Hiroshima Remembered.

[Flubber]

The debate seems to come down to a couple of questions

1. Did the bombing bring about a surrender that would not have happened happened without the bombing, a blockade or an invasion ?

If you think yes then you can see the bombing as saving lives. If ou think surrender was imminent anyway then of course this bombing seems unnecessary.

2. Was it necessary to bomb a city to trigger the surrender ?

Again, the motivation is to trigger a surrender and the question is as to what was necessary.




My opinion is that war is horrific and it does not matter that much to the civilian if they are irradiated, shot, firebombed or starved. In each case they are just as dead. I deplore the senseless destruction of civialians no matter what the cause.

BUT I emphatically disagree with people who see killing a million soldiers as preferable to fewer civilain deaths. Soldiers on all sides were not career killing machines. They had real lives and families outside the stupidity of the war that many of them had been dragged into.

I think it is legitimate for a country to save and preserve the lives of as many of its own people as possible, particularly when you are resisting the aggression of another . The atomic bombing was horrible but it worked in that it ended the war. I might disagree with the need for a second bombing so soon after the first but the American leadership ended the war in the way that was quickest and cost the least lives of Allied troops.

I feel for the Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but also feel for those who died in London, Stalingrad, Dresden, Normandy, Nanking etc etc. -- Dead is dead and the methodology matters little to the deceased


War is horrific and almost always senseless . . . I wish that atomic bombs had never been invented-- but I cannot see how the US should feel the least bit apologetic about their use-- They were used, the war ended and millions of people in a couple of dozen nations mourned their dead-- In my view the vast majority of those dead were " innocents" of one type or another

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by paiktis22
The US had no reason to take out the USSR at that time using nukes. there was no huge danger as there was later.

And the world did stay at peace of 70 years due to MAD.

Having a reality breakdown? 70 years? The bomb has been aroung for 52 years. MAD for about 40 or less.

BTW yes im trolling but that dont mean it isnt true.

Nevertheless this time it isn't.

[Bereta_Eder]

forget dates.

what was offered was the peace was achievec because everyone was afarid the US was gonna nuke them

truth is peace was assured by MAD.

[Padma]

Originally posted by paiktis22
what was offered was the peace was achievec because everyone was afarid the US was gonna nuke them.

Umm, no.

The only one really afraid the US would nuke them was the Soviets. And they were paranoid. The only way they would have been nuked is if the USSR had overtly broken the peace, e.g., rolled tanks into West Germany, or some such.

And as for Hiroshima (and Nagasaki), I think we are foolishly "Monday morning quarterbacking" here. We are applying current mores and values to a situation that existed before most of us in the discussion were born. If I had been in Truman's shoes, *not* knowing what I know now, I would have dropped both bombs. No question.

[Venom]

Hiroshima Remembered...to duck this time?

Probably still didn't help.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Padma
If I had been in Truman's shoes, *not* knowing what I know now, I would have dropped both bombs. No question.

And I would say you're probably underestimating what Truman knew.

Truman's rationale behind the bomb being needed to save lives is suspicious if just for the fact he kept upping the projected number of American casualties for a land invasion of Japan. He at first said a couple hundred thousand, then it went to half a million, and was eventually up to two million. Where these numbers came from, nobody knows. I'd say they came from Truman's imagination.

And again, given the plethora of high-level U.S. military personel who, at the same time, voiced strong opinions that the bomb wasn't necessary, I would find it hard to believe Truman knew less than we know now.

[Padma]

Simply by definition, they all knew less than we know now.

But, seriously, no-one really knew what those weapons could do. Sure, there had been the Trinity blast, where the concept had been tested, but that had been in the middle of the desert. Part of the reasons Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen was to observe the effects of the blast under real conditions.

And, once Truman saw what the full effect was, he took control of the weapons away from the military, and said "no more".

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS
I'm gonna have to ask for a cite on this one, Frogger.

On the 7800 planes figure?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/okinawa-battle.htm

Was found with a google search. The figure given in the third paragraph is 7830 planes.

[KrazyHorse]

If you want to say that the U.S. should have known that the Japanese were ready to fold completely, then you should also acknowledge that if we had foregone the atom bombs and the Japanese had delayed their surrender at all, more Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese etc. would have starved to death while allied transports were tied up with war time traffic rather than switching over to emergency food deliveries. A million Japanese civilians starved to death in the year after the war ended as it was

This is why I'm sort of conflicted on this issue. The atomic bomb was frightening enough that it actually did trash the Japanese command's will to fight. The earlier strategic bombing didn't manage very much at all (either in terms of real industrial production affected nor in terms of morale).

[KrazyHorse]

Sikander, same point: you can't point to Okinawa, then multiply by 100 (population ratio?) to get the figures for all of Japan; at Okinawa the Japanese still had planes, rifles, artillery and ships to fight with. That battle cost them most of their reserves of equipment, etc.

[Ecthy]

Frogger, that "loss of actual equipment" thing seem to be a good point, even I was a bit confused when people actually brought arguments to use a frightening tool.

[KrazyHorse]

Remember that the Germans didn't surrender, either; they fought until the Russians were knocking on the door to Hitler's bunker. Their army collapsed under the weght of Allied armies on all sides, and civilian resistance of itself is remarkabley useless against large professional armies. The Japanese couldn't have turned out 10 million rifles, or bomb packs, or kamikaze planes, nor could they even have managed to distribute them. Once the army was soundly defeated (which would have been costly, no doubt) any further resistance would be relatively ineffective. Okinawa was defended better for its size than Japan as a whole could ever have been.

[Kramerman]

MOST OF THE STUFF IN THIS POST HAS PROBABLY ALREADY BEEN SAID. i JUST READ THE FIRST PAGE AND A FEW MORE POSTS OF THIS THREAD.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
If I had been president, I would have actually listened to the Japanese. Considering they ended up keeping the emperor anyway, I wouldn't have had a problem accepting that as the only condition for their surrender. I certainly, as frankchan said, would have considered detonating the bombs on a non-civilian target to show them what we were capable of before even considering using it on a civilian area.

Consider this: the bombings may be what allow many Japanese to stay on a high horse of moral indignation about the war and not acknowledge Japanese atrocities. They can point to Hiroshima and Nagasaki as extremely visible, potent examples of civilian massacre, whereas Nanking and the like are much less visible (no big, purty mushroom cloud). Certainly, in the interest of world opinion, I believe it would be best that the U.S. had never used the bombs. We could at least maintain a bit more credibility in our vehemence of "rogue nations" not obtaining nukes.

Frankly, the notion that we would have to blockade Japan and that more deaths might have occured is less troubling to me, as then we can clearly say these deaths were on Japan's own head for not surrenduring.

But again, they were willing to surrender, we just didn't listen (and, IMO, Truman didn't want to).

Ive never heard that Japan was willing to surrender- at least not unconditionally like we demanded. I read that the entire mainland population (I read 100 million, but since then have heard conflicting stats of 80 million, doesnt really matter either way), men, women, and children were preparing to fight in hand to hand combat if need be, to fight to the death and never surrender because surrender was dishonorable in Japanese culture. American casualties were estimated at being around 500,000 in the advent of an invasion - more than the 400 or so thousand casualties the US suffered in the rest of the war. The atomic bombs were a neccessary evil to end the war. The civilian deaths were tragic, but in the advent of a US invasion and all or even just a fraction of the millions of the Japanese population stuc to their word, then the civilian casualties would of been FAR greater. The atmoic bombs broke their will to fight however. The Japanese suffered very devestating incendiary startegic bombing before, but with hundreds of B-29s at once. The US' use of a single bomber to drop a single bomb to destroy an entire city, and our claim that we had 100s more, made the Japanese command feel helpless and that we could destroy them completely without taking any casualties. They wisely considered there defense frivolus and did not want to needlessly destroy themselves when they could have simply surrendered unconditionally.
And yes, as some one mentioned before, they were allowed to maintain their emprorer, but it was just 'decorational', the emperor no longer had any real power. I am saddened by the attrocious death counts, but I do think it was neccessary to bring the war quickly and 'less bloodly' to an end.

Kman

[Boris Godunov]

Kman--yes, many of those points have been dealt with before.

Japan had been sending communiques for months that it was willing to surrender. Eisenhower knew this, which is why he felt the bombing was not necessary. Truman mentions one of those communiques in his diaries shortly before the bombing, so we know he saw them, too.

The insistence that the surrender be unconditional doesn't wash with me, considering the only condition was that the emperor remain. Keep in mind, he was no mere monarch to the Japanese. He was seen as a god. It wasn't a trifle to them. Regardless, Hirohito had even expressed his willingness to abdicate.

And then, of course, we let Hirohito stay in power after we've bombed them. We give them the very condition they were concerned about. So what on earth did we accomplish?

[DanS]

"On the 7800 planes figure?"

No, on the plans that put the expected U.S. casualties at 200K.

"And then, of course, we let Hirohito stay in power after we've bombed them."

Yes, but without the godhood attached.