Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
The A bomb
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by U1969296 (U1969296) on Tuesday, 25th October 2005
Hi guys
I am just wondering do you think the Yanks would have dropped an A bomb on Tokyo to shorten the war? -
Message 2
Posted by -OOPSIE- (U248494) on Wednesday, 26th October 2005
I'm pretty sure the american's would have kept dropping them untill they won or Japan surrendered.
-
Message 3
Posted by Mark E (U204575) on Wednesday, 26th October 2005
Or they ran out - I think they only had two in summer 1945?
-
Message 4
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Wednesday, 26th October 2005
Again, from this distance in time, and with the benefit of hindsight it is easy to condemn the use of the atom bomb as barbaric and senseless. But that would be wrong. Absolutely wrong.
One could actually say that, that statement is criminally wrong
.
Of course some 75,000 Japanese men, women and children were killed or maimed when it happened. But had the conventional war been continued with an invasion of the Japanese mainland by Allied forces the death toll would have been far greater over a greater period of time.
Think of those 75,000. Multiply it by 20 and you begin to approach the sort of casualty figures that would have been borne by the Americans, British and Commonwealth troops plus, of course the Japanese themselves.
With the dropping of the atom bomb the war ended within days.
And that is an unarguable fact.
It just is not possible for anybody who wasn’t around to suffer the hell of war, air attacks, concentration camps, or the untold millions who gave their lives, or their loved ones lives or entire families who simply vanished off the face of this earth to appreciate the joy and indescribable relief at the news of that bomb and with it, the end of the war.
It was indeed a time for great rejoicing. And one final thought for those critics. What would have happened had Germany or Japan developed the bomb before America (and it was a close-run thing), it would have been ludicrous to argue that they wouldn’t have used it on us -
Message 5
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 26th October 2005
Dirk,
Well said, and absolutely spot on in my opinion.
It is pretty horrific that the bomb was used, and hundreds of thousands of civilians died, but when you consider that the Japanese were indoctrinated fully with the belief that to die for the Emperor was the most noble act possible, and they were training for kamikaze attacks on allied forces en masse. The results of these attacks, such as civilians, women and children included strapping bombs to themselves then throwing themselves under tanks would have been that the allied troops would have simply decided that there were no non-combatants, so they would have shot everyone on sight. Tens of
millions of civilian casualties, plus hundreds of thousands of allied casualties would have been the inevitable result. Had the bomb not been dropped, it is quite easy to envisage that the Japanese would have been wiped out, utterly annihilated. There would simply not be a Japanese nation today.
DL -
Message 6
Posted by Mark E (U204575) on Wednesday, 26th October 2005
Dirk
I agree with you, I believe it was the only viable option for the allies at the time. However, I think you have jumped the gun - no-one's yet condemned its use, at least in this thread! -
Message 7
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Wednesday, 26th October 2005
Dirk,
Well said, and absolutely spot on in my opinion.
It is pretty horrific that the bomb was used, and hundreds of thousands of civilians died, but when you consider that the Japanese were indoctrinated fully with the belief that to die for the Emperor was the most noble act possible, and they were training for kamikaze attacks on allied forces en masse. The results of these attacks, such as civilians, women and children included strapping bombs to themselves then throwing themselves under tanks would have been that the allied troops would have simply decided that there were no non-combatants, so they would have shot everyone on sight. Tens of
millions of civilian casualties, plus hundreds of thousands of allied casualties would have been the inevitable result. Had the bomb not been dropped, it is quite easy to envisage that the Japanese would have been wiped out, utterly annihilated. There would simply not be a Japanese nation today.
DL Dirk
I agree with you, I believe it was the only viable option for the allies at the time. However, I think you have jumped the gun - no-one's yet condemned its use, at least in this thread!Ìý
Dl and Mark, Thanks to both of you for your reply.
Yes Mark , I do agree that no-one did condemn the use of the bomb in this thread, but I thought in my reply just to mention it.
Lots can be said but there will always be a split of opinions. -
Message 8
Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Wednesday, 26th October 2005
The important thing to remember is that the bomb was deployed because there was no fear of retribution... whichever side developed it first
The reason why nuclear weapons have not been used in conflict since then is because other nations have them. The MAD factor (Mutually Assured Destruction) leaves it uncertain that should you decide to launch nuclear weapons, the other side is also certain to use them. American theorists suggest that this is a "zero sum game" with no side the winner
I think it is interesting when students say that all nuclear weapons should be abolished in all countries. Although this is partly desirable because of the destruction they can cause, the art of diplomacy is governed by the fact that you must have military strength to back up your foreign policy
Good topic! -
Message 9
Posted by Mark E (U204575) on Thursday, 27th October 2005
I think it is interesting when students say that all nuclear weapons should be abolished in all countries. Although this is partly desirable because of the destruction they can cause, the art of diplomacy is governed by the fact that you must have military strength to back up your foreign policy
Good topic!Ìý
Unfortunately, it's not possible to 'de-invent' things! -
Message 10
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231725) on Thursday, 27th October 2005
I'm pretty sure the american's would have kept dropping them untill they won or Japan surrendered.Ìý
I doubt very much if the Americans would have dropped an A-bomb on Tokyo. I have 3 reasons for this opinion. One is that there would have been little point in doing so. Tokyo had already been destroyed almost completely by the fire-bombing raids and dropping an A-bomb there would have been redundant . Secondly, I think the officials in the US government were reluctant to endanger the emperor's life. He was a bone of contention in the 'unconditional surrender' mandate and there was some negotiation possible if he was not killed. Finally, the bomb that destroyed Nagasaki was the last one the US had. It would have taken months to make another and by then the war would either have been over or the islands would have been invaded. -
Message 11
Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Tuesday, 1st November 2005
I think it is interesting when students say that all nuclear weapons should be abolished in all countries. Although this is partly desirable because of the destruction they can cause, the art of diplomacy is governed by the fact that you must have military strength to back up your foreign policy
Good topic!Ìý
Unfortunately, it's not possible to 'de-invent' things!Ìý
Unfortunately it's not possible to invent new words on your lonesome.
As much as I have thought through "what" you were trying to say, I am not sure you what you "were" trying to say.
Of course the nuclear technology will never go away now because it is far too useful. However, the restriction on who can hold nuclear "weapons" is something which is certainly achievable, however unlikely that may be. -
Message 12
Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Tuesday, 1st November 2005
One is that there would have been little point in doing so Ìý
One would argue there was little "point" in dropping the original bombs in the 1st place. The war was practically won... what is certain is that if Japan or even Germany posessed nuclear weapons, we will not have seen any nuclear weapons used at all (perhaps a bit to confident aren't I?)
Secondly, I think the officials in the US government were reluctant to endanger the emperor's life Ìý
The Americans have never been that considerate!
Finally, the bomb that destroyed Nagasaki was the last one the US had Ìý
Not quite... the US had a number of different nuclear weapons. "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" were to two dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima respectively but they had others. They had already built another 9 Fat Mans by the end of 1945. The problem was obtaining/manufacturing Plutonium
Thanks -
Message 13
Posted by Mark E (U204575) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
I think it is interesting when students say that all nuclear weapons should be abolished in all countries. Although this is partly desirable because of the destruction they can cause, the art of diplomacy is governed by the fact that you must have military strength to back up your foreign policy
Good topic!Ìý
Unfortunately, it's not possible to 'de-invent' things!Ìý
Unfortunately it's not possible to invent new words on your lonesome.
As much as I have thought through "what" you were trying to say, I am not sure you what you "were" trying to say.
Of course the nuclear technology will never go away now because it is far too useful. However, the restriction on who can hold nuclear "weapons" is something which is certainly achievable, however unlikely that may be.Ìý
Thanks for your most helpful comment. Perhaps the word does not exist because it refers to something that it is impossible to do. Nuclear technology will never go away because technology never does - unless it is superseded. I'm sure even a teacher could have had a guess at what was meant by my original post.
One would argue there was little "point" in dropping the original bombs in the 1st place. The war was practically won... Ìý
Well, one *could* argue that, but one would be wrong to do so. See the reasons so eloquently put by Dirk above. Practically won? With the whole of Japan still to be dealt with? Crikey.
what is certain is that if Japan or even Germany posessed nuclear weapons, we will not have seen any nuclear weapons used at all (perhaps a bit to confident aren't I?)Ìý
A bit *too* confident, yes (or deliberately provocative!). You doubt that either Germany or Japan would have used atomic bombs if they had them? Why were the Germans trying to build them then? They wouldn't have used them, even when the wolves were at the door? Likewise Japan? I think that is anything but certain. -
Message 14
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Hi guys
I am just wondering do you think the Yanks would have dropped an A bomb on Tokyo to shorten the war?Ìý
I wonder if we should drop another one, yanno,,,just too slow em down a little..... -
Message 15
Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Perhaps the word does not exist because it refers to something that it is impossible to do Ìý
No perhaps about it... the word definitely does not exist
Nuclear technology will never go away because technology never does - unless it is superseded. I'm sure even a teacher could have had a guess at what was meant by my original post Ìý
Which is what I said anyway so not sure why you had a little dig there
You doubt that either Germany or Japan would have used atomic bombs if they had them? Ìý
If you are familiar with some political theory within International Relations, you will soon see there are many other academics who share exactly the same theory. Also the possible reason why we have not seen a nuclear fall out between nations even though proliferation is rife
A bit *too* confident, yes (or deliberately provocative!) Ìý
Certainly not provocative but debatable all the same
Why were the Germans trying to build them then? Ìý
Because if you own nuclear weapons, then another side who has them will not use them against you. Hence the reason the US bombed Japan
They wouldn't have used them, even when the wolves were at the door? Likewise Japan? I think that is anything but certain Ìý
Whether the "wolves were at the door" or not. Germany didn't suddenly use every single shell, bullet and bombs when they were on the verge of defeat even though they had the capability to do so. When Hitler killed himself, the Germans realised diplomacy was the only way left. So the question would be why didn't they just go for one last throw of the dice and completely exhaust their military resources? Because it would have been a futile effort leading to their inevitable death -
Message 16
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Hi guys
I am just wondering do you think the Yanks would have dropped an A bomb on Tokyo to shorten the war?Ìý
I wonder if we should drop another one, yanno,,,just too slow em down a little.....Ìý
I wouldn't if I were you ex
you'll need them when you go to war with the Chinese. Wont be long now -
Message 17
Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Can you really see the Chinese and the Japanese fighting another war? Especially a nuclear one at that?
-
Message 18
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
in the long term the next major war I see will be a far eastern war
so yes i can see them fighting
as to the nuclear option, no I dont think that will happen but if wishes were fishes as they say -
Message 19
Posted by U1969296 (U1969296) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
hi
I think that the Chinese would like to even the score with the Japanese so never say never Can you really see the Chinese and the Japanese fighting another war? Especially a nuclear one at that?Ìý -
Message 20
Posted by Mark E (U204575) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
No perhaps about it... the word definitely does not existÌý
Never said it did! I was offering a reason as to why that might be the case - 'perhaps'.
Which is what I said anyway so not sure why you had a little dig thereÌý
You had no idea what I was saying?
If you are familiar with some political theory within International Relations, you will soon see there are many other academics who share exactly the same theory. Also the possible reason why we have not seen a nuclear fall out between nations even though proliferation is rifeÌý I am sure that there are many who don't too! Proliferation has happened (I don't know if I'd use the word rife), but why is much of the world keen that countries such as N Korea or Iran don't get them? Would you accept that that may be because they would intend to use them? Because they have what have been termed 'rogue' leaders. Personally if we are to accept that term, I would place one Adolf Hitler in that category.
Because if you own nuclear weapons, then another side who has them will not use them against you. Hence the reason the US bombed JapanÌý That has so far proven to be the case and long may that continue. I can envisage a scenario where, had Hitler developed them first he would have used them.
Whether the "wolves were at the door" or not. Germany didn't suddenly use every single shell, bullet and bombs when they were on the verge of defeat even though they had the capability to do so. When Hitler killed himself, the Germans realised diplomacy was the only way left. So the question would be why didn't they just go for one last throw of the dice and completely exhaust their military resources? Because it would have been a futile effort leading to their inevitable deathÌý
See above. Germany threw everything they had against the allies in the last days leading up to the fall of Berlin (and Hitler's suicide) -
Message 21
Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
hi
I think that the Chinese would like to even the score with the Japanese so never say never Can you really see the Chinese and the Japanese fighting another war? Especially a nuclear one at that?Ìý Ìý
Did you mean the standard confrontation or nuclear? -
Message 22
Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
in the long term the next major war I see will be a far eastern war so yes i can see them fighting Ìý
I agree to an extent... but not so much the "far east" but certainly middle east -
Message 23
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
There are few things that’s for sure, Death, Taxes, and all out war with China are among them. They have too many old scores to settle.
Cheers, or should I say buh bye. -
Message 24
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
in the long term the next major war I see will be a far eastern war so yes i can see them fighting Ìý
I agree to an extent... but not so much the "far east" but certainly middle eastÌý
I'm not so sure about a Mid East war. The Mid East always looks like it is about to explode and yes it has had its fair share of conflict during the past 50 years, but none of them ever looked like moving beyond border wars or brief wars if they did look more menacing. Yes Israel has been at war, what is it now, 4 times. All of them brief excrusions. Yes the Iran-Iraq war was major and lasted a decade, but it never really looked like spreading beyond the confines of its existence.
Politics and the strategic/political balance in the ME is too finely balanced for it to tip over into major war. Again all sides have too much to lose.
Israel would stand to cease existence as would Jordan, Iraq, Turkey and the Lebanon. All countries with socio-political and cultural splits that given an opportunity would tear that country apart. All these countries are too close together, there is no room to give combatants. Not to mention the immense presence of the West esp the Americans in this.
Also, what role would Iran and the N.African muslim states have in such a war. Egypt would be very much involved as would Iran. Libya, Algeria and others would also stand to move in if a conflict were to excalate in that arena.
So no I would not look to see a major conflict in the ME. Even if the west were to pull out of Turkey, Iraq and the Gulf states I would say that the way that the region is balanced and set up the risks far outweigh the potential benefits of any conflict. Also you would have to consider the newly Islamic ex Soviet republics stationed to the north.
While the ME will always be chaotic, will always appear to be ready to topple into a conflict which would soon spread along the Med basin and drag Rome (sorry the EU) into the mess I feel that the system there has enough checks and balances on it to prevent major war. Minor wars, the odd border conflict, well they will always show up, at least as long as the European imposed borders remain.
THe far east hwoever has a flezing China, an increasingly stubborn Japan, a slowly reunifing Korea and long simmering resentments and grudges. The far east scares me more than the ME -
Message 25
Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
You had no idea what I was saying? Ìý
I did. I guess I was being a little pedantic
but why is much of the world keen that countries such as N Korea or Iran don't get them? Ìý
I thought they had them already?!?! Britain were concerned about Germany building up their naval forces before WW1... as they were concerned when they did it again before WW2. All countries have concerns when other countries are stepping up their arms but it still follows the same principles that in order for your country to have security, you need to back up your diplomatic agenda with the threat (or the perceived threat) of force. Britain would have looked pretty stupid if they made their ententes without sufficient arms to back them up. Iran and N.Korea are perfectly entitled to build their arms. Doesn't mean they want to use them.
Would you accept that that may be because they would intend to use them? Ìý
See above
Because they have what have been termed 'rogue' leaders. Personally if we are to accept that term, I would place one Adolf Hitler in that category Ìý
See history has a very wierd and strange way of looking at Adolf Hitler. He was evil and manipulative but to take a country as far as he did takes something normal people don't possess. As with all genuises he had his flaws. Yes his poured out as an eventual meglomaniac... but he wasn't "rogue" as such. If you have looked into the years of "appeasement" then you will see that the Allied nations were not very strict with Hitler. Basically, he could have been nipped in the bud and contained to a certain extent. Instead, his ego was fed and he was allowed literally to get away with murder. Same as Saddam. The US fed him until they decided he was a threat
I partly agree with the last part as I was thinking of WW1 when diplomacy kicked in the with the creation of the Weimar Republic -
Message 26
Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
In response Richies post...
Yes the far east has its tensions but Japan and China are still quite finely interwined with each others economy. War would not be sensible for either of them
As for the ME... you are forgetting the Kurds -
Message 27
Posted by The Researcher Strikes Back (U2183402) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
There is sufficient contemporary evidence to suggest that the use of the atomic bomb against Japan might NOT have been necessary. The following are my notes with citations to put forward this argument.
On the evening of July 26th, 1945 a message from the Allies now commonly known as the Potsdam Proclamation was broadcast in Japanese. The broadcast was relayed to the Japanese government on the morning of the 27th.
(See Pacific War Research Society, The Day Man Lost, pg. 211-212).
The proclamation demanded "the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces" (U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the U.S., The Conference of Berlin (Potsdam), vol. 2, pg. 1474-1476). It made no mention of Japan's central surrender consideration: the retention of the Emperor's position. What made this crucial was that the Japanese believed their Emperor to be a god, the heart of the Japanese people and culture.
(See Pacific War Research Society, Japan's Longest Day, pg. 20).
The absence of any assurance regarding the Emperor's fate became Japan's chief objection to the Potsdam Proclamation. (ibid., pg. 212-214). In addition, the proclamation made statements that, to the Japanese, could appear threatening to the Emperor.
It talked of theauthority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest needing to be eliminated with "stern justice" to be expected by all war criminals.
(See: U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 2, pg. 1474-1476)."
Upon hearing the Proclamation, the Japanese Cabinet met. It was only this body that could rule as to whether Japan would surrender. And a unanimous decision was required. But War Minister Anami led the opponents of surrender, resulting in a vote of 12 in favor of surrender, 3 against, and 1 undecided. Having failed to reach a decision to surrender, the Cabinet adjourned.
(See: Leon Sigal, Fighting To a Finish)
From reading the historical evidence, while there was a tension in the Japanese Government, it does look as though the Japanese were willing to surrender, but that there was a crucial sticking point that was NOT related in any way to things requiring the use of atomic weapons: the position of the Emperor. Indeed, the Japanese were making overtures, through Russia actively seeking terms for surrender, and Truman knew this.
On May 28th Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew informed Truman, that the greatest obstacle to unconditional surrender by the Japanese is their belief that this would involve the destruction or permanent removal of the Emperor and the institution of the throne.
(for details, see: Walter Johnson, ed., Turbulent Era, Joseph Grew, Vol. 2, pg. 1428-1429).
Admiral William Leahy the Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman thought a Japanese surrender could be arranged without use of the atomic bomb and without an invasion of the Japanese mainland. He felt that demands for unconditional surrender would only encourage Japan to fight on and cost American lives.
(for details see: William D. Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441ff.)
The constitutional monarchy line was not included in the surrender demand, known as the Potsdam Proclamation, that was broadcast on July 26th, in spite of Stimson's eleventh hour protestations that it be left in.
(See: Diary of Henry L. Stimson, 7/24/45, Yale Univ. Library, New Haven, Conn).
Pacific war historian Akira Iriye explains that One reason for this change [the removal of the Emperor retention line] was the growing influence within the State Department of men like Byrnes, Acheson, and MacLeish - who had no expertise on Japanese affairs but who were sensitive to public opinion - and the president's tendency to listen to them rather than to Grew and other experts.
In regard to his disagreement with Under Sec. of State Grew over allowing Japan to retain the Emperor, Dean Acheson later admitted, that he was wrong.
(See: Dean Acheson, Present at the Creation, pg. 112-113). "
Perhaps the use of atomic weapons was a consequence of this omission, as much as anything else.
It is also interesting to note the following:
Recently (May 15th, 2005), in "The Fog of War: Storyville" (Â鶹ԼÅÄ2, 10.00pm) Robert McNamara who was involved in some of the decision-making at the time, was seen to admit that the firebombing of Japanese cities, and the dropping of the Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes; and he explicitely stated that the use of atomic weapons was "superfluous".
Dwight D Eisenhower was opposed to the use of the A-Bomb.
(See: Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380)
Douglas McArthur was opposed to their use.
See: William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512; and Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
General Carl Spaatz (In charge of Air Force operations in the Pacific) felt that it was not necessary.
Again, from this distance in time, and with the benefit of hindsight it is easy to condemn the use of the atom bomb as barbaric and senseless. But that would be wrong. Absolutely wrong.
One could actually say that, that statement is criminally wrong
.
Of course some 75,000 Japanese men, women and children were killed or maimed when it happened. But had the conventional war been continued with an invasion of the Japanese mainland by Allied forces the death toll would have been far greater over a greater period of time.
Think of those 75,000. Multiply it by 20 and you begin to approach the sort of casualty figures that would have been borne by the Americans, British and Commonwealth troops plus, of course the Japanese themselves.
With the dropping of the atom bomb the war ended within days.
And that is an unarguable fact.
It just is not possible for anybody who wasn’t around to suffer the hell of war, air attacks, concentration camps, or the untold millions who gave their lives, or their loved ones lives or entire families who simply vanished off the face of this earth to appreciate the joy and indescribable relief at the news of that bomb and with it, the end of the war.
It was indeed a time for great rejoicing. And one final thought for those critics. What would have happened had Germany or Japan developed the bomb before America (and it was a close-run thing), it would have been ludicrous to argue that they wouldn’t have used it on us
Ìý -
Message 28
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
Yes the far east has its tensions but Japan and China are still quite finely interwined with each others economy. War would not be sensible for either of them.
Ìý
Up until 24 hours prior to Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, there was on going rail trade in volume. Asians do not have the short memories that some westerners have. If you talk with a Philippine for instance, you would get the impression that the Japanese occupation was last week. Nations go to war for many assorted reasons. To wage war for "sensible “ goals is not always a factor. Honduras and El Salvador went to war with each other that was triggered by a Soccer match.
Cheers. -
Message 29
Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
To wage war for "sensible “ goals is not always a factor. Honduras and El Salvador went to war with each other that was triggered by a Soccer match Ìý
But Honduras and El Salavador are not quite the powers that China and Japan are (or have the potential to be)
If there is going to be conflict in the Far East, I would suggest it would be a civil war within China rather than anything outside
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.