[quote]XCelticX wrote:
… I don’t know for sure of course wether or not you are wrong, as I have never studied the war.[/quote]
WTF???
I’m calling TSB on this prick.
Have you ever been in a really bad fight, the sort where someone is going to get injured before the fight can end? And as likely as not that someone could have been yourself? Have you ever then had one of the bystanders tell you afterward that you didn’t need to be so brutal?
I’m not sure anyone has mentioned it, but the United States had only the two weapons. It was going to take a long time to make anymore.
It is very easy to say now that something else should have been bombed, since we now fully undertand how horrible and long lasting the effects of nuclear war are. But in fact that would probably have been a tactical error: as was already pointed out, surrender did not come until after Nagasaki.
So, doing as you advise, we would likely have had a WWII with nuclear weapons (and probably at least one nuked city) and an invasion of Japan.
For my own part, and knowing all that I know, if I could travel back in time I would reassure Mr. Truman he was making the correct choice. At the time in fact there was a lot of discussion and thought about how to use those two weapons. This was not a choice lightly made. Those who made the decision were much closer to the situation than any of us can hope to be.
The reduced scale prototype for the invasion of Japan was Okinawa. I suggest you read a good account of the invasion of Okinawa, and then put yourself in Mr. Truman’s shoes.
But if you want to talk about truly senseless and over the top violence even in the context of total war, you should check out what happened to Dresden.
[quote]Soldierslim wrote:
The dropping of the A-bombs was less about Japan and WWII then about Russia and the just-starting Cold War. You see, Russia had set a date (Aug 8?) that they would enter the Pacific War against Japan after Nazi Germany was defeated. On Aug. 6, just days before Russia was to enter the Pacific War, Truman gave the go-ahead to drop the first bomb on Hiroshima. Emperor Hirotio had actually tried (trough both a premier and personally) to end the War after Tokyo was firebomed in March (80,000 civilian deaths) but simply couldn’t due to the fact that the Japanese military had focably gained control of his government.
Truman knew that if Russia entered the war against Japan they would then have a right to the post-war spoils and consequently spread communism into eastern Asia. This was unnaceptable. Stalin had already gobbled up every little country on his way to Germany and stoutly refused to split eastern Germany (or Berlin) as previously agreed apon.
Japans’ war mongerers who were in charge refused to surrender after the dropping of the first A-bomb, despite another 80,000+ civilian deaths. Russia was now fast approaching Japan (this is why N. Korea became communist) so Truman had no other choice but drop the second A-bomb on Nagasaki which caused over 100,000 civilian deaths. Finally, the Emperor convinced the militants to conceed to surrender. (I should note that at that time the U.S. only had 2 A-bombs)
Thus, dropping the A-bombs accomplished the following:
1)Prevented horrendous U.S. casualties during a Japanese mainland assult.
2)Justified the $2 billion spent on the Manhattan Project (an absolutely astronomical sum at that time)
3)Contained Soviet expantionism in Asia.
- Elevated the U.S. in the post-war world climate. The U.S. was now the only “nuclear power.” and
5)Gave the U.S. a distinct advantage in the Cold War which, in reality, had already begun during the closing year of WWII.
I have not dicussed the ethical issues involved. I just wanted to get everyone on the same page as to the “why’s” of dropping the bombs.[/quote]
That was educational for me thanks and it makes sense.
XCelticX:
A little history:
- The vast majority of the Japanese War industry was not in discrete “factories” or “areas”…but interspered in neighborhoods and homes where many parts and supplies were manufactured.
This led to the U.S. policy of low-level, night, “Fire Bombing” (see below) as high-level, daytime, “precision” bombing proved to not even put a dent in the Japanese War Machine.
-
By the time the Atomic Bombs had been dropped, almost 98% of Japanese cities had ALREADY been decimated by “Fire Bombing” of sorties of up to 300 B-29’s, stripped of all their armaments, flying low level AT NIGHT. They were then packed to their maximum with incendiary “fire” bombs (early napalm) that set fire to Japanese cities because of their often wood construction. (Sometimes the bombers could barely take off because of their weight). DESPITE this overwhelming show of force, the Japanese would not capitulate. Certainly a bomb set off on some remote island would have made little difference.
-
Tokyo had been bombed THREE TIMES, with something like 97%-98% of the city destroyed.
Again…no capitulation.
-
Koyoto…Japan’s Spiritual and Cultural Center had been purposely spared by U.S. planners, despite all the destruction that had been wrought.
-
Death? Douglas McArthur estimated 1-million dead IN THE FIRST WAVE with a “D-Day” type of assault on the Japanese Islands. It was the DUTY of every Japanese to protect “The Land of the Rising Sun” and their Emperor to the Death…and they were prepared to do so…(this was proven in the “Island Campaigns” of Iwo Jima, et. al as U.S. Marines encountered bunker after bunker of Japanese soldiers that fought to the Death rather than surrender. To do so would have been the height of dishonor both in this Life and the Life after…
There was even the thought that dropping the Atomic Bombs would not cause the Japanese to capitulate (because U.S. plans to Invade the islands continued when the Bombs were dropped)…but they did…even though the Atomic Bombs represented only a FRACTION of the total destruction that already had been wrought on Japan (< than 1% or so…)
Was the “Fire Bombing” of Japanese Cities “more humane” than the Atomic Bombs? Was the prevention of literally millions of more Deaths and the extension of War “better”?
Acts of War are Acts of War…
Trying to place “good” and “bad” on acts of War, (except for the most egregious as accepted by the Countries that wage War) are futile exercises, since we are often choosing between the less of two Evils…
Again…Acts of War are Acts of War…and no more…
Let us all simply be glad that WW-II ended…
Mufasa
I don’t think there is any point in discussing this topic with Xcel until he cracks a book on the subject.
Celtic, I think that the reason our sources have different body count numbers is because (I think) my source only counted the immediate dead, as a direct consequence of the blasts, not due to other wounds, radiation, etc… Regardless, everyone agrees that a shit-load died.
[quote]Pete Ross wrote:
I just can’t let this one pass. They DID refuse to surrender after the first bomb. They were told to surrender unconditionally or a city would be destroyed. When it was, they still refused. Thus, the second bomb. Centrally located targets were vital to ensure the Imperial Govt. could not just deny it happened. Psychological impact, you see. Remember, atomic bombs only impress YOU because you already KNOW what they can do.
[/quote]
They impress me because I know what they can do… correct. So why didn’t the U.S. go to a greater effort to show Japan what the bombs could do and give them some time before dropping one on a thriving city.
I did a little research: They NEVER refused to surrender. The first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on the 6th. After that, the Japanese leadership were in intense debate and discussion about what to do. Some leaders did not want to surrended, but plenty of others did. They never came up with a response before the U.S. decided to drop the other bomb on Nagasaki. Alot of historians think they did not have enough time to fully assess the damage and come to a decision before the other bomb was dropped. I also read that “Japanese feelers for peace had already been received and ignored by the Allies”.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Prove it. This isn’t the school playground, asswipe. You have to have proof to be believed. You have none. You are spouting opinion - you even admitted as much.
Your opinion is bullshit. Unless you have something better than “they did it and everyone knows it” - I must call you out for the fucking full of shit liar that you are.
Why don’t you haul your fat ass to Japan if you feel so strongly about our transgressions against them. I’m sure they’d love to have you.
I agree with Massif - Nukes give me a chubby.[/quote]
Once again, could you at least ATTEMPT to reply without sounding like a complete roid raging asshole? I guess not, maybe that’s just who you are…
You take a very pro-American stance. That’s not suprising, considering you’ve probably been raise to believe the U.S. is flawless. It is sad though, that you can’t see out of the box.
I DO sympathize with Japan for that massive loss of life, or murder, however you wana put it. But I also sympathize with the other countries that happened to(to lesser degrees thank god) such as America, Poland, Russia, etc.
To be honest, the only one who sounds like a little kid on a playground is you, but thats because you can’t write 2 sentences without a long string of insults and cussing… VERY mature.
I’ll be glad to find you some evidence of U.S. war crimes, it won’t take more than a search on yahoo. But I’m gonna lift first… so I’ll be back online later tonight.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I don’t think there is any point in discussing this topic with Xcel until he cracks a book on the subject.[/quote]
I do know a bit about WW2, I just haven’t studied it specifically or in depth.
ANYWAY, when you give me some evidence supporting what you think, I’d be glad to admit defeat.
When the bombs where dropped, Japan had already been defeated and where ready to abdicate; they just wouldn’t accept the “unconditional” terms required by the USA. Their Japanese “honor” would not allow it. We know that because their encryption codes had been broken and messages intercepted in July 1945 indicated as much.
After the bombs where dropped, the Japanese were pretty much forced to kiss your ass; but you ended up giving them a way to save face (ie, the emperor was allowed to keep his position and remain on the throne. Mostly symbolic, but important to the Japanese.) So basically, you gave them terms they would’ve most certainly accepted had they been offered before the bombs were dropped.
One of the goal achieved in dropping the bombs on real cities, was to show Russia, China and other anti-US countries that you A) Had the Bomb. B) Had more than one. C) Were willing to use it on civilian populations.
Nowadays, many countries can claim A and B. Only the US has shown C. I’m sure other countries would be quite capable of C, but you “broke the ice” as we say.
All the rhetoric about “having no choice” “Japan wouldn’t surrender with just a demonstration”, etc. is so much propaganda that you eat up because you must believe that the US is the “good guys” and can do no wrong. Sometimes the good guys do some very bad things for the very wrong reasons.
I sometime wonder if President Roosevelt hadn’t died in April 1945, if he would’ve used the Bomb on civilian populations. I think that Truman was too inexperienced and made a bad call when he authorised the dropping of those bombs.
[quote]XCelticX wrote:
I also read that “Japanese feelers for peace had already been received and ignored by the Allies”[/quote]
Yes, they were ignored, and quite rightly, because they were not authoritative offers of unconditional surrender, but only attempts to negotiate an armistice. The militarists would have continued in their power. That outcome was not acceptable.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
I’m not sure anyone has mentioned it, but the United States had only the two weapons. It was going to take a long time to make anymore.
[/quote]
Actually, the small bomb “Little Boy” was difficult to manufacture. The big one “Fat Man” was quite ready for high number mass production.
The US could’ve had quite a few more very quickly had the need come up.
Read:
“A Torch To the Enemy” by Martin Caidin…
Mufasa
[quote]pookie wrote:
So basically, you gave them terms they would’ve most certainly accepted had they been offered before the bombs were dropped. [/quote]
No, not at all. You neglect the psychological effect of defeat on the Japanese. That meant the end of the militarists, something that couldn’t be had any other way. Without that, they would have stubbornly resisted demotion of the Emperor from godhood. Hell, they would have held out to hang onto Tojo and company.
[quote]pookie wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
I’m not sure anyone has mentioned it, but the United States had only the two weapons. It was going to take a long time to make anymore.
Actually, the small bomb “Little Boy” was difficult to manufacture. The big one “Fat Man” was quite ready for high number mass production.
The US could’ve had quite a few more very quickly had the need come up.[/quote]
Gee, can you give a citation on that? The bottleneck was enriched Uranium I thought.
[quote]XCelticX wrote:
Once again, could you at least ATTEMPT to reply without sounding like a complete roid raging asshole? I guess not, maybe that’s just who you are…[/quote]
You are mistaking my disdain for an utter fool such as you for roid rage. ANother subject you know absolutely nothing about yet feel qualified to comment on.
This is not roid rage. This is me defending what the greatest nation on the face of the earth did 60 years ago to provide a place for idiots like you spew their bullshit without fear.
You can call it whatever you want - but just know that speaking from ignorance like you have been doing doesn’t further your cause at all.
And you take the chicken shit apologist way out. When did it become sad to defend what we did to end a World War and stop the Russians in their tracks? I guess Patton was a manic depressive then since he wanted to attack Russia after Germany was defeated.
The one to be pitied is you. But your screaming ignorance begs the question - Why should I pity one that is oblivious to reality? It must be a very pretty world you’ve created in your head.
You have to prove murder dill hole. You can’t just say it and make it so. I’ve asked you at least twice now to prove it was murder. But you revert to opinion. You even admitted that you haven’t studied this war, yet you know that ir was murder?
What a dick.
I’m not going to feel bad for calling a spade a spade. You are full of shit, and most everyone on every thread you’ve started knows it. Can you not look around and see what a laughing stock you are on this website? People have made avatars out of your photos. They mock you at every turn. I’m just calling attention to what is obvious to everyone around here except you.
[quote]I’ll be glad to find you some evidence of U.S. war crimes, it won’t take more than a search on yahoo. But I’m gonna lift first… so I’ll be back online later tonight.
[/quote]
Evidence of WWII war crimes. EVIDENCE!! Not anecdotal reports of the mean old Americans. Evidence means proof - something you refuse to provide.
To paraphrase vroom - You might want to read up on the war before you go spouting off about how we are murderers.
XCelticX wrote:
So why didn’t the U.S. go to a greater effort to show Japan what the bombs could do and give them some time before dropping one on a thriving city.
I did a little research: They NEVER refused to surrender. I also read that “Japanese feelers for peace had already been received and ignored by the Allies”.{quote}
The U.S. didn’t want to waste any more time with this war due the fact that Russia was going to enter it within days. The U.S. HAD to stop the Soviet advance in Asia.
As to why the bombs were dropped on fully populated cities? To see what they were capable of. Remember that the Cold War with Russia had already started by this point and it was sort of a now-or-never opportunity for the Truman Administration to 1)see what the new toys could do on live targets, and 2)show the Russians that the U.S. would not hessitate to use them on live human beings if pressed. (Remember, I’m just the messenger here)
Very true. The Japanese were willing to surrender before any of these events took place, under ONE condition; that they be allowed to keep thier Emperor after the War. BUT, the U.S. called for “unconditional surrender” and the Japanese’ plea to keep their emperor was, indeed, a condition. So the War dragged on.
The quote that you surfaced is also true. The Emperor himself personally pleaded with the Soviets (an Allied power) to make peace with the U.S. for him. The Soviets however refused to pass this info on the the U.S. Why would the Soviets choose to not be a peacful mediator between the two waring nations? Control of the post-war world. They knew that if they entered the war against Japan they could spread their influence.
Well said Pookie, my thoughts exactly. The bombs were all about having “negotiating power” after the war.
Being a student of history has tought me one thing: don’t EVER trust your Government. Because they’re ALL lying to us, sometimes for our own good, but lying nontheless.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
pookie wrote:
No, not at all. You neglect the psychological effect of defeat on the Japanese. That meant the end of the militarists, something that couldn’t be had any other way. Without that, they would have stubbornly resisted demotion of the Emperor from godhood. Hell, they would have held out to hang onto Tojo and company.
[/quote]
It was known at the beginning of July that the Japanese were considering surrender and what terms they would accept. Secretary of War Stimson had already recommended that those terms be offered.
On July 16th, the Trinity test was a success. The Postdam Declaration of July 26th was delivered in terms you already knew the Japanese would reject, thus ensuring the war would go on.
Japan was eventually forced to accept it after the two bombs were dropped; but then you made concessions and allowed the emperor to remain and let them keep their government mostly as it was, contrary to what the Postdam Declaration demanded.
There are of course many ways to interpret those actions; but certainly one of them is that it was of some interest to the US that the war be prolonged for a short while. You already had the moral advantage against Japan because of the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, so offering them a surrender you knew they’d reject allowed you to claim “well, they had their chance” after you nuked them.
[quote]pookie wrote:
The US could’ve had quite a few more very quickly had the need come up.[/quote]
I’m not sure how much Plutonium they actually had on hand at that point. Anything more than a brief delay meant that the Cold War would start off on perhaps vastly different terms.
Found this in Wikipedia:
The United States produced a small stockpile of “Fat Man” bombs after the war, but they were highly idiosyncratic and extremely delicate.
That doesn’t exactly sound like the pipeline was full.