and psychology.
-- James Jones, WWII
We will prepare 10,000 planes to meet the landing of the enemy. We will mobilize every aircraft possible, both training and "special attack" (kamikaze) planes. We will smash one third of the enemy's war potential with this air force at sea. Another third will also be smashed at sea by our warships, human torpedoes and other special weapons. Furthermore, when the enemy actually lands, if we are ready to sacrifice a million men we will be able to inflict an equal number of casualties upon them. If the enemy loses a million men, then the public opinion in America will become inclined towards peace, and Japan will be able to gain peace with comparatively advantageous conditions.
-- Imperial General HQ army staff officer in July 1945, from Weintraub's "The Last Great Victory"
"We hated the Japs but nobody had the slightest desire to go there and fight them because the one thing we knew was that we'd all be killed. I mean we really knew it. I never used to think that, I used to say the Japs would never get me. But there was no question about the mainland. How the hell are you going to storm a country where women and children, everybody would be fighting you? Of course we'd have won eventually but I don't think anybody who hasn't actually seen the Japanese fight can have any idea of what it would have cost."
-- Austin Aria, veteran of the Okinawa campaign
Re:Only Americans... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the reality would have been that that USA would have used conventional weapons to firebomb Japanese cities, getting to the same result as nuclear weapons but more slowly. The "shock & awe" of nuclear weapons made it clear that Japan didn't have a choice... they could surrender, or be annihilated.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the reality would have been that that USA would have used conventional weapons to firebomb Japanese cities
The reality also is that conventional weapons pf that era weren't that effective. The US had already been firebombing Japanese cities for years. And the Japanese could have made that effort very expensive for the result by investing in a lot of flak guns and otherwise spreading out their residual industry and military targets. So continued loss of bombers combined with reduced effectiveness from hitting hardened, dispersed targets.
At some point, the US would need to invade. Then it would be a bloodbath
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The war would have continued until Japan surrendered. Certainly the war in the Europe continued until the Germans surrendered, even though Hitler hoped until the end that the rather weird alliance between Stalin & the western powers could be broken. Also, Russia had it's eye on Japanese territory and was entering the war, and the Japanese knew (like everyone else) that they'd rather surrender to the Americans than the Russians.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Japan's industrial base was destroyed, they didn't have defense against air attacks, they no longer had any source of raw materials (one of the main reasons that they had gone to war)... they would have had to just hunker down and accept being destroyed from the air, without any way of fighting back. Do you really think that 6 years after Pearl Harbor, the USA would have given up the war when the enemy was down and out?
And pretty unlikely Japan and Russia would end up as allies. Russia was interested in g
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding Russia, it would probably ally to anyone that offered an advantage against US, especially considering that its industrial base was not in good shape either and
Re: (Score:2)
Vietnam was MUCH tougher than Japan at the end of the war. Vietnam had one of the most sophisticated air defense systems in the world, courtesy of the Soviet Union.
Re: (Score:2)
And when the US war machine had finished to enfeeble itself by fighting a long attrition war with Japan of many more years, it would be the perfect opportunity of Russia to take action against the devastated Europe and agglutinate more territory. If they could keep US busy by helping Japan, even if not officially they certainly would as they did
Re: (Score:2)
You severely underestimate the Soviet Union rebuild capacity. It managed in 5 years to polarize the world, becoming one of the two supe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The reality also is that conventional weapons pf that era weren't that effective.
The fire bombing of Tokyo produced more casualties than the atomic bombings, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo [wikipedia.org].
The US had already been firebombing Japanese cities for years. And the Japanese could have made that effort very expensive for the result ...
If they could have resisted they would have done so already. The fire bombing raids were primarily at night and the Japanese fighters were few and the antiaircraft ineffective, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#Firebombing_attacks [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
If they could have resisted they would have done so already.
Well, they were resisting.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't have a fighter that could reach a B-29s ceiling. Not that they didn't have any available, they didn't have a fighter deployed that could reach a B-29 at altitude.
Many aircrews heirs consider Lemay a bastard for ordering low level bombing of Japan. Granting it greatly increased the bomb loads, it got aircrews killed.
America had basically achieved air superiority over the Japanese Islands. That's still doctrinal warfare. Air superiority before invasion. Same reason Germany never invaded Engla
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't have a fighter that could reach a B-29s ceiling.
And a bomber at the B-29's ceiling wouldn't be doing much. The US would use up a lot of bombs and planes even if they received no losses due to Japanese defenses.
America had basically achieved air superiority over the Japanese Islands. That's still doctrinal warfare. Air superiority before invasion.
And that's what I was getting to. At some point, the US would need to either invade or leave Japan alone. It's too costly to just bomb them unproductively year after year.
Re: (Score:2)
The historians I've seen say that if the US had put off the invasion from October 1945 to March/April 1946, it would be almost certain that between a quarter and a half of all Japanese are DEAD by that time - they'd have starved to death. I doubt even the Japanese leadership could have maintained social cohesion in the face of 20-30 million dead. Japan doesn't so much as surrender as fall apart, and the US "invades" a country that doesn't functionally exist anymore.
That's some good optimism there. You might even be right (though I think they would be able to scrounge enough food). I just don't see the evidence for your optimism.
Even if that many people die, what's going to break the social cohesion? Just let the dissenters and other problems die first, assuming there are enough of them to matter. It's a lot of people, but there's some evidence to indicate that it's not enough people.
It's worth remembering that the Japanese had at times experienced nearly 100% lo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll just point out that once before, Japan was just a ground force on an island they couldn't leave.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you read anything at all about World War II?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, too, the attempted coup against the emperor by members of the Japanese military in an attempt to prevent him from surrendering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_Incident [wikipedia.org] .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, no. Just make sure it's not contaminated. If it is, clean it up. If it isn't, let the current owners enjoy it. Historic preservation and environmentalism have to have limits. If they don't, everything will eventually become historic, and nothing will be farmed or lived on.
How about the current owners pay for the cleanup themselves instead of having the taxpayers subsidize their enjoyment?
Point taken about everything becoming historic though.
Re: (Score:2)