General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWas the use of the atomic bomb against Japan justified?
Just wanted to get a head-start on all the threads that start whenever the anniversary comes up.
Please don't repeat any arguments from last year.
Thank you for your input.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Show a little self-discipline, please.
taterguy
(29,582 posts)-..__...
(7,776 posts)Or did I miss it?
vinny9698
(1,016 posts)The report was one plane had come over dropped one bomb the city was completely destroyed. They thought it was just hysterics and sent more observers to report back the truth. The truth was one bomb, city gone. Once they comprehended that, it was too late. Also the Japanese response was mis interpreted by the US, wait was interpreted as no. They wanted to clarify the one bomb city gone as true.
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)Yes it was, not it wasn't, it saved 100,000 lives, it didn't save a single life. Who knows? The past is gone, focus on the future.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)My uncle, a prisoner of the Japanese Imperial Army for 3.5 years on Corregidor, admonished us to "never forget, never forget".
Igel
(35,300 posts)Have to squeeze in 20k years of E. Asian prehistory. I've done gone and forgotten it, now I have to repeat it.
Just ... crap. Gonna be a bitch recreating rice domestication.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)That would eliminate all discussion. All arguments are warmed-over.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)
Warpy
(111,245 posts)Neither city was particularly military. They were chosen because they were "pristine targets" with little to no conventional bomb damage and that was because they had no military significance. In other words, they were murderous laboratories for the generals who wanted to see everything their new bomb could do.
The use of the bomb was brinkmanship, Japan having no idea whether we had two bombs or two thousand of the things. When they realized one bomb could kill a whole city, the war was over. Carpet bombing by hundreds of planes had not done that.
However, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki should have been targeted.
WolverineDG
(22,298 posts)They could be easily identified from the air. But I know that disrupts the annual bash America for dropping the Bomb party, so carry on....
sarisataka
(18,600 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima#World_War_II_and_atomic_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Nagasaki_during_World_War_II
Nagasaki was a secondary target. Kokura was the primary target but there was too much cloud cover so they moved on to Nagasaki.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)No? Then no, it was not Justified.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1489428/
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)
mrmpa
(4,033 posts)it was justified. In 2012 it wouldn't be justified.....if we've learned from the past.
Response to mrmpa (Reply #7)
VOX This message was self-deleted by its author.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)From a utilitarian perspective, yes. A land invasion of Japan would have cost millions on both sides.
However, that is presumptive.
And there is the possibility that Japan was getting ready to surrender, they just needed to do it with dignity.
On another hand, the nuke killed less than the fire bombing of Tokyo.
So, I don't know.
MissMarple
(9,656 posts)Unless some new information turns up, your answer is a fair one.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)I have often thought that seeing the destruction wrought by these bombs (which were firecrackers compared to modern H-bombs) may have prevented their use in later years.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)I really couldn't have made a decision
thelordofhell
(4,569 posts)
malthaussen
(17,187 posts)That, I submit, is the more interesting question at this point. No indisputable link can be found between dropping the bombs and ending the war -- their presumptive purpose. Hence "justification" must be found elsewhere, unless we do assume that they served to end the war.
From what I know of the subject, I think Hiroshima was necessary to give the Nipponese leadership the "out" to end the war, but that Nagasaki was superfluous in ending the war. It has always seemed clear to me that we dropped both bombs because we wanted to field-test our two new toys, and also as a warning to the Soviet Union. Is that justification? Is the MAD doctrine "real?" Flip a coin, none of us can know what is really goine on in someone else's heads -- even when they tell us.
-- Mal
sarisataka
(18,600 posts)As the entry of the U.S.S.R. into the war against Japan had pushed the impetus to seek an end to the war.
It was not yet a sure thing
On 10 August the Japanese government presented a letter of protest for the atomic bombings to the government of the United States via the government of Switzerland.[110] On 12 August the Emperor informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender. One of his uncles, Prince Asaka, then asked whether the war would be continued if the kokutai could not be preserved. Hirohito simply replied "Of course."[111] As the Allied terms seemed to leave intact the principle of the preservation of the Throne, Hirohito recorded on 14 August his capitulation announcement which was broadcast to the Japanese nation the next day despite a short rebellion by militarists opposed to the surrender.
In his declaration, Hirohito referred to the atomic bombings:
Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Surrender_of_Japan_and_subsequent_occupation
Had Japan presented those terms it is very questionable that the U.S. would have accepted them. If war fatigue was sufficient and the estimated casualties deemed too high the U.S. may have accepted the terms. I would envision a certain disquiet among the U.S. population, as in post WW1 Germany. There would be questioning of why prosecute the war so far then stop short of total victory, IMO.
malthaussen
(17,187 posts)But the Allies were definitely going to pursue Olympic, so nothing short of "unconditional surrender" (which in the event, of course, was not unconditional) was going to be accepted. I simply think we made sure the Nipponese did not have enough time between Hiroshima and Nagasaki because we wanted to field-test both weapon types. Call me a cynic.
I always recommend George MacDonald Fraser's memoirs Quartered Safe out of Here for an interesting take on the whole Bomb situation from the perspective of an intelligent 20 year-old at the time. Surely the thoughts of those who were there and were most likely to be affected by the decision are more relevant than those of us who were not even using up air at the time.
-- Mal
JVS
(61,935 posts)As it happened, the Soviets occupied Manchuria (from which they helped Mao win the civil war) and North Korea. Had Japan been given time to delay, you're looking at the possibility of the red army liberating all the way doen to Hong Kong.
malthaussen
(17,187 posts)But certainly, the fear of Big Bear had to have been in the back of Truman's mind, possibly even more than the expected casualties for Olympic. I have to say I've never seen anything from prominent Soviets at the time who admitted to fearing the Bomb, though.
-- Mal
2on2u
(1,843 posts)costs a million, who will be the arbiter of imaginary justifications for cruel and unusual punishments raining down from the heavens. I say no one can say, no one can even dream it.
HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)But no because we killed many innocent civilians.
taterguy
(29,582 posts)And the year before that,
and the the year before that,
etc.
bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)...and the stupidest reason to destroy two cities.
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)the same arguments are going to be used again and again because the story hasn't changed.
trof
(54,256 posts)Bob died last year. He was 85.
Ruthie was his loving wife.
They have three kids and four grandkids.
Bob met Ruthie in 1947.
In 1945 he was a 19 year old infantry grunt preparing to ship out for the invasion of Japan.
He's damned glad he didn't have to do that.
So are Ruthie and the kids and grandkids.
It's all relative, I guess.
Igel
(35,300 posts)He was in what would have been part of the first wave onto the beach. He said the 3rd wave had a low survival rate.
He's still alive. Probably not for long.
On a personal level it meant a whole lot to some.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)With 150,000 people registered on DU anyone want to bet that at least a few of those crew members have relatives who are members?
So many years we really can't second guess the decision as we weren't there at the time and have access to different information than they did at the time.
My grandfather was one of thoses the benefited from their use as well. Considering is MOS I might not be here had they not been used
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)About 15 years ago one of my best friends and I were treated to an evening of sushi, beer, and war stories by my friend's now-deceased father in law. That man served in the U.S. Army in World War II, and was part of the force that occupied Japan.
He got to know some senior Japanese military veterans very well. He was very sure that use of the Bomb was necessary, and that if we had not used it he probably would not have survived the war.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)He was happy as hell that the war ended before that nightmare was brought to fruition.
trof
(54,256 posts)If not for the atom bomb?
I could say the same for a few generations of Japanese.
The descendants of the ones who didn't have to face a D-Day invasion of japan.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)The Japanese figured out where we were going to invade and those beaches were heavily defended and fortified. Add the kamikazes from the air and the sea, it was going to be a blood bath for both sides.
It's a horrible weapon and lets hope that was the first and the last time it will ever be used.
Incitatus
(5,317 posts)An invasion after that wasn't going to happen.
Bragi
(7,650 posts)
Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)Where does the time go?
From Truman's diary dated July 18, 1945:
"Stalin told (British) P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace."
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/fulltext.php?fulltextid=15
Response to taterguy (Original post)
BOG PERSON This message was self-deleted by its author.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)How many tens of thousands of soldiers lives would you be willing to sacrifice to gain Japan's unconditional surrender without the use of the bomb?
metalbot
(1,058 posts)Firebombing all the way.
(sarcasm tag in case not clear)
There's nothing magical about a nuclear explosion - it's just really big. We could have destroyed Japan from the air. By the time that we dropped atomic weapons, their navy had been destroyed, and we would have been able to launch air attacks from Okinawa. We could easily have done equivalent damage with conventional weapons.
What is interesting about the use of atomic weapons is that because they were new, they gave the Japanese an "honorable surrender" route. They could argue that "this new weapon is such a game changer, that we have to surrender, because we don't have any". I think it would have been far more difficult for Japanese leadership to surrender in the face of increasing conventional bombing.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)However, as they did not know about radiation poisoning at the time ... a lot of people developing the bomb died for that reason ... your reasoning would have been correct at the time.
But not today. Today, we know better. If you're going to argue that nuclear weapons are okay for use today, you might just as well include mustard gas or never agent as well.
No agreements against their use had been made.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)meaculpa2011
(918 posts)unit was preparing to head to the Pacific in advance of the mainland invasion.
I've read estimates that the war would have lasted another 2.5 years. 100,000 Americans would have been killed along with up to 1 million Japanese.
Instead, he was sent home in November, 1945. He met my mother, got married and lived happily ever after. She's 82. He's 90. I was born in 1951. Is that selfish on my part?
Selatius
(20,441 posts)A naval blockade was already in effect in all practical sense. Most of their capital ships were at the bottom of the ocean by 1945. Your father would've hung around the Pacific for a while, but if the bombs had not fallen, the Japanese probably would've surrendered anyway once the food ran out.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)even if they surrendered, they would have killed people who had already suffered more than we can know. The Japanese Imperial Army planned to kill all POWs.
Selatius
(20,441 posts)But I fail to see compounding a moral failing with another possible moral failing would've made that argument better like it's a trade between American POWs and 250,000 civilians roasted in Nagasaki and Hiroshima being somehow better.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)even after the bombs fell.
Selatius
(20,441 posts)The cabinet and the high command may have been blind, but he was already looking for ways to surrender, and his word was law. He just wasn't willing to accept unconditional surrender that was the demand issued after the Potsdam Conference. After the Soviet Union declared war on Japan following Germany's defeat, the outcome of defeat for Japan was already assured despite the bombs.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)The only time "unconditional surrender" was used was in refering to Japanese armed forces, nothing else.
they surrendered to everything outlined in the Potsdam conference,
I doubt the soviets would have invaded the home islands, because they had just fought a land war and had no amphibious craft for such a large operation.
the Japanese had sent out peace feelers, but they were half-hearted and never followed up on.
they could have held out for a long while, even cut off from the mainland. they survived centuries with little trade during the tokagawa shogunate.
So really, the only solution, besides invasion, was the bomb.
Selatius
(20,441 posts)Japan's population throughout that era was a fraction of what it was by the 1940s. They were no longer self-sufficient as far as food production by World War 2, and they didn't have access to oil to run their machinery due to the naval blockade. They were dying of starvation and were getting to the point of being unable to mass produce weapons due to lack of fuel and electricity.
The peace feelers that were sent out were sent to Moscow because the USSR didn't sign the Potsdam Declaration. That ended when war was declared by Moscow on 8 August 1945. With the very real possibility of a Soviet land invasion through Manchuria and the Korean peninsula, all hope of bringing any Japanese reinforcements on the Chinese mainland back to Japan were essentially gone. Coupled with the American naval blockade, the only variable left was time.
As an aside, I generally do think the atom bombs were also somewhat meant as a show of force to Stalin as well. By that time, Stalin was likely getting intelligence on American progress on the bomb and information they would need to hasten their own bomb program.
sarisataka
(18,600 posts)between being defeated and willing to surrender.
The former was complete for all purposes except the final total dead, but the cabinet was not ready to surrender if there was any hope of a Pyrrhic victory against an invasion would salvage some of the Empire.
Incitatus
(5,317 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)They could have surrendered after the first one.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)I Truman's shoes I would have done the same thing. His concern was the American casualties and much less so the Japanese. The objective was to get the war over and I believe the dropping of the bombs hastened that effort, sparing lives on both sides.
trof
(54,256 posts)Immediate unconditional surrender.
Evidently they dithered and didn't respond quick enough for us.
I guess Nagasaki drove the point home.
madinmaryland
(64,931 posts)taterguy
(29,582 posts)Person of dubious intellect.
madinmaryland
(64,931 posts)-..__...
(7,776 posts)according to many anti-2nd amendment shriekers, "the right to keep and bear arms", could be interpreted to allow the possession of nukes by civilians.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)As horrible as the deaths it caused were, it probably saved lives since we didn't have to invade the mainland.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)That is unfortunate, but it is how it was.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)doohnibor
(97 posts)you might want to know how much the invasion of Manchuria factored into the Japanese thinking:
That was a time when the US and our Soviet allies were not going to stop anywhere short of unconditional surrender. And there were many in the Japanese government that were willing to continue the fight.
taterguy
(29,582 posts)I don't think so.
doohnibor
(97 posts)You won't learn about this facet of WWII from American sources -- goes against the Cold War propaganda that we are fed about the Soviet Union. Propaganda that the Mittster has just warmed up to serve all over again for the 2012 election. Go on and click the link, it's far more educational than any two hours of cable offerings.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)Hirohito had to break the tie.
If they were ready to surrender, why hadn't they made more serious efforts to sue for peace
bbinacan
(7,047 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...that both it and the implosion Plutonium bomb, which had been successfully detonated in New Mexico, could be delivered successfully by air against an actual enemy during an actual war.
VOX
(22,976 posts)There was no way that the Japanese mainland was going to be invaded by Allied troops -- they closer they got to Japan, the harder the Japanese fought, and they gave no indication that they would ever surrender. Many Japanese civilians on Okinawa committed suicide, so great was their commitment.
Battle of Okinawa 4/1/45-6/21/45: estimated 150,000-250,000 total deaths
Allied casualties: 12,513 killed; 38,916 wounded
Japanese casualities:
95,000+ killed
Estimated 10,000 captured
Estimated 42,000–150,000 civilians killed
As horrible as the bomb was/is, the probable death toll resulting from an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been staggering on all sides. The best available estimated data on total casualties from the two bombings:
Deaths -- Hiroshima: 66,000 / Nagasaki 39,000
Injured -- Hiroshima: 69,000 / Nagasaki: 25,000
Total Casualties -- Hiroshima: 135,000 / Nagasaki: 64,000
Tragically, the extremely grim outcome of the Battle of Okinawa enabled the horror of the A-Bomb to be unleashed.
sarisataka
(18,600 posts)the question is would there have been any recognizable leadership left to surrender...
Once the battle on Honshu began it may have turned into a self perpetuating conflict as communication disintegrated throughout the country. Much like the soldiers left behind in the Philippines, the civilians who joined the fight would have followed their last orders until killed.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Japan was prostrate. It posed no threat to any other nation and was already seeking peace.
Truman ordered it to scare the Soviets and satisfy a public demanding vengeance.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Which was one of the reasons that the bomb was used, to scare the Russians. Truman was surprised that the Russkis weren't surprised when he told them about the bomb...they already knew.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 3, 2012, 08:50 AM - Edit history (1)
According to Japanese sources, there were over a million Japanese soldiers still active in the China theater (to include Formosa and Indochina) outside Manzhouguo.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, they knew that the Soviets were on their way.
They war was effectively over by the time they dropped the bombs. The Japanese were seeking peace with the Soviets before the bomb was dropped, but the Soviets ignored them seeing an opportunity for territorial and political advancement in the whole region.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)unfortunate enough to be within the occupied zones? Soldiers belonging to an army of the brutal character demonstrated by the Imperial armed forces?
I remember reading an account written by a member of the Guomindang delegation which traveled to Shanghai to accept the surrender of Japanese forces there. The Chinese were surprised to find the Japanese displayed no sense of defeat, maintained firm control of the administrative region, and continued to brutalize the population up to the moment the surrender was formalized.
Um, no. You will never convince me "It posed no threat to any other nation", to use your words.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)It's 1945.
a) Roosevelt has died and the weight of the world has fallen on your shoulders
b) Germany is about to be defeated, but the OSS and the FBI are now telling you the Russians are likely to be a problem
c) In a surreal moment, a general named Groves has come to you. He tells you something straight out of science-freaking-fiction: at Oak Ridge, TN a bunch of scientists, led by J. Robert Oppenheimer of UC Berkeley, are working on a bomb -- a bomb so powerful that one will destroy an entire city.
d) Meanwhile, back in the Pacific, the Japanese are fighting a scorched earth/fight to the last bullet war on Tarawa..on Iwo Jima...on Okinawa. The battles are bloody, lengthy, and costly. To make matters worse, Japanese pilots are flying planes converted into bombs into ships.
e) Your generals are telling you that once Germany is secure, troops will be transferred from Europe to the Pacific, and Operation Olympic will commence in 1946. There is no reason to believe that taking the Japanese home islands will be any different than taking Okinawa or Iwo Jima. We can reasonably expect to lose tens of thousands of soldiers in combat.
So July1945 rolls around, and you have this bomb. Which is it? Another year or more of fighting, with tens of thousands of allied soldiers dying (not to mention Japanese soldiers and civillians), or do you take a shot at ending the war now with this bomb?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And Truman did the right thing.
sarisataka
(18,600 posts)is the effect the kamikaze attacks were having on the military, Navy especially.
Serious deterioration in morale and combat stress issues where rising, greater than any other point in the war.
emilyg
(22,742 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
zbdent
(35,392 posts)then that might have made as much a statement as that made when the many were killed ...
Angleae
(4,482 posts)Keep in mind they didn't have a functioning navy or air force at that time. How would they have seen it and been able to realize the magnitude of it?
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,338 posts)Zanzoobar
(894 posts)
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)The weak excuse for invasion is...well...weak. They may have still had "fighting spirit" but Japan was dead in the water -no oil no ships. And they were flying wooden airplanes by the end.
Anyone who has read the history of the war can see the arc that the war had taken. Japan was not winning any more battles.
They had lost.
taterguy
(29,582 posts)Well, I can't be completely sure but I'm almost positive that it was
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)all they had to do was fight during the invasion.
If Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima could be used as examples I'd hate to see the carnage they would have been able to inflict defending the Japanese Islands. They still had 2.3 million troops available on the Japanese main islands. Only 1,000 prisoners out of 38,000 Japanese soldiers in Guadalcanal and 1,000 out of 21,000 in Iwo Jima. If there's one thing that could be said about an Imperial Japanese soldier, they knew how to die.
There were other ways to end the war without invasion. They could have starved them out or just bombed the shit out of them with conventional weapons ala Dresden but there's no way that Japan was going to surrender without one hell of a lot of dead Japanese civilians.
Add to that the fact that the allies had been fighting the fascist assholes in Europe and Japan since 1939/1941 the money and patience were both wearing thin. I don't think waiting them out was going to be popular.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)"There were other ways to end the war without invasion."
"money and patience were both wearing thin"
Neither of those "reasons" dropping two nukes on civilians. It shocks me that people decry Pearl harbor, an attack only on a military base but support the dropping of nukes on civilians. But people will go to great lengths to justify the unjustifiable. It is human psychology.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)I'm always kind of amused at how angry people get when you talk about different ways to kill. Dead is dead, if the allies had of played the waiting game and laid siege to the islands or kept bombing millions would have starved or frozen to death and it wouldn't have been the soldiers dying either.
People get up in arms when you talk about dropping a nuke but don't seem to be bothered watching a wing of B-17s obliterate 100 city blocks because they were aiming at the ball-bearing factory on the corner. That could partly be due to the very visible after effects of radiation poisoning, I mean you aren't just burying the dead the day after the bombing but doing it for quite awhile.
The number of civilians killed in WW2 absolutely dwarfs the number of people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (50 million to 260,000).
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Now you are bringing up some issues pretty far afield of the topic as you struggle to justify it.
1) Number of civilians killed overall dwarfs Hiroshima.Nagasaki --- is THIS justification?
2) People would have starved ---Is this justification for dropping 2 nukes?
The answer is that neither is. But both are typical of the lengths that people will go to in order to justify a wrong act afterwards. Your reply is as unsurprising as it is unoriginal.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)I was replying to your response not the OP and in so doing was trying to narrow the focus. Your opinion claims that the act was not justified because Japan was already finished... "They may have still had "fighting spirit" but Japan was dead in the water".
If you want to insult me with comments like "Your reply is as unsurprising as it is unoriginal" knock yourself out. It doesn't do anything to elevate your reply above typical internet bullshit. Maybe that was the idea?
I wanted to make the point that I don't think Japan was as dead in the water as you believe. With millions of troops deployed to defend the islands, the vast majority of which in the South ready for the Americans, the Japanese were not showing signs of being ready to give up. The Imperial Japanese never gave up, they fought and fought to the end whenever they were cornered this wasn't going to be any different. Lots of people were going to die, whether it was from an invasion, a siege or the dropping of the bombs. I think fewer died due to the nuclear bombs than would have in an invasion, certainly a lot fewer Americans and that is the entire goal when in a war.
There were several strategic reasons for the dropping of the bombs, especially the second one, other than trying to put an end to the Japanese as a power in WW2.
One big one that doesn't get discussed much is that command was using it as an implicit threat to Stalin. By the time the war ended, the west was already pretty wary of Soviet intentions and expansion and they felt the need to let Stalin know that they weren't afraid to use these things. Two, they wanted to test the ability of troops to respond in reaction to an atomic bomb and they knew the Japanese would surrender following the bombings giving them the chance. Three, they wanted to give the impression that they could make and deploy atomic bombs at will. They only had two of them and they were difficult to make, nobody else knew yet how difficult so the Americans wanted the world to think they had a pile of them ready to go. These are all justifications for doing it. It's cold and doesn't speak to the morality of doing it but it was military strategy. Morality rarely enters the equation when working on strategy.
If you want to discuss the morality of dropping atomic bombs that would require an entirely different answer than I was trying to get across.
Personally I don't think it was any more or less moral than lots of what happened during WW2. That entire time in history is a black mark on humans as a moral species. My Great Uncle was a lawyer and later a judge in York UK. He worked with the British following the war in Europe and was a clerk to one of the judges during the Belsen trial in 1945. I never knew the man but my Grandfather, also a vet of Europe from Canada, talked rarely about how affected my Great Uncle was by not only his experiences fighting in Europe but especially by his work during these trials and the hangings that he had to attend following them. He had become immune to the fear and horror of death, he also became withdrawn and humorless. My Grandfather said it was years before he was happy again and then only because he was able to keep his marriage and family as a central part of his life. It was only when his Grandchildren came along that he seemed to be able to let go of his memories.
Also personally, I think of the the entire period as a time where, following 6 years of overt war and even longer considering the pre-war actions of the Nazis and Imperial Japanese people were much more callous for lack of a better term. Life wasn't as important, especially the lives of the enemy.
Do I think it was justified? Strategically absolutely, it achieved the goals set out. Morally, I've never been able to answer that completely but I don't rank it as any more immoral than much of the rest of that period in history.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)How many do yo think would have starved in Japan before a full surrender, vs. the actual casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I have no idea, but my WHAG would be more starving and many more permenantly damaged by malnutrition.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...have lost their "wars" too, yet they continue to fight.
Say we didn't drop the bomb. And say we didn't invade at the cost of 100k plus invaders, and 10 times that or more Japanese. Figures which might be too conservative by far given that the allies had to kill up to 90% of the forces in occupied territories. Just how much harder do people fight on their own soil.
Say we put a blockade around Japan and starved it of medicines, food, oil, raw materials for industry until we got the unilateral surrender we demanded, or even the catipulation we actually settled for. Say we didn't attempt to put one foot on Japanese soil, but simply made it impossible for them to leave it.
Just how many millions of dead starving children would it have taken before their generals "saw reason"? Events in Iraq, Africa and Israel's neighbours all suggest that the number would have been huge. Our own history teaches us that perfectly ordinary parents will willingly spend the lives of the children they do have, to avenge the lives of those they've lost.
How likely is it that an impotent Hirohito might have committed honorable suicide as his nation disintegrated and descended into anarchy around him? And would that event have demoralised Japan into submission, or galvanised it into renewed resistance?
Just how many dead kids, would justify our not having to know the horrors of nuclear warfare? We're certainly prepared to see millions die every year, for nothing more than financial gain.
Consider, that without "THE BOMB" the anti-nuclear movement would not have had a platform to stand on. Three Mile Island would not have been more than a minor industrial accident. Chernobly would have been as forgettable as Bhopal.
And in truth, would we have avoided the horrors of Nuclear Warfare, or merely delayed them by a couple of years and moved them to a different theatre. Committed to a groundwar on Japanese soil, the Allies could well have lost ALL OF EUROPE to Stalin.
If that had happened, and with a couple of years of production under our belts, how many bombs would have been used to effect a second liberation of Europe. How many villiages would have been destroyed to save them from the threat of Communism?
It may well be (and I happen to agree) that Nagasaki was unnecessary, that it was gratuitously done simply to see the effect on a timber built city.
However, the first bomb was very much necessary, for you, I and the nutcases running the show, to be suffuciently horrified, that we haven't used one in anger for nigh on 70 years since.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)raises the bar for Orwellian distortions.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...not to mention our treatment of our own most vulnerable citizenry (And I include White Australian treatment of the Koories), to this very day, would suggest that this is no distortion.
Going back to centuries past, children (and the elderly) were generally were the first to suffer, and suffered the most, under seiges.
Fifteen million children around the world die of starvation every year, right bloody now, simply because there is no good, compelling reason for them not to; because there is no advantage to keeping them alive.
Of course we did not drop those bombs to SAVE the lives of myriad Japanese children. Where's the fucking profit in that? However, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Japanese children and oldsters who almost certainly would have died under a protracted seige, only lived because those bombs (or at least the first) were dropped.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)forcing hundreds of thousands or more to starve to death as well as condemning any allied POWs on the island to an even worse fate.
nanabugg
(2,198 posts)
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Yep. #2 it is.
Puregonzo1188
(1,948 posts)shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Response to taterguy (Original post)
devilgrrl This message was self-deleted by its author.
taterguy
(29,582 posts)Please try again.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)We had already won the war and we were already negotiating peace. The only thing that Japan was asking for was to keep their emperor. We refused to let them do that, although we pat ourselves on the back about "religious freedom." We would not give it to them.
Our planes were flying over Japan at will. They were beaten. But we wanted to test the bomb. And, we wanted to show the world (Russia) that we had them. In fact, we dropped two differently engineered bombs on Japan, so it was kind of an experiment (complete with innocent human lives being taken) to see which one worked best.
AND, we knew that American prisoners were being kept in Hiroshima, but we bombed it anyway.
catbyte
(34,372 posts)My dad was in the Marines (Marine Raider, 1st Marine Division which merged into the 4th Marine Division) and after he got back to Oahu from the battle of Okinawa they sent him to San Diego to prep for an invasion of Japan. We had NOT won the war. Peace was NOT being seriously negotiated, and my dad and hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of others--Japanese and Allied military--would have most likely lost their lives in an invasion of Japan. They weren't going to surrender. After what my dad saw and experienced on Okinawa, he knew he would not come back from Japan alive.
It's real easy to sit back 60 years after the fact and criticize decisions made. I guess I'm selfish because I am so glad my dad didn't have to go through even more hell than he had already endured.
Diane
Anishinaabe in MI & mom to Taz, Nigel, and new baby brother Sammy, members of Dogs Against Romney, Cat Division
"Dogs Aren’t Luggage--HISS!”
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)This is what we were taught in college, about the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maybe my professor was wrong and your dad was right? Hmmmm.
By the way, in order to make your point, you don't have to bash anyone. I'm glad your dad made it through, too. But this is what I learned from my college professor, and I believed him then and believe him now.
On Edit, I think you might want to read this excerpt from a post from CommonDreams:
The question of military necessity can be quickly put to rest. "Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." Those are not the words of a latter-day revisionist historian or a leftist writer. They are certainly not the words of an America-hater. They are the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and future president of the United States. Eisenhower knew, as did the entire senior U.S. officer corps, that by mid 1945 Japan was defenseless.
From: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm
I guess Dwight Eisenhower experienced a different version of history, too.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)just because you read it, and just because someone said it, doesn't mean it was the truth.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I have a tendency to believe a general who was THERE, rather than something I heard secondhand from someone who was not there. And, while it is true that the victors write the history, I don't think Eisenhower was saying this as a victor, but as a critic. And I believe him; he was in a position to know. As you do when you hear anything that might be of dispute, you consider the source, and I consider Eisenhower a pretty good primary source on the topic.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)While researching your quote I found this: http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/japans-nuclear-history-perspective-eisenhower-and-atoms-war-and-peace
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Sooner or later all weapons are considered conventional. Thankfully, we now have treaties to try to stop nuclear proliferation. Of course, they don't apply to us. Assholes.
davekriss
(4,616 posts)
bluedigger
(17,086 posts)
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Condone the incineration of a city full of non-combatants. I know the arguments that it saved lives in the end. I don't buy it. Why not drop the thing were the Japanese leadership could see what it would do, without slaughtering so many
innocents and the see what they would do?
The horror boggles the mind and shocks the conscious.
So, no.
kwolf68
(7,365 posts)Japan was asked for total surrender and were warned that they were going to be totally destroyed. Japan started the fight and if they weren't going to give up when it was clearly the time, then they have themselves only to blame.
After the first bomb was dropped and another surrender offer was rejected, leaflets were dropped on the city asking the Japanese people to evacuate. Not only were the military leaders of Japan warned, but the civilians of Japan were as well. Evacuate the city and we mainly blow up empty buildings.
I get so sick of this bash America, japan is the victim bullshit. They cowardly attacked our country and throughout the war showed to be ruthless and brutal as their treatment of prisoners of war was REPREHENSIBLE. Oh but lets keep acting like Japan was the innocent victims here. While Germany's brutality overshadows almost anything ever committed, Japan proved themselves very worthy of that thrown as well as a nation that so claimed to have HONOR and PRIDE basically conducted themselves as thugs.
When they turned down a 2nd surrender offer after the first bomb was dropped they were pulling their own rope.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)I have been reading a great deal about the POWs in the Pacific and wondering how Americans could deal with the face of evil facing their loved ones. My grandmother. How did she cope with the fact that her son was a POW of the Japanese at Corregidor knowing about torture and starvation? How did she get through it all? I've asked my aunts, his sisters, but they are too elderly to really remember it all.
From what I can discern, the ancient concept of Bushido, the warrior code, was perverted in the Japanese Imperial Army of the 20th century. Instead of it being an honor code that was humane and moral, it was perverted into a worship of the Emperor that was, indeed, evil.
The fact that not long after the war, America stopped the efforts to prosecute the war criminals and forgave/forgot doesn't help us to resolve this matter in our hearts and minds.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)Long before the 20 century.
It took form during the tokagawa shogunate, by a bunch of guys who had nothing better to do then sit around and make shit up. it had nothing to do with how actual Samurai acted during the preceding centuries.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)....was a moral and honorable code? (That's what I've read.) Or not?
Confusious
(8,317 posts)It was the same thing in the 18th and 19th century as it was in 20th.
There was no "twisting" of the code, it was just played out on a larger scale during world war 2.
It was also unrealistic, having been written by samurai who had actually never been in a war.
I read something once that said:
Japan sacrificed its best and brightest to an outdated code that gave little leeway for failure. Whereas an American officer would learn from his mistakes, a Japanese officer would commit seppeku for the same mistake. in the end, it helped the United States win the war.
While the code has nice ideals, they were always taken to the extreme.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)Pholus
(4,062 posts)How's that for a new one?
1) Even with the pressure of the bombs, you still had a coup attempt that was credible
and might have succeeded. There was a fanaticism at work here and a disregard for
even the lives of their own soldiers. Can't remember the exact reference, but
the INTERNAL nickname for a Japanese soldier was the cost of postage for the
death notification to reach the family. A faction of the Army WANTED to continue.
2) After an invasion and an extension of the war by 6-12 months and the resulting costs
and casualties, would the US have been as eager to rebuild? Could relations
between the two countries have been as good? Would Japanese society have been
able to withstand such heavy losses?
3) Considering how the Soviets managed to crush the Japanese in Manchuria in a week
after starting an attack, how would their advance through China have changed
postwar asia?
4) Read Danger's Hour sometime. It's the story of the Kamikaze attack on the USS
Franklin. Half the book is about the Japanese pilot. It is unlikely that pre-war he
would ever have made such an attack, it seems against his personality. But what
led him there is an excellent object lesson on how to gradually manipulate people into
doing things they would not consider if asked all at once. Faced with the extinction of
everything you know, you might do some extreme things too...
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Burning 100,000 people to death is burning 100,000 people to death, whether or not it was done by a single fission bomb or a shitload of incendiaries.
beemer27
(460 posts)Even tho this subject has been hashed and rehashed thousands of time, I will still jump in.
Before people get all indignant about the use of a powerful bomb used to stop a war, they should remember just who attacked who. It was not us who attacked Japan without warning or provocation, and we really did not want to be fighting on two fronts, both of them across large seas. We were not officially in the European war yet, but the writing was on the wall. Even with the resources that we had, two fronts would stretch us very thin.
Once we were in, the most sensible, and most humane tactic would be to end the war as soon as possible, with minimum loss of American troops. The leaders of our country should be more concerned with our losses than with those of our opponents. If they worry more about enemy losses, they should perhaps move aside, and let some one else lead.
The use of atomic weapons, saved many lives, American, Japanese, AND MINE! My father was going to be part of the second wave of American troops to invade. His chances of surviving that were almost non-existent. Had those two bombs not been used, many of us would not be here today.
This guy is happy that Truman had the sense, and the courage, to order the use of atomic weapons.
Javaman
(62,517 posts)3 more were in the works and were to be ready by november of '45 for the general invasion of Japan in Operation Downfall.
There are several books out there derived from the actual plans.
so the whole point of whether we should have used them or not is moot.
They were going to be used either way.
I have read extensively on Operation Downfall.
Here is the wiki link for grins...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
"On Marshall's orders, Major General John E. Hull looked into the tactical use of nuclear weapons for the invasion of the Japanese home islands (even after the dropping of two strategic atomic bombs on Japan, Marshall did not think that the Japanese would capitulate immediately). Colonel Lyle E. Seeman reported that at least seven bombs would be available by X-Day, which could be dropped on defending forces. Seeman advised that American troops not enter an area hit by a bomb for "at least 48 hours"; the risk of nuclear fallout was not well understood, and such a short amount of time after detonation would have resulted in substantial radiation exposure for the American troops.[34]
Ken Nichols, the District Engineer of the Manhattan Engineer District, wrote that at the beginning of August 1945, "[p]lanning for the invasion of the main Japanese home islands had reached its final stages, and if the landings actually took place, we might supply about fifteen atomic bombs to support the troops."[35] An air burst 1,800–2,000 ft (550–610 m) above the ground had been chosen for the (Hiroshima) bomb to achieve maximum blast effects, and to minimize residual radiation on the ground as it was hoped that American troops would soon occupy the city.[36]"
(the note of 7 atomic bombs was a very liberal estimate by Seeman. 3 would have been assembled and ready for delivery befor the invasion, the additional 4 would have been ready by the following spring)
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)All I can say is it left me with the impression that hardly anything can justify the ungodly horror of what an atomic bomb does. I know the situation is more complex than that, but at the very least, I think we could have dropped it in an unpopulated area as a warning of what will happen if Japan doesn't surrender. At least, we could have said we tried.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Grave Grumbler
(160 posts)
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)back?
Grave Grumbler
(160 posts)the lives of ones's countrymen & allies.
Now that we are at peace with Japan, the situation is entirely different, of course.
Thank you for the welcome.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Grave Grumbler
(160 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)than those of our enemies.
Our military doesn't exist to save others at our expense.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)So, yep.
taterguy
(29,582 posts)But thanks for playing
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)Was that used last year?
FBaggins
(26,727 posts)I'm not aware of any new data on the subject in the last year... so this leaves out all arguments.
The answer is "yes" for the same reasons it was yes a year ago, or a decade ago, or 67 years ago.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,338 posts)That would have made the annual taterguy argument even harder to take.
Arrr. What's the bomb fer, 'cept to drop on der landlubbin' heads, arrr?
This argument was not repeated from last year.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)WHY, GOD, WHY?????
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/
full disclosure: I wholeheartedly support NASA and JPL and am extremely excited about the curiosity landing.
EX500rider
(10,839 posts)"Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend.
In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods.
We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives.
America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people.
The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately."
taterguy
(29,582 posts)Seriously, do you read every leaflet that gets dropped from the sky in your town?
EX500rider
(10,839 posts).....but if it came from a plane of an air force that had already flattened 50 of the biggest cities in my country I might give it a glance..
taterguy
(29,582 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Deese'll power:
As in "Deese will get you where you need to go".
You gather your family together, grab emergency supplies, pick the shortest route out of town, and start walking.
taterguy
(29,582 posts)EX500rider
(10,839 posts)The town wasn't fenced in or anything was it?
Automobile, bus, train, plane, cab, rickshaw, bike, hike, run, walk, crawl or whatever it takes to take a out of town vacation would have been a good idea.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)I don't know myself, but Japan being a significantly militarized society at that time I'm not sure civilians would have been permitted to evacuate on their own accord.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)yeah.
Alduin
(501 posts)Is the other choice (invasion) kills millions.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)If they hadn't dropped the atomic bomb, I wouldn't be here.
catbyte
(34,372 posts)Was your dad in San Diego too awaiting orders to invade Japan? My dad started out in the 1st Marine Division then merged into the 4th. Dad just knew if he went to Japan he wouldn't come back alive.
Diane
Anishinaabe in MI & mom to Taz, Nigel, and new baby brother Sammy, members of Dogs Against Romney, Cat Division
"Dogs Aren’t Luggage--HISS!”
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)I believe he was stationed in Alabama. He told me that an officer said to them "look at the man next to you, he is going to die in this invasion." In other words, they were all going to die. Can you imagine being told that? I guess that officer decided they had a right to know.
Millions of the Japanese inhabitants of that island were going to die as well. Wright or wrong, that is a fact.
niceguy
(25 posts)And we shouldn't be second guessing what was decided , Especially when we are doing so with a completely different set of facts that were available at the time. Aren't there more important thins to worry about that are effecting us right now??
What a waste of electrons no pun intended
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)How long would they have tolerated it continuing when they had the means to end it more or less instantly?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)"Justified" is a feeling that comes from the perceiver, and has nothing to do with what is being perceived.
In my subjective perception, the use of atomic weapons were not justified.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
Dash87
(3,220 posts)I don't know if we were 'justified,' but we should have learned something from it (which we did not). War is horrible and should be avoided at almost all costs.
Snoozin
(25 posts)Using "the bomb" saved more lives than it took.
Texasgal
(17,043 posts)For all that is HOLY can you atleast focus on SHARK WEEK?
CHRIST ON A POGO STICK.
EX500rider
(10,839 posts)taterguy
(29,582 posts)Spoils my enjoyment of the ocean.
Kablooie
(18,625 posts)From Dan Carlin's Hardcore History.
A very in-depth and insightful exploration of the the bombing of Japan.
This guy really knows his history.
http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive#Show-42---(BLITZ)-Logical-Insanity
(The link works but doesn't go directly to the Logical Insanity page because the parentheses don't work here on DU.
You can see the link a little ways down on the page.)
lynne
(3,118 posts)- and I love the request that arguments from last year not be repeated. The same arguments have been going on since it was dropped, I doubt your kind request will make any changes in that.
Most definitely justified.
aquart
(69,014 posts)We were shockingly gentle and considerate in the Occupation.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)in order to be just, an attack in times of war is required to be both proportionate and discriminate, that is to say, there must be sincere and reasonable endeavours to distinguish between civilian and military targets.
An attack with an atomic bomb on a city is incapable of being discriminate, as it will obviously kill anything that moves. Both attacks were unjust, and accordingly they were both war crimes.
moondust
(19,972 posts)I imagine there was a lot of public hostility and perhaps a shortage of patience and compassion after Pearl Harbor, death marches, etc., all of which may have contributed to the decisive course of action that was taken.
Response to taterguy (Original post)
Post removed
Spacer125
(14 posts)taterguy
(29,582 posts)
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)If it was justified then why would it not be justified to use in the Korean War. Why did we not use it to end the slaughter of thousands of our soldiers in Vietnam? Why didn't we just threaten Saddam with a nuclear war? We could have probably used it in any number of conflicts in the last 70 years but have not. If the bomb was a good thing to use it would have been used a lot more. So, I can only conclude that it is not justifiable in any case if it hasn't been used since.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If some guys tries to car jack me I'm giving him my car. If my child is in the car and I'm packing I will put a cap in his forehead.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I think that losing 65,000 of our people is very high stakes. Losing 4,000 is high stakes. Losing 1 is high stakes if it is your husband, wife, son, daughter, or friend. If it is the right thing to do in the first case it is still the right thing to do in the second case. How many lives do you need to save to make it worth it. And keep in mind that in the Vietnam war 2 million Vietnamese were killed. One bomb could have likely saved so many more.
Javaman
(62,517 posts)32. Did US consider the use the A-Bomb in Korea?
On November 30 1950, President Truman said in a press conference: "There had always been active consideration of its[Atomic Bomb's] use...".
On December 24 1950, MacArthur submitted a list of 'retaliation targets' in China and North Korea, requiring 26 atomic bombs.
In January 1953, US tested its first tactical nuclear weapon, and the JCS considered its use "against military targets affecting operations in Korea."
In February 1953, in a NSC meeting, President Eisenhower suggested the Kaesong area of North Korea as an appropriate demonstration ground for a tactical nuclear bomb--it "provided a good target for this type of weapon".
http://www.centurychina.com/history/faq7.shtml
But like the other poster stated, the stakes weren't like they were in WWII. Very different war.
Last edited Sun Aug 5, 2012, 10:47 PM - Edit history (2)
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/11/killing-didnt-end-with-hiroshima-and.htmlThe US firebombed even more Japanese cities after Nagasaki, while Japan was in the process of surrendering.
These bombings should tell anyone about the morality and mindset of some of our leaders during WWII.
