Did this really happen?
- Thread starter slowhand
- Start date
Answer to the nuke strategy, If I thought it would really work. Yes, absolutely. Again, as someone else pointed out "we're not speaking Japanese are we"?
Where to put them? Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Yemen, Afganistan; plenty of choices. Again, attention getting actions. I guess one could argue we didn't bomb all of the Axis nations, only Japan (twice). But the others took immediate notice didn't they?
Anyhow, it takes no courage to sit idly by and be a pacifist. Gee Wally, let's hope everything turns out OK, and Mom doesn't find out! Sorry I just don't see that as a viable alternative.
Where to put them? Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Yemen, Afganistan; plenty of choices. Again, attention getting actions. I guess one could argue we didn't bomb all of the Axis nations, only Japan (twice). But the others took immediate notice didn't they?
Anyhow, it takes no courage to sit idly by and be a pacifist. Gee Wally, let's hope everything turns out OK, and Mom doesn't find out! Sorry I just don't see that as a viable alternative.
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
posted by Doug69
I think th 8th Air Force would have some rude things to say to you! I think your history is a little off, We most certinally bombed all the axis nations. We fire bombed most of the Japanese citys, killing more people on one night in Tokyo then both the atomic bombs combined.
We did not drop atomic wepons on the other axis countries for two reasons, (1)They were not needed. (2)Atomic weapons did not exist until after Germany and Italy had surrendered.
No one would like to see guilty people punnished more than me. Germany, Japan, Itally and the others for the most part got whay the diserved.
If not wanting to kill thousand of innocent people makes someone a pacifist then we need more!
Thanks for correcting me, I meant "nuke" the axis nations; but you knew that and having spent 30 years (and counting) in the USAF I knew it too. As far as not having to nuke any of the other Axis nations, you made my point exactly - didn't need to, job done.
Yes, more nukes. They make sense. You will agree we do not need long costly wars where many innocent people loose their lives; therefore the tactical placement of the supreme attention getter makes sense.
If someone wants to mess with my country fine - we will never convince everyone that it's not the smart thing to do. But, they have to believe we will **ck their **it up in short order and not blink an eye if they try it. 9/11 happened because those people thought they could get away with it and our government would not retaliate in a manner unacceptable to them. They were correct.
Yes, more nukes. They make sense. You will agree we do not need long costly wars where many innocent people loose their lives; therefore the tactical placement of the supreme attention getter makes sense.
If someone wants to mess with my country fine - we will never convince everyone that it's not the smart thing to do. But, they have to believe we will **ck their **it up in short order and not blink an eye if they try it. 9/11 happened because those people thought they could get away with it and our government would not retaliate in a manner unacceptable to them. They were correct.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Molleur,
Earlier you said thay you were only "pulling my chain" about using nuclear weapons against inocent people. Now you agree with "the tatical placement of the suprieme attenchion getter".
You understand this is a euphemism for killing people with nuclear weapons. You are OK with this.
If we could use any weapon that would kill the terrorists involved I would be all for it.
But in this instance all we would do is inrage a large group of countries, who have shown the ability to seek revenge.
Several of the countries have or have access to their own nuclear weapons.
I'm sure they have just as many hate filled right wing radicals as we do, are you going to be just a flipant about using "attention getters" when one of our citys lays in ruin.
Earlier you said thay you were only "pulling my chain" about using nuclear weapons against inocent people. Now you agree with "the tatical placement of the suprieme attenchion getter".
You understand this is a euphemism for killing people with nuclear weapons. You are OK with this.
If we could use any weapon that would kill the terrorists involved I would be all for it.
But in this instance all we would do is inrage a large group of countries, who have shown the ability to seek revenge.
Several of the countries have or have access to their own nuclear weapons.
I'm sure they have just as many hate filled right wing radicals as we do, are you going to be just a flipant about using "attention getters" when one of our citys lays in ruin.
Uh, Jim do you remember 911? Have you ACTUALLY seen women and children slaughtered? Have you stood next to a brother in arms that was disentigrated by explosives?
If not, shut the fuck up! Now do you get where I'm coming from?
It makes unthinking people want to go and blow innocent people up is what it does.
"Collateral damage" creates enemies and you are a great example of that - by the sound of it a terrible enemy at that.
Those survivors of the countries you would destroy, who would see their innocent loved ones disintegrated, are no different to the people you speak of as reasons for you to behave in such a violently out of control way.
Go get the guilty, just don't kill everyone else while you do it Warrior.
You sir are a real gentleman...
Jim, you are not the only one who sees this for what it is. The innocent don't deserve to pay for the crimes of the guilty in any situation.
I think this is the point at which things go in circles. I guess the original post did what was intended yet again. A pity. Hate really does create more hate. Whether it's a hate crime or whether it's just hate propaganda.
Tim.
"Collateral damage" creates enemies and you are a great example of that - by the sound of it a terrible enemy at that.
Those survivors of the countries you would destroy, who would see their innocent loved ones disintegrated, are no different to the people you speak of as reasons for you to behave in such a violently out of control way.
Go get the guilty, just don't kill everyone else while you do it Warrior.
You sir are a real gentleman...
Jim, you are not the only one who sees this for what it is. The innocent don't deserve to pay for the crimes of the guilty in any situation.
I think this is the point at which things go in circles. I guess the original post did what was intended yet again. A pity. Hate really does create more hate. Whether it's a hate crime or whether it's just hate propaganda.
Tim.
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Thanks Tim,
As I have said many times before, tracking down the people responsable should be our number one job. Killing inocent people because you are angery or want revenge or want to make a point is a fools game!
Tim, we can thank God that for a number of good reasons, people like this rarely get in a position of power. Keep up the good fight, good night my friend.
ps: I find it very strange, I'm arguing against the outright murder of thousands of inocent people and I'm the bad guy? What a strange world you all live in!
As I have said many times before, tracking down the people responsable should be our number one job. Killing inocent people because you are angery or want revenge or want to make a point is a fools game!
Tim, we can thank God that for a number of good reasons, people like this rarely get in a position of power. Keep up the good fight, good night my friend.
ps: I find it very strange, I'm arguing against the outright murder of thousands of inocent people and I'm the bad guy? What a strange world you all live in!
Last edited:
While the bombs killed about 120,000 on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an invasion of Japan would have caused millions of deaths on both sides. Iwo Jima alone caused 30,000 American deaths. The surrender was almost immediate. I am not advocating the use of nuclear weapons, but it sure as hell gets one's attention. 9/11 sure as hell got our attention. With the loss of my friends on 9/11 I don't hate the perpetrators, but I wouldn't cross the street to piss on them if they were on fire.
Why the US used the bomb
Here are explanations:
To put an immediate end to the war
The USA was facing the prospect of invading Japan to subdue it. The last few battles, Iwo Jima and Okinawa particularly, were incomprehensibly bloody. Japan had no regard for its own citizens' lives and planned to turn their whole island into a fortress. It was estimated that casualties would be 1 million Americans and half a million British in the first invasion alone. Some cynics say we used it to scare Stalin as well, but the fact remains that they ignored an ultimatum on 27 July 1945 after enduring the worst conventional bombs could do. A powerful argument remains that the Bomb saved allied and Japanese lives.
The Allies demanded unconditional surrender of the Axis. In the Pacific Theatre, the Allies, led by the United States, rolled up the Japanese expansion island by island. When Guam was taken, the Allies had a base from which stage an invasion. The estimates of American casualties for an invasion of mainland Japan was in excess of 1 million Americans. Possibly in excess of 2 million Americans. The United States dropped two atomic bombs to save American lives and speed the end of the war. Prior to using the atomic bomb, Japan was given ultimatums to surrender along with warnings of the dire consequences. The Japanese government ignored the warnings. While the use of the atomic bomb was a technological and strategic turning point in both WWII and all future diplomatic and strategic activities, there were more people killed, maimed, and injured during the Tokyo firebombing campaigns than by the atomic bomb.
To force Japan to surrender without further fighting. Japan surrendered very quickly thus saving the lives of over 100,000 American soldiers and perhaps as many as 1,000,000 Japanese who would have died if we had invaded Japan.
The Allies utilized atomic weapons to bring Japan to her knees. As an American, how hard would you fight an enemy if they were invading our nation? I mean literally on the soil of our 50 states? Then imagine how hard EVERY Japanese citizen, man, woman AND child, would be trying to kill OUR men, as we invade their nation.
Tensions were starting to build up in Europe between Soviet Union and its western allies. Since USSR had an overwhelming numerical superiority there, a show of force was needed to convince Stalin to "behave". Besides, the Russians were preparing for an invasion of Japan. I think these considerations were at least as valid back then as saving American lives.
According to some sources, Japan had a military force of over 9 million soldiers. Through battles like Midway, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Guadacanal, and other "island-hopping" battles, 1.5 million soldiers either were killed or wounded enough so they couldn't fight. That meant that if Operation Olympic (the invasion of the main island of Japan) were to occur we would have to fight every soldier we had defeated before four times over! Even if we hadn't of dropped the atomic bomb, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would still have been targets for attack. This is because Hiroshima was a large industrial city that contained the 2nd Japanese Army Headquarters, which was in charge of all the defense systems in Southern Japan; Hiroshima also had communication centers for armies, storage points, and troop assemblies. Small industial plants were also in the outskirts of the city. As for Nagasaki, it was the largest fully operational sea port in Southern Japan, which produced ships, equipment, and relief supplies. There is much other information that can be explained about the reality of dropping the bomb on Japan and this was one 'chunk' of information.
I agree with the guys who were talking about conserving American army resources and manpower. At Iwo Jima there were nearly 30,000 marines KIA. The Japanese lost nearly all of their army there. Imagine that in a place with cities, etc and bigger armies in a homeland .Even if you guys won, the Japanese would never forgive you. More deaths would have been caused than the bombs, and in more cities. The fact that a lot of Japanese fought to the death because they were never given a chance to surrender, and the fact that after Pearl harbour 13% of Americans said in a poll (13% of voting Americans, that is) that the only acceptable outcome of the war to them was the death of every Japenese man woman and child. Then there are slognas like, "kill japs, kill japs and kill more japs) and somebody said how the main language in Hell by the end would be Japanese. The Yanks were furious for Pearl Harbour and revenge is the most dangerous reason for fighting for both sides. The Japeneswe are brave people who see honour in death if the death is good (not in all death, though. Any fool can die in battle. True courage is living when it is right to live and dying when it is right to die). So, IMO, the A-bomb was used to reduce the expected casualty rate and loss of resources (tanks, weapons, etc all cost the taxpayers and governemnt a lot of money
) and I'm guessing it probably did for both sides.
World War two ended on August 10, 1945 only four after the �Little Boy� uranium bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and one day after the �Fat Man� plutonium bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Combined, approximately 128,000 died just due to the massive concussion and explosions caused by the bombs, and about 120,000 suffered from radiation sickness and cancer, many of whom died afterwards. The question is, was it really necessary to drop two atomic bombs on Japan to get them to surrender? My answer is yes, because of several factors. One is the culture of the Japanese at the time. For centuries the Japanese had a warrior class called the samurai. The samurai followed Bushido, or the way of the warrior, which was an honor code that preaches that honor, duty, and loyalty to the emperor and local warlord are the absolute virtues that can be achieved. As a result, a loss of honor would mean that the dishonored samurai would be expected to commit Seppuku, or ritualistic suicide, which involves a samurai taking his sword, stabbing himself with it, and cutting out his own liver. The wound was very painful and could take quite a while to die from, anywhere from a few minutes to a week. The most common way in which a samurai could be dishonored would be by being defeated in battle. However, fighting to the last man and arrow (or in this case, round of ammo) and holding ones position till the death was considered a great honor. Does this sound like a nation that is willing to give up? By the last years of the war, everyone, men and women, over the age of thirteen was a part of a sort of National Guard, and were under the same rules as the rest of the military, which was in turn fighting under a modified code of Bushido which dictated that they never surrender and leave behind the wounded. Another aspect of Japan's culture was that of a group mentality. About ninety-nine percent of the Japanese people were, at the time of World War Two, direct decedents from the original nomadic Mongolian tribes that crossed over into Japan from the Korean Peninsula. They inhabited a land of which only twenty percent was flat enough to farm. Entire towns had to work together to maintain tiny rice paddies carved into hillsides that were irrigated by a community network. Disagreement among the common people against their ruler or with each other was unthinkable and impractical. On the whole, as long as the military oligarchy wanted the war to continue, the majority of the people would be willing to follow through. The Nuclear Bombs being dropped finally got the military oligarchy to be willing to give up the fighting, and that is what brought them to the peace table, under the condition that the emperor remain in power. Even after the bombs were dropped, the Emperor�s speech never mentioned surrender; just that it was in the best interest of Japan to cease fighting. Had America invaded, the Japanese would have kept on fighting unless given the order to stop. Not only would many American lives have been lost cleaning out all of the fighting forces, everyone in Japan over thirteen was a part of that fighting force. The Japanese people would have been decimated to a point of no return.
Even after having two nuclear weapons dropped on them, many of the Japanese military were unwilling to surrender, regardless of the Emperors wishes. In fact the night the Emperor was preparing to surrender a military coup was staged. It was only the barest of coincidences that prevented this coup from stopping the surrender. Specifically the American military had started giving up that Japan would surrender at all and decided to bomb the last stores of heating oil in the country (with winter approaching). The flight flew over Tokyo and the city was blacked out, which stymied the coup. Even after the surrender, many Japanese military leaders chose to kill themselves rather than surrender. As the war ended the Japanese were preparing a massive propaganda campaign to rally civilians to resist the expected invasion. It's uplifting theme "one hundred million will die in defense of Emperor and Nation." A little cultural note: Ten thousand is the largest number that can be represented by a single character. It is commonly used to represent an indefinely large number. One hundred million is ten thousand sqared, in other words, all will die. To the last man, woman, and child. Would it have succeeded? Not totally. Japan would not have ceased to exist, not everyone would have had the stomach to sacrifice themselves. But many, many would have. Many did in Okinawa. On top of that, the Japanese military showed it's willingness to make sure civilians had their honor preserved (by killing them) both in Saipan and Okinawa. It is not the least bit unlikely that they would have done the same--more likely more!--on the Japanese home islands. On top of that the naval embargo and the devastation of the Japanese infrastructure would have condemned millions to death by starvation and exposure during the winter.
President Harry S. Truman dropped the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima for one reason: not to end the war with Japan, but to intimidate Stalin, keep him out of the Pacific war, deny him a share of the peace that we were going to impose on Japan. History shows there was probably not one single general officer in that war who approved of it, and they all went public very quickly to denounce their Commander-in-Chief.
When debating the topic of why the US dropped the atomic bombs on Japan, one must first consider the prelude to the decision. Estimates of U.S. casualties to invade the Japanese home islands were expected to be high; this estimate was based on the stiff Japanese resistance encountered on Okinawa. Naturally the primary motivation to drop the weapons was to end the war as quickly as possible. Some evidence suggests that the Japanese were seeking to end the war and other evidence suggests that a significant faction in Japan sought to continue the war. While tensions with the Soviet Union would mount in the coming years, the general euphoria of defeating Germany still had not worn off and the Soviet Union still hadn't invaded Manchuria, so clearly the decision to drop the bomb wasn't primarily motivated by a desire to intimidate the Soviets or to prevent the Soviets from seizing ground in China/Korea. In the end, the only way to judge Truman's decision is to look at the information Truman was presented with. There is no clear evidence to show that Truman knew or had any reason to believe the Japanese were going to surrender, he had witnessed a bloody defense of the home islands and was shown high casualty estimates to invade the Japanese home islands. However, the second atomic weapon was dropped a short time after Hiroshima, after the Soviets had invaded Manchura, at a point in time when Japan was in general turmoil, its premier field army (the Kwantung Army was in full retreat) and at a time when Japan's fascist regime was in its death throes. The decision to drop the second bomb MAY have been premature. However, all things considered, please remember that WWII was a brutal war, it was a long war, it was a war in which armies of all sides freely bombed civilian populations. Without condoning the killing of civilians, please remember that the cities bombed were NOT Tokyo or Osaka; the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki shows at least SOME deference for human life within the larger context of the brutality of WWII.
The answer is not that simple but as Americans we can say that it was because they bombed Pearl Harbor, or that we were doing a favor to everyone because an invasion on the mainland would have costed many people their lives, but that is more reasoning than answers. If we look at all the facts we could see that America was bombing the Japanese cities with the same types of bombs that the American and British airforces used against the Germans. Also we see that the Japanese were losing the war greater than thought, there was an American blockade around the island stopping all food and oil from coming into the country, and as we all know humans can not live without food and the Japanese tanks, aircrafts and ships need oil to run so that would have help reduce the resistance from the Japanese. Now I am not saying that I am upset with dropping the bomb because part of me is and part of me isnt. America was winning the war without a doubt I think we did it because of a few reasons, 1) 2 billion dollars were put into the project and Truman was under pressure from the Senate about if that investment was a good idea, 2) I do believe a large part of it was to get back at the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor. 3) Everyone but McArther, leader of the Pacific forces, felt that to many Americans would have died, a matter of fact McArther said that under 200,000 would die and the two bombs kill over that amount when dropped so decied for yourself about that. 4) USSR had probally a bigger influence on the desion that hoped because US was afraid that if USSR took China and some of Japan communism would spread. I am glad that the US did not invade Japan because no matter what the number is I do not want Americans to die, but Japan was losing badly and if we just waited longer Japan would have surrender as long as they could continue to keep thier Emporer, which the peace treaty said. I just feel that the US acted to quickly in the desion to drop the Atomic Bombs.
Because Japan would not put an end to the war. They had convinced every citizen to fight to the death using sticks, pitchforks and even rocks to keep away an invading force. Japan had attempted to take over the pacific, killing anyone who got in their way, bombed U.S. interests in Hawaii and boasted of their racial purity that could surely defeat the mongrels of the United States. They refused to surrender because they still believed that they could force better terms of surrender if they held out longer. They believed that they could kill over a million U.S. troops if we attempted to invade the Japanese mainland. Estimates varied greatly depending on who ran the numbers. There was no question that Japan could not be allowed to maintain their military so that they could rebuild just to go after the Pacific again. The Allies had just seen a similar mistake that resulted in the German invasion of Europe and the Allies vowed to not let that happen again. Unconditional surrender was demanded and Japan would not surrender, even after their cities burned and hundreds of thousands died from conventional bombing. Nuclear devices had just been created that were capable of causing unimaginable damage to life and property. Immagine what would have happened back home if the citizens found out that we had a device that could have stopped the war and the President didn't use it and instead almost a million troops were killed in an invasion attempt. Immagine if one of the dead had been YOUR relative, would you be very tolerant that the President didn't use the new weapon? It was an impossible decision. There was no right answer, just the least of two wrong answers.
So they wouldn't have to invade mainland Japan-The US dropped the Atom Bomb on Hiroshima after the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor during WWII. It was the first Atom Bomb to ever be used, and was not the last. The second Atom Bomb was dropped on Nagasaki which was the final straw in ending WWII this day is called V-J Day(Victory over Japan Day). Hope that helps you out.
It was dropped to send a message to the forces that opposed or would oppose the west that the allies had atomic capability. It certainly convinced the Japanese to surrender, though there is some controversy as to the necessity for the dropping of the second bomb
Why the US used the bomb
Here are explanations:
To put an immediate end to the war
The USA was facing the prospect of invading Japan to subdue it. The last few battles, Iwo Jima and Okinawa particularly, were incomprehensibly bloody. Japan had no regard for its own citizens' lives and planned to turn their whole island into a fortress. It was estimated that casualties would be 1 million Americans and half a million British in the first invasion alone. Some cynics say we used it to scare Stalin as well, but the fact remains that they ignored an ultimatum on 27 July 1945 after enduring the worst conventional bombs could do. A powerful argument remains that the Bomb saved allied and Japanese lives.
The Allies demanded unconditional surrender of the Axis. In the Pacific Theatre, the Allies, led by the United States, rolled up the Japanese expansion island by island. When Guam was taken, the Allies had a base from which stage an invasion. The estimates of American casualties for an invasion of mainland Japan was in excess of 1 million Americans. Possibly in excess of 2 million Americans. The United States dropped two atomic bombs to save American lives and speed the end of the war. Prior to using the atomic bomb, Japan was given ultimatums to surrender along with warnings of the dire consequences. The Japanese government ignored the warnings. While the use of the atomic bomb was a technological and strategic turning point in both WWII and all future diplomatic and strategic activities, there were more people killed, maimed, and injured during the Tokyo firebombing campaigns than by the atomic bomb.
To force Japan to surrender without further fighting. Japan surrendered very quickly thus saving the lives of over 100,000 American soldiers and perhaps as many as 1,000,000 Japanese who would have died if we had invaded Japan.
The Allies utilized atomic weapons to bring Japan to her knees. As an American, how hard would you fight an enemy if they were invading our nation? I mean literally on the soil of our 50 states? Then imagine how hard EVERY Japanese citizen, man, woman AND child, would be trying to kill OUR men, as we invade their nation.
Tensions were starting to build up in Europe between Soviet Union and its western allies. Since USSR had an overwhelming numerical superiority there, a show of force was needed to convince Stalin to "behave". Besides, the Russians were preparing for an invasion of Japan. I think these considerations were at least as valid back then as saving American lives.
According to some sources, Japan had a military force of over 9 million soldiers. Through battles like Midway, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Guadacanal, and other "island-hopping" battles, 1.5 million soldiers either were killed or wounded enough so they couldn't fight. That meant that if Operation Olympic (the invasion of the main island of Japan) were to occur we would have to fight every soldier we had defeated before four times over! Even if we hadn't of dropped the atomic bomb, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would still have been targets for attack. This is because Hiroshima was a large industrial city that contained the 2nd Japanese Army Headquarters, which was in charge of all the defense systems in Southern Japan; Hiroshima also had communication centers for armies, storage points, and troop assemblies. Small industial plants were also in the outskirts of the city. As for Nagasaki, it was the largest fully operational sea port in Southern Japan, which produced ships, equipment, and relief supplies. There is much other information that can be explained about the reality of dropping the bomb on Japan and this was one 'chunk' of information.
I agree with the guys who were talking about conserving American army resources and manpower. At Iwo Jima there were nearly 30,000 marines KIA. The Japanese lost nearly all of their army there. Imagine that in a place with cities, etc and bigger armies in a homeland .Even if you guys won, the Japanese would never forgive you. More deaths would have been caused than the bombs, and in more cities. The fact that a lot of Japanese fought to the death because they were never given a chance to surrender, and the fact that after Pearl harbour 13% of Americans said in a poll (13% of voting Americans, that is) that the only acceptable outcome of the war to them was the death of every Japenese man woman and child. Then there are slognas like, "kill japs, kill japs and kill more japs) and somebody said how the main language in Hell by the end would be Japanese. The Yanks were furious for Pearl Harbour and revenge is the most dangerous reason for fighting for both sides. The Japeneswe are brave people who see honour in death if the death is good (not in all death, though. Any fool can die in battle. True courage is living when it is right to live and dying when it is right to die). So, IMO, the A-bomb was used to reduce the expected casualty rate and loss of resources (tanks, weapons, etc all cost the taxpayers and governemnt a lot of money
) and I'm guessing it probably did for both sides.World War two ended on August 10, 1945 only four after the �Little Boy� uranium bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and one day after the �Fat Man� plutonium bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Combined, approximately 128,000 died just due to the massive concussion and explosions caused by the bombs, and about 120,000 suffered from radiation sickness and cancer, many of whom died afterwards. The question is, was it really necessary to drop two atomic bombs on Japan to get them to surrender? My answer is yes, because of several factors. One is the culture of the Japanese at the time. For centuries the Japanese had a warrior class called the samurai. The samurai followed Bushido, or the way of the warrior, which was an honor code that preaches that honor, duty, and loyalty to the emperor and local warlord are the absolute virtues that can be achieved. As a result, a loss of honor would mean that the dishonored samurai would be expected to commit Seppuku, or ritualistic suicide, which involves a samurai taking his sword, stabbing himself with it, and cutting out his own liver. The wound was very painful and could take quite a while to die from, anywhere from a few minutes to a week. The most common way in which a samurai could be dishonored would be by being defeated in battle. However, fighting to the last man and arrow (or in this case, round of ammo) and holding ones position till the death was considered a great honor. Does this sound like a nation that is willing to give up? By the last years of the war, everyone, men and women, over the age of thirteen was a part of a sort of National Guard, and were under the same rules as the rest of the military, which was in turn fighting under a modified code of Bushido which dictated that they never surrender and leave behind the wounded. Another aspect of Japan's culture was that of a group mentality. About ninety-nine percent of the Japanese people were, at the time of World War Two, direct decedents from the original nomadic Mongolian tribes that crossed over into Japan from the Korean Peninsula. They inhabited a land of which only twenty percent was flat enough to farm. Entire towns had to work together to maintain tiny rice paddies carved into hillsides that were irrigated by a community network. Disagreement among the common people against their ruler or with each other was unthinkable and impractical. On the whole, as long as the military oligarchy wanted the war to continue, the majority of the people would be willing to follow through. The Nuclear Bombs being dropped finally got the military oligarchy to be willing to give up the fighting, and that is what brought them to the peace table, under the condition that the emperor remain in power. Even after the bombs were dropped, the Emperor�s speech never mentioned surrender; just that it was in the best interest of Japan to cease fighting. Had America invaded, the Japanese would have kept on fighting unless given the order to stop. Not only would many American lives have been lost cleaning out all of the fighting forces, everyone in Japan over thirteen was a part of that fighting force. The Japanese people would have been decimated to a point of no return.
Even after having two nuclear weapons dropped on them, many of the Japanese military were unwilling to surrender, regardless of the Emperors wishes. In fact the night the Emperor was preparing to surrender a military coup was staged. It was only the barest of coincidences that prevented this coup from stopping the surrender. Specifically the American military had started giving up that Japan would surrender at all and decided to bomb the last stores of heating oil in the country (with winter approaching). The flight flew over Tokyo and the city was blacked out, which stymied the coup. Even after the surrender, many Japanese military leaders chose to kill themselves rather than surrender. As the war ended the Japanese were preparing a massive propaganda campaign to rally civilians to resist the expected invasion. It's uplifting theme "one hundred million will die in defense of Emperor and Nation." A little cultural note: Ten thousand is the largest number that can be represented by a single character. It is commonly used to represent an indefinely large number. One hundred million is ten thousand sqared, in other words, all will die. To the last man, woman, and child. Would it have succeeded? Not totally. Japan would not have ceased to exist, not everyone would have had the stomach to sacrifice themselves. But many, many would have. Many did in Okinawa. On top of that, the Japanese military showed it's willingness to make sure civilians had their honor preserved (by killing them) both in Saipan and Okinawa. It is not the least bit unlikely that they would have done the same--more likely more!--on the Japanese home islands. On top of that the naval embargo and the devastation of the Japanese infrastructure would have condemned millions to death by starvation and exposure during the winter.
President Harry S. Truman dropped the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima for one reason: not to end the war with Japan, but to intimidate Stalin, keep him out of the Pacific war, deny him a share of the peace that we were going to impose on Japan. History shows there was probably not one single general officer in that war who approved of it, and they all went public very quickly to denounce their Commander-in-Chief.
When debating the topic of why the US dropped the atomic bombs on Japan, one must first consider the prelude to the decision. Estimates of U.S. casualties to invade the Japanese home islands were expected to be high; this estimate was based on the stiff Japanese resistance encountered on Okinawa. Naturally the primary motivation to drop the weapons was to end the war as quickly as possible. Some evidence suggests that the Japanese were seeking to end the war and other evidence suggests that a significant faction in Japan sought to continue the war. While tensions with the Soviet Union would mount in the coming years, the general euphoria of defeating Germany still had not worn off and the Soviet Union still hadn't invaded Manchuria, so clearly the decision to drop the bomb wasn't primarily motivated by a desire to intimidate the Soviets or to prevent the Soviets from seizing ground in China/Korea. In the end, the only way to judge Truman's decision is to look at the information Truman was presented with. There is no clear evidence to show that Truman knew or had any reason to believe the Japanese were going to surrender, he had witnessed a bloody defense of the home islands and was shown high casualty estimates to invade the Japanese home islands. However, the second atomic weapon was dropped a short time after Hiroshima, after the Soviets had invaded Manchura, at a point in time when Japan was in general turmoil, its premier field army (the Kwantung Army was in full retreat) and at a time when Japan's fascist regime was in its death throes. The decision to drop the second bomb MAY have been premature. However, all things considered, please remember that WWII was a brutal war, it was a long war, it was a war in which armies of all sides freely bombed civilian populations. Without condoning the killing of civilians, please remember that the cities bombed were NOT Tokyo or Osaka; the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki shows at least SOME deference for human life within the larger context of the brutality of WWII.
The answer is not that simple but as Americans we can say that it was because they bombed Pearl Harbor, or that we were doing a favor to everyone because an invasion on the mainland would have costed many people their lives, but that is more reasoning than answers. If we look at all the facts we could see that America was bombing the Japanese cities with the same types of bombs that the American and British airforces used against the Germans. Also we see that the Japanese were losing the war greater than thought, there was an American blockade around the island stopping all food and oil from coming into the country, and as we all know humans can not live without food and the Japanese tanks, aircrafts and ships need oil to run so that would have help reduce the resistance from the Japanese. Now I am not saying that I am upset with dropping the bomb because part of me is and part of me isnt. America was winning the war without a doubt I think we did it because of a few reasons, 1) 2 billion dollars were put into the project and Truman was under pressure from the Senate about if that investment was a good idea, 2) I do believe a large part of it was to get back at the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor. 3) Everyone but McArther, leader of the Pacific forces, felt that to many Americans would have died, a matter of fact McArther said that under 200,000 would die and the two bombs kill over that amount when dropped so decied for yourself about that. 4) USSR had probally a bigger influence on the desion that hoped because US was afraid that if USSR took China and some of Japan communism would spread. I am glad that the US did not invade Japan because no matter what the number is I do not want Americans to die, but Japan was losing badly and if we just waited longer Japan would have surrender as long as they could continue to keep thier Emporer, which the peace treaty said. I just feel that the US acted to quickly in the desion to drop the Atomic Bombs.
Because Japan would not put an end to the war. They had convinced every citizen to fight to the death using sticks, pitchforks and even rocks to keep away an invading force. Japan had attempted to take over the pacific, killing anyone who got in their way, bombed U.S. interests in Hawaii and boasted of their racial purity that could surely defeat the mongrels of the United States. They refused to surrender because they still believed that they could force better terms of surrender if they held out longer. They believed that they could kill over a million U.S. troops if we attempted to invade the Japanese mainland. Estimates varied greatly depending on who ran the numbers. There was no question that Japan could not be allowed to maintain their military so that they could rebuild just to go after the Pacific again. The Allies had just seen a similar mistake that resulted in the German invasion of Europe and the Allies vowed to not let that happen again. Unconditional surrender was demanded and Japan would not surrender, even after their cities burned and hundreds of thousands died from conventional bombing. Nuclear devices had just been created that were capable of causing unimaginable damage to life and property. Immagine what would have happened back home if the citizens found out that we had a device that could have stopped the war and the President didn't use it and instead almost a million troops were killed in an invasion attempt. Immagine if one of the dead had been YOUR relative, would you be very tolerant that the President didn't use the new weapon? It was an impossible decision. There was no right answer, just the least of two wrong answers.
So they wouldn't have to invade mainland Japan-The US dropped the Atom Bomb on Hiroshima after the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor during WWII. It was the first Atom Bomb to ever be used, and was not the last. The second Atom Bomb was dropped on Nagasaki which was the final straw in ending WWII this day is called V-J Day(Victory over Japan Day). Hope that helps you out.
It was dropped to send a message to the forces that opposed or would oppose the west that the allies had atomic capability. It certainly convinced the Japanese to surrender, though there is some controversy as to the necessity for the dropping of the second bomb
I believe in using nuclear weapons as a defensive reponse, that is, if any one or several of our homelands was attacked, in kind, by a militant nation. But a terrorist group is not a nation. Could you justify dropping a nuke on Minneapolis, London or Adelaide if a terrorist cell was found to be operating there? Of course not, then how could you justify any other location for that reason. After 9-11 I would not have minded seeing the whole Middle East evaporate but as was so clearly mentioned, we weren't thinking too rationally at that point. I think we need better intelligence in those areas that pose the greatest threat and we need to quit ham-stringing the CIA by telegraphing their latest moves to everyone out there. Radical forces will take every advantage and will push as far as they can before they get their toes stepped on. I don't have any good solutions but we need to end political correctness before it ends us as a culture. Maybe we could drop powerful stereos with no 'off' switch playing non-stop CD's from JZ or Fitty Cent on them!:wideeyed: Or, closer to the truth, broadcast to their TV and radio media by jamming their stuff on a constant basis. The first aim of any assault is to immobilize defenses and disrupting communications is part of that. Some sort of offense that doesn't eliminate entire populations is needed and needed now, not later. It will be interesting to see what happens if North Korea pulls the trigger in the near future, not for N Korea (a total loss ) but for the alignment of allies and the type of response.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
It is very difficult not to have collateral damage when you are fighting an enemy that has no compunction in blowing up it's own citizens,does not fight by any R.O.E. And looks and dresses like the civilians. Our blokes are tasked with fighting with one hand tied behind their backs because of our rules of engagement. Hence the large number of casualties that sadly continue to grow. This is Vietnam in a desert rather than a jungle. IMHO we should get out and leave them to their tribal warfare.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Thanks for your service Al. Vietnam?
Did anyone see the films of the people cheering and celebrating in arab countries after hearing of 9/11? What did you feel?
Here's where it gets easier for me. Agreed, WWII cut and dried, Nations vs. Nations, fairly easy to sort out the bad guys - nevertheless there was (expected/accepted) collateral damage (civilians). Agreed, Afghanistan, Irag, Iran, Libya, et cetera a little tougher to pin down the bad guys ("nations" if you will). However, Lockerbie, 9/11, Beiruit, didn't come about by two guys sitting in a cave or around a campfire dreaming shit up; they had support. Without support these guys got no game. Times are different, times have changed, the world is a different place. Our response adaptation requires pin-point focus, not just invasion of a particular country when it seems politically advantageous.
We used to have a saying in SE Asia - "Don't Start a War If You Can't Take a Joke". It was on T-shirts with a big mushroom cloud underneath. My point is, as before, the idiots of the world need to be put on notice.
Make all the arguments; collateral damage is expected and is an acceptable fact of conflict. I agree minimizing collateral damage is a noble goal.
We used to have a saying in SE Asia - "Don't Start a War If You Can't Take a Joke". It was on T-shirts with a big mushroom cloud underneath. My point is, as before, the idiots of the world need to be put on notice.
Make all the arguments; collateral damage is expected and is an acceptable fact of conflict. I agree minimizing collateral damage is a noble goal.
Make all the arguments; collateral damage is expected and is an acceptable fact of conflict. I agree minimizing collateral damage is a noble goal.[/QUOTE]
I totally agree with your statement here. I would detest any war or action that would cause severe collateral damage, although some must be expected.
I would also, however, favor tactical nuclear strikes as a means to an end. The strongest terms must be used as a deterrent to other entities which have the capability to retaliate. Unfortunately, it has been proven over time that one must become a "bad guy" to fight terrorism. The nature of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq preclude much of these counter-terror methods and therefore have drawn us into a more conventional "humanatarian" policy. This will only protract the conflict until we as a people have had enough (already). The military is in place to enforce diplomatic and political decisions. That's why it is run by civilians. Our current policies are simply incorrect. I DO SUPPORT the troops, not the ideation of the policies.
When ROE cripple a nations soldiers who, because of "political correctness" may face criminal charges for performing thier job, there is something seriously wrong! Been there, done that! The current government in Kabul is a prime example of not giving two shits about conflict resolution. Follow the money!
So, I will support a limited use of tactical nukes, a strong deterrent capability, and OUR TROOPS! As long as we could stand politically strong with the threat of non-hesitation, this could be accomplished. Never happen in my lifetime though. Hold on to your socks because we will be in for the long haul at the great expense of lives and finances.
I totally agree with your statement here. I would detest any war or action that would cause severe collateral damage, although some must be expected.
I would also, however, favor tactical nuclear strikes as a means to an end. The strongest terms must be used as a deterrent to other entities which have the capability to retaliate. Unfortunately, it has been proven over time that one must become a "bad guy" to fight terrorism. The nature of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq preclude much of these counter-terror methods and therefore have drawn us into a more conventional "humanatarian" policy. This will only protract the conflict until we as a people have had enough (already). The military is in place to enforce diplomatic and political decisions. That's why it is run by civilians. Our current policies are simply incorrect. I DO SUPPORT the troops, not the ideation of the policies.
When ROE cripple a nations soldiers who, because of "political correctness" may face criminal charges for performing thier job, there is something seriously wrong! Been there, done that! The current government in Kabul is a prime example of not giving two shits about conflict resolution. Follow the money!
So, I will support a limited use of tactical nukes, a strong deterrent capability, and OUR TROOPS! As long as we could stand politically strong with the threat of non-hesitation, this could be accomplished. Never happen in my lifetime though. Hold on to your socks because we will be in for the long haul at the great expense of lives and finances.
Similar threads
