Interesting game you're playing here, kageki. Can I play too?
The Hiroshima Hoax
Our school books tell us that hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens, most of them civilians, were killed by U.S. atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But does that claim stand up to close inspection? I will show that it does not. I will show that the claims of large numbers of atomic deaths are a deliberate hoax.
I'm not denying that Japanese civilians were killed in atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But I don't believe the numbers were anywhere close to what the Japanese and their Nihonist dupes claim, for the purpose of gaining international sympathy they don't deserve.
The Bombs Were Newly Invented, Almost Entirely Untested Weapons
In order for the atomic bombs to have caused the numbers of casualties claimed, they would have had to work perfectly as designed. Yet of the two (distinctly different) bomb designs that were used, one had only been tested once and the other had never been tested at all.
How likely is it that any newly invented weapon, never before seen on the face of the earth, would work in the field on its very first use even after extensive testing, let alone after little or no testing? If someone designed a new aircraft based on an entirely new physical principle of flight that had not even been known a few years before, and built one plane, and flew it once, would you go for a ride in the second one? Suppose someone built a new kind of gun that had never once been fired. Would you want to carry it for self-defense? Of course not. Untested technically-complex systems are extremely unlikely to work properly on the first try.
It appears that the bombs did explode -- which is not surprising, because fission bombs are "triggered" by conventional explosives incorporated in the bomb, and conventional explosives were pretty well developed and reliable at the time. The question is whether actual fission explosions occurred, or delivered anywhere near their designed "yield" if they did. There is no evidence of that, and plenty of reason to doubt that two lucky perfect successes happened in the field the first time.
The observed mushroom clouds, by the way, are not evidence of an atomic explosion. Large explosions of any kind can produce mushroom-shaped clouds. That's just an ordinary effect of hot smoke rising from the explosion area and spreading out as it rises and cools.
Atomic Weapons Were Not A Military Threat To Japan
After the Nagasaki bomb "exploded," the U.S. had no more. It would have taken months to manufacture another, and months more for each one thereafter. At the pace of events in the War in the Pacific at that time, that would not have been enough to have much effect on the course of the war, even in the unlikely event that the bombs worked "as advertised." Their effects were too localized to be of much use in the miles-wide Pacific-island battlefields of that war. Much larger bombs were tested years later for their effects on U.S. soldiers with minimal protection at distances of a few miles, and the soliders survived unscathed. Atomic bombs could instead have been used against other arms manufacturing centers like they were at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but conventional saturation bombing provided an equally effective and far more available means to that end.
We must conclude that actual miliatary use of the atomic bomb would have had little effect on the further course of the war, and that military planners on both sides were aware of this.
What, then, were the atomic bombs for?
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombs Were Psychological Weapons
In the parlance of more recent times, the sole purpose of the atomic bombs was to "shock and awe" the Japanese military leadership into supporting surrender of a war they already knew they were using. It was to give them an "out," an excuse to give up on a lost cause. It's easier to surrended to a frightening, seemingly all-powerful new force whose existence couldn't have been planned for, than to admit that you were beaten by a stronger enemy.
Note that, as psychological weapons of little military value, the atomic bombs did not have to actually work very well, as long as everyone believed they were devastatingly powerful. Low-yield duds would be, and were, just as effective as the real thing, if a sufficient hoax could be generated around them.
The Japanese Government Was Fore-Warned Of the Attacks
Given that the purpose of the attacks was to shock and awe, it was necessary for the government to be notified in advance of the locations of the attacks, so they could witness it. It is inconceivable that the U.S. would want the attacks to be "secret" since their psychological effectiveness depended on the Imperial government being aware of them. All that would have been necessary to tip them off was to feed information about the "secret" attacks to known Japanese spies. Since the U.S. had broken many Japanese codes it's also likely that false coded messages (that is, true messages from false sources) were used.
It appears that the rogue Japanese government agents who started the fires intercepted the warnings, as no other action (such as to evacuate the population to safety) was taken. Or was it? As we'll see, the "official" government probably did take action -- but not the action that you or any civilized person would expect!
If The Bombs Were Ineffective, What Happened To The Cities?
Except in the immediate few hundred feed around the explosions, the cities were destroyed by fire.
There are many causes of fire, besides nuclear weapons. Most likely, the fires at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were started by the conventional explosives in the bombs.
Poor constructions and poor fire safety preparedness accounts for most of the rest.
However, there's another likely contributing factor: agents working for rogue elements in the Japanese government, who willfully contributed to the hoax in order to help end the war. All that would be needed is a few dozen people with fuel cans and matches, to start fires in the surrounding blocks. How hard is it to set a Japanese house on fire? (Hint: the walls are made of paper!) The resulting mass fires would help create the illusion that a super-powerful bomb had exploded.
We also cannot rule out the likely possibility that large stockpiles of armaments were accidentally detonated, or deliberately sabotaged, in either or both cities. This would account for additional blast damage beyond the expected blast radius of the main bomb.
Why So Many Casualties?
If the bombs had minimal effect, what accounts for all the alleged deaths?
Clearly, many deaths did occur from the conventional explosive blast, and from the fires started by the bombs and by the Japanese agents.
However, any additional deaths that occurred were from other causes. These attacks took place in wartime, after a prolonged war that the military-oriented Japanese were losing. This means that most food and supplies were being used to support the fighting troops, with the civilian population getting the bare minimum. So, many of the subsequent deaths would have been due to poor nutrition and disease, augmented by poor sanitation and other problems typical of displaced populations such as those whose homes were destroyed in the fires.
Also, we're told that many subsequent deaths were due to cancer. Since the Japanese eat raw fish, how do we know that the increase in cancer rates were not caused by pollution of fishing grounds during the course of the war, where intensive marine operations and ship sinkings released vast amounts of known carcingens into the sea?
Of course, exposure to nuclear radiation did account for some deaths. The bombs did use radioactive uranium and plutonium which, though it probably didn't add much to the explosion, did get spread around and caused some contamination. See the present-day estimates on the casualties that would be caused by a terrorist "dirty bomb" to get an idea of what effects would be expected. Certainly nowhere near tens of thousands of deaths.
It's also likely that the explosions, fires, and internal sabotage destroyed secret Japanese nuclear test labs, spreading radioactivity from those sources.
But most of the casulaties were due to the Japanese government, forewarned of the attacks, deliberately moving large numbers of civilians into the targeted areas, where they were killed by the explosions and fires. The reason for this is clear. Knowing that they were losing the war, the Japanese government wanted a cause for international sympathy in the coming post-war era, to offset the ill will against them caused by their previous war atrocities. How ironic, and how evil, that they succeeded in garnering this sympathy by means of one of the most vile and callous acts of the entire war, perpetrated on their own loyal citizens.
Please note, to avoid misunderstanding: the above text in blue is not the author's actual opinion. It's a demonstration of the deniers' techniques in action. Let's see if kageki appreciates my use of what he's taught me in this thread. Can he refute my claims? Does he want to continue the game, now that both sides can play?
