drop the bomb

[Shdo]

should've america drop the A-bomb's at the end of WW2? was it right to use atomic weapons on civilians?


keep in mind that the norm at WW2 was to bomb civilians by both sides and that if it wasnt for the bomb there would be a land invasion and that would likely have caused even more casualties. consider the idea of endless wave of banzai troops and civilians charging at the american soldiers ( i heard the estimates said millions would die).

[kiera2]

I don't think 'right' is a word you can ever use for something like this. I don't think anyone is ever really 'right' in a war. And the decision about whether to use the bomb certainly isn't one I would ever want to have to make.

On the one hand, the results were inhumanly horrible, and to use it on civilians was even more shocking. On the other, with Hirohito calling for "100 million honourable deaths" if the Americans invaded (100 million being the approximate population of Japan at the time), one could speculate that there would have been far, far more casualties if the war had proceeded that way. Just look at what a few thousand well-led Japanese troops accomplished by fighting to the death on Iwo Jima.

[mechaqua]

Aside from the American death toll there was the fear that the soviets who were sweeping up the Japanese forces in china at a fast rate would have begun an invasion of Japan the Americans feared that once the Soviets invaded and if the defeated Japan Japan would have been under the influence of the USSR and Japan would be much more different or there could have been a conflict or even a war with the USSR over the fate of Japan, there also could have been a partition of Japan if the USSR had occupied Japan along with The US (more possible then war with the USSR) so this scenario played into the US decision to drop the bomb but when looking it at it today the US bombing campaign had already devastated Japan the US could have effectively blockaded The Japanese home Islands, but the USSR potentially invading Japan first played into this solution, so in conclusion the US could have avoided the massive loss of life of US troops and Japanese citizenry with a long term blockade had they had not been concerned with the USSR but as a short term solution the Atom Bomb was a lot more effective at ending the war (the other option was shelling the coast and constant fire bombing of all Japanese urban zones which would have killed more then the atom bomb (in fact the bombing campaign that the US had launched against the home islands had killed more then the two bombs combined)

[kiera2]

Dear god. I think that's the longest run-on sentence I've ever seen in my entire life. Feel like punctuating it a little maybe? :P

[mechaqua]

ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
nope i don't feel like punctuating this has nothing to with the topic so back onto the topic
so to reiterate my point is
US could have avoided the massive loss of life of US troops and Japanese citizenry with a long term blockade had they had not been concerned with the USSR but as a short term solution the Atom Bomb was a lot more effective at ending the war (the other option was shelling the coast and constant fire bombing of all Japanese urban zones which would have killed more then the atom bomb (in fact the bombing campaign that the US had launched against the home islands had killed more then the two bombs combined)

[Awakenedgirl86]

No, They should have killed the leader of the Japanese Forces.

[Rain]

Kiera- ever read Ulysses. The last couple of pages is one sentence (well over 4000 words);)

Should it have been done, probably not. But then again, its hard for any of us to completely understand the mentality behind it, simply for our age. We can do years of research studying all there is about it, but the only way to truely understand what was going on was to live through it

I wouldn't be the right move in todays world at all, but I dont think i was necesarily the wrong move

[kiera2]

I wouldn't be the right move in todays world at all...
But then, without the use of nuclear weapons in the past, would we even have the same anti-nuclear mentality we do today?

And seriously mechaqua, if you want people to actually be able to read your posts, you might think about using the occasional full stop. It looks like you have some interesting points to make, but they're incredibly hard to follow when they're buried in a wall of text like that.

[Rain]

kiera- yeah thats a good point

and its one reason that i tend to not think too heavily about the past and what if's like this thread

IMO (and with how i think in general) everything we as people, as a society, and as a planet do is based off past experiences, not completely, to a certain extent at least

We only understand just how horrible using those weapons can be because they were used once

mechaqua- yeah, im not trying to mock you (and neither is kiera) but its pretty difficult to follow those posts:oops

[CeriaHalcyon]

Considering what happened with Pearl harbour, America at the time was out for blood, but i believe that by using the weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it did reduce the overall casualties which would've erupted from a land based invasion.

What strikes me as a curious anomaly is would the united states have had enough ground forces to actually mount such an operation... Considering so much of their ground forces were in europe at the time. Japan would certainly know that America was amassing a ground invasion force and thus would fortify itself as best as possible, while contending with coastal bombardments.

I almost wonder if such a tactic would've resulted in another normandy caliber massacre?

[Shdo]

much greater then normandy because here you dont have occupied civilians who wants to throw the axis out like in france, here you have millions of people who will die for their emperor.

[mechaqua]

Considering what happened with Pearl harbour, America at the time was out for blood, but i believe that by using the weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it did reduce the overall casualties which would've erupted from a land based invasion.

What strikes me as a curious anomaly is would the united states have had enough ground forces to actually mount such an operation... Considering so much of their ground forces were in europe at the time. Japan would certainly know that America was amassing a ground invasion force and thus would fortify itself as best as possible, while contending with coastal bombardments.

I almost wonder if such a tactic would've resulted in another normandy caliber massacre?

Normandy wasn't fought in the in Germany it was fought in France. In France there was Resistance against the occupational nazi forces, who helped the allies behind the lines. Also There were British and Canadian Forces assisting the United States they didn't have that in Japan Brittan droped out as well as Canada (YES Canada does have an ARMY!! :yell) all the US had was The USSR and despite the USSR advance through China they were not ready at the time they were deciding to drop the atom bombs. Also McArthur would have never agreed to do a joint invasion with the Soviet Union, nor did the alot of the brass in the US Armed Forces.

[Inevitable.Exit]

Yes America should have used the Atomic Bomb in WWII. I'm not sure why anyone would disagree with this. ~220,000 Japanese died by the end of 1945. Compare this to the ridiculous amount of numbers you would have seen if an actual invasion of Japan would have been necessary and that alone is explanation enough. It's not like the Japanese civilians were normal people who would just allow Allied troops to roll through their cities. They were willing to lay down their lives for the Emperor (which Ironically they ended up doing anyway?). Major cities in Japan would have been carpet bombed/shelled/firebombed adding even more lives taken. Add in the horrible things that happen when places were occupied by outside forces (rape, murder, torture, looting etc. Face it, it happens regardless of "rules") and once again the use of Atomic Weapons seems correct.

Looking at it from an American (allied) point of view, would I rather use two bombs to take 200k+ enemies' lives, or would I rather lose who knows how many American/British/Russian lives PLUS the Japanese military and civilian lives?

[Shdo]

but what if the targets would be diffrent? maybe bombing hiroshima and then after the initial shock, telling the japanese to be prepeare for another bomb in empty area so they can send their own govrement delegates to see its power. something in those lines, showing them the power of the bomb without killing so many, and with the first bomb to show that they will use it on civilians.

[Inevitable.Exit]

but what if the targets would be diffrent? maybe bombing hiroshima and then after the initial shock, telling the japanese to be prepeare for another bomb in empty area so they can send their own govrement delegates to see its power. something in those lines, showing them the power of the bomb without killing so many, and with the first bomb to show that they will use it on civilians.It's easy to say now when cooler heads are prevailing. But I will agree that I still feel there was some American bitterness towards the Japanese for the events of Pearl Harbor etc. The power of the (weaker) bomb should have been evident after Hiroshima, and for the Japanese government to not consider that not only did we have more, but more powerful ones as well seems partly naive.

As much as it pains me to say, the war was pretty much won after Hiroshima, however I think Nagasaki was used as not only a statement of our "power" but as a living testing grounds as well.

[mechaqua]

Yes America should have used the Atomic Bomb in WWII. I'm not sure why anyone would disagree with this. ~220,000 Japanese died by the end of 1945. Compare this to the ridiculous amount of numbers you would have seen if an actual invasion of Japan would have been necessary and that alone is explanation enough. It's not like the Japanese civilians were normal people who would just allow Allied troops to roll through their cities. They were willing to lay down their lives for the Emperor (which Ironically they ended up doing anyway?). Major cities in Japan would have been carpet bombed/shelled/firebombed adding even more lives taken. Add in the horrible things that happen when places were occupied by outside forces (rape, murder, torture, looting etc. Face it, it happens regardless of "rules") and once again the use of Atomic Weapons seems correct.

Looking at it from an American (allied) point of view, would I rather use two bombs to take 200k+ enemies' lives, or would I rather lose who knows how many American/British/Russian lives PLUS the Japanese military and civilian lives?

I have to agree with you that the continued firebombing of Japan would have caused more loss of life over time then the two atom bombs but a blockade could have beaten the Japanese into submission i do have to state by the time the US was about to reach the home Islands Brittan had pretty much dropped out yes they did retake Hong Kong but in an invasion of the Home Islands the us would probably not have had support from British or Canadian forces

[Shdo]

blockade wouldnt work, as long as they would have food they wouldnt surrender. it was the horriable power of the atom bomb that made them reconsider and even that happend only after the second bomb (keep in mind that this weapon was unknown at the time, only increasing the fear from it)

[mechaqua]

A blockcade would have worked the Japanese have no natural source of petroleum on there islands (there is one in the seniku islands but non one knew that at the time) the needed petroleum to operate there war machine and industry japan was already short on food, Japan could never expect to out produce the US (at the time) the reason the US didn't do a blockade was it takes a long time, and the USSR was poised to invade Japan, and the US did not wish for Japan to become a communist nation

[Shdo]

who give a damn about the war machine? they just need to sit on their asses, eat rice and wait to the day the americans invade to go all banzai on them. a blockade wouldnt work, how long do you think america would agree to fight on when they already lost so many soldiers? america was tired enough to start a blockade that might have lasted for years (keep in mind that the fight for the world have began, who can waste time on blockade when korea war is approching?

[mechaqua]

okay the one of the reasons the Korean war occurred because of partition and north Korea invading south Korea Korea was a Japanese colony that was partitioned at the end world war II, I seriously doubt the Korean war would have happened if Japan was still at war with the allies. second of all Japan was not in peak shape they're infrastructure had been bombed to the ground the Japanese did not have an invincible will every human has breaking point, not only is a blockade meant to block resources but its meant to break the will of the people. the Americans had resources they were in a position to strangle japan the Americans were out producing the Japanese The imperial navy was gone and its air power was fleeting. they had no colonies to turn to the brits had retaken there colonies the soviets occupied china and Korea Japan would have needed a modern infastructure to be able to last agaisnt a blockade for very long

[Shdo]

they would have die before they would give up to siege, remember how many japanese preffered to die falling from a cliff then to surrander to american soldiers? a blockade wouldnt do anything.

as for korea, japan was already kicked from that part and really couldnt do anything there, the result would have been the same, south vs north only with diffrent borders.

[mechaqua]

it was one of the option presented to US command, and many scholars have agreed it would have been a viable option

[Shdo]

and many scholars said it wouldnt work.

[witnesstheday]

nagasaki was done to test a second type of bomb
there was no need to kill all them people
that's for sure
hiroshima was obviously heinous too, but most americans will deny that for at least a few more decades

[Shdo]

i dont think that hiroshima was a heinous crime, it was far better then the alternative of invasion(american or soviet) or starving the entire nation. sure its easy to judge this today but i dont thing we can truly do that without being there.

the second bomb was unnecesery.

[cornflakes]

but what if the targets would be diffrent? maybe bombing hiroshima and then after the initial shock, telling the japanese to be prepeare for another bomb in empty area so they can send their own govrement delegates to see its power. something in those lines, showing them the power of the bomb without killing so many, and with the first bomb to show that they will use it on civilians.
Though remember that the second bomb was the last atomic bomb they had-- hindsight is 20/20, but they needed to maximise the psychological impact. They couldn't take the risk of the Japanese calling their bluff, which would've exposed the bluff and pissed away any psychological advantage gained from Hiroshima.

Which would mean the citizens of Hiroshima died for nothing..... which would have been truly tragic.

Japan would have needed a modern infastructure to be able to last agaisnt a blockade for very long
Not true..... I disagree with you here. Japan would've needed a modern infrastructure to sustain an expansionist policy, but turtling in in your fortified home land isn't exactly the most resource-intensive strategy.

[Shdo]

true and true.

its so easy to dig in and survive for long time, just look at today conflicts. as long as the people are willing and the emperor is willing then japan wouldnt fall.

when the emperor surrendered the people were still ready to hold on as long as possiable and then some more.

[HELLA PINOY]

I saw a documentary on this on the History channel and they said that before they dropped the bombs the US prepared something like 1 million body bags for the soon to be dead Marines that would have invaded Japan. The death toll would have been catastrophic and Japan would never recover from the war. Normandy would be a cake walk compared to a Japanese land invasion. It would be Iwo Jima times 100.

So yeah I think it was the "better" choice to use atomic weapons...even though they were on Civilians, but it was WWII and it was ok (for some reason) to kill Civialians.

[emoloz]

On Hilters head anywhere else no.

[gab00n]

There was no need to drop the bombs whatsoever, they were dropped simply as a test and as a warning to the Russians, there are other reasons too. The Japanese were negotiating surrender well before the bombs were dropped. They wanted assurance that they could keep their emperor and some other details but the US wouldn't give them a straight answer as they had other plans.

[Shdo]

before the green light was given to the operation, the japanese were asked again to surrender, the demends were even lightened to increase the chance they will agree.

the japanese decided that it means that the americans cant continue the war for long so they refused even to the lightened conditions.
keep in mind that under the leadership of the emperor, millions of civilians died in asia, allowing him to keep control over japan wasnt right, moraly and stratigicly.


and the body bags thing is true.
imagine how many japanese would have died if american soldiers would have arrived on japan? have you ever seen what japanese civilians did on other islands? they would kill themselves before surrender. and they would never surrender as long as the enemy show any weakness.

[cornflakes]

There was no need to drop the bombs whatsoever, they were dropped simply as a test and as a warning to the Russians, there are other reasons too.
Trinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_%28nuclear_test%29) much? ;)

as a warning to the Russians
The Russians were in their calculations, but IIRC one of the reasons the Americans wanted to drop the bomb (as opposed to a traditional invasion) was because they wanted to conclude a truce with Japan before the Soviet Union jumped on the war bandwagon to score a foothold in Japan.


On Hilters head anywhere else no.
So Hiroshima or Nagasaki would be morally justified if Hitler happened to be there? :nuts

[HELLA PINOY]

So Hiroshima or Nagasaki would be morally justified if Hitler happened to be there? :nuts

Well Hitler was dead by then so we may never know ;)

Heres an interesting fact I found out: 500,000 purple hearts were made before the "invasion" of Japan. To this day those purple hearts are still being issued. Some units even carry them on hand to be issued to the recently wounded.