Hiroshima

[KnowTheToe]

I don't think this is political but if so just lock it down

I just finished reading a book that tells the stories of bombing of Hiroshima from the perspective of those that survived. The book is Hiroshima by John Hersey and is a pretty darned good read.

My question is for any japanese readers of this sight. How does Japan currently feel about this event?

I was surprised to read that shortly after the war and after Japanese scientists said the radioactivity levels were low enough for people to move back into the city the majority of Japanese citizens said that it was war and they should expect this type of warfare. After all, all is far in love and war. Some people were bitter (understandably so), but I was surprised by the lack of resentment. Is there still any measurable Anti US feelings from dropping the bomb?


As Americans we are taught that the US, England and Russia were going to send 4-5 million soldiers on a massive invasion of Japan and the estimated casualties of Allied soldiers were expected to pass 1.5 million and the loss of Japanese life would have been much greater. So, as Americans we see a justification of dropping it, but how does modern Japan feel? After all, they are the only people to have had atomic weaponry used against them.

 

[Dark Jezter]

In World War II, entire cities were targeted for destruction (by both Axis and Allies) and people accepted it as part of the cost of waging war. There were actually more Japanese civilians killed by conventional bomb-droppings on Tokyo than there were killed by the nuclear bomb dropping on Hiroshima.

 

[haiiro]

In World War II, entire cities were targeted for destruction (by both Axis and Allies) and people accepted it as part of the cost of waging war. There were actually more Japanese civilians killed by conventional bomb-droppings on Tokyo than there were killed by the nuclear bomb dropping on Hiroshima.

True, and very often overlooked. Interestingly (and to the best of my knowledge), Hiroshima and Nagasaki were specifically spared from conventional bombardment to allow them to serve as "test sites" for the effects of the A-bombs.

Dresden is a good example of a city targeted by conventional bombing in which the immediate aftereffects -- the firestorm -- were truly horrific, yet (at least in the US) it's looked at very differently than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

IMO, it's the magnitude of destruction achieved in a single moment that makes people look at A-bombs differently. In WWII, one night of conventional bombing from a massive number of B-52s -- flying too high to be affected by anti-aircraft fire, much like the unexpected arrival of one plane with a nuclear payload -- could achieve essentially the same effect, except for the radiation.

 

[Dark Jezter]

In WWII, one night of conventional bombing from a massive number of B-52s -- flying too high to be affected by anti-aircraft fire,

Actually, I think you mean the B-17 Flying Fortress; the B-52 Stratofortress didn't enter service until the 1950s, and was created for the purpose of carrying nuclear payloads deep into the Soviet Union in the event of nuclear war.

 

[haiiro]

Actually, I think you mean the B-17 Flying Fortress; the B-52 Stratofortress didn't enter service until the 1950s, and was created for the purpose of carrying nuclear payloads deep into the Soviet Union in the event of nuclear war.

Whoops! Indeed I do -- for some reason, I always think of the B-52 as the Flying Fortress, too. Meh. Hopefully I didn't mix up anything else in my post.

 

[Dreeble]

Heya:

"How does Japan currently feel about this event?"

I dunno, but if you look at Japanese anime, it seems like a _ton_ of it involves, "A {meteor|explosion|dimensional rift|crashed spaceship} destroyed the city 40 years ago and...". You know?

Take care,
Dreeble

 

[Krieg]

In WWII, one night of conventional bombing from a massive number of B-52s -- flying too high to be affected by anti-aircraft fire, much like the unexpected arrival of one plane with a nuclear payload -- could achieve essentially the same effect, except for the radiation.

Actually, I think you mean the B-17 Flying Fortress; the B-52 Stratofortress didn't enter service until the 1950s, and was created for the purpose of carrying nuclear payloads deep into the Soviet Union in the event of nuclear war.

FWIW the B-17 did not fly high enough to avoid AA fire. Incoming fire from the ground was a signifigant cause of aircraft losses during the war.

The bombs dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki were delivered by B-29 Superfortresses. The B-29 was the primary US heavy bomber in the pacific during the war as it had far greater combat range than the B-17.

The B-52 is the Stratofortress.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Heya:

"How does Japan currently feel about this event?"

I dunno, but if you look at Japanese anime, it seems like a _ton_ of it involves, "A {meteor|explosion|dimensional rift|crashed spaceship} destroyed the city 40 years ago and...". You know?

Take care,
Dreeble

I believe to remember someone writing or saying something to the effect of: "Unlike the western countries, Japan did already have its apocalypse"... Maybe it´s a bit exaggerated, but it probably has left some marks in this way...

 

[Dark Jezter]

FWIW the B-17 did not fly high enough to avoid AA fire. Incoming fire from the ground was a signifigant cause of aircraft losses during the war.

The bombs dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki were delivered by B-29 Superfortresses. The B-29 was the primary US heavy bomber in the pacific during the war as it had far greater combat range than the B-17.

The B-52 is the Stratofortress.

Ack! Looks like a got my WWII aircraft mixed up again. D'oh!

Thanks for the correction, Krieg.

 

[Krieg]

Oops, I forgot to add above that the B-17 was the primary American heavy bomber in the European theater. They were almost non-existent in the Pacific.