Conventional bombing would have been an "utterly horrific crime against innocents". The only humane solution would have been to invade Japan? I'm not following.
Hiroshima
- Thread starter R.N7
- Start date
Did not quite happen like that, he waited until about halfway through the conference and in part at the urging of aides like Stimson (in part to try and show openess) said that we had a weapon of unusually powerful force or something along that line. Oddly a fact Stalin already knew because of spies.
adex: Well, perhaps my naivety in this respect is due to the much-publicised & horrendous results of atomic bombing, in contrast to numerous wartime incidents of conventional bombing, the results of which are not 'broadcasted'.
I really fail to see how conventional bombing, let alone a ground invasion, would have killed less people, given how the Battle of Okinawa played out.
Stalin was a glorified barbarian, as any good biography will show. However, Truman was never the right man to make such a crucial decision, as his showboating at Potsdam displays..whether he was 'prodded' into it or not.
The US knew the Soviet Union were the ones we had to fight next. That theory of wanting to show force does make sense.
But I think no one really calculated the long lasting horrific consequenses of using the bomb.
In a way it had a dual purpose. Hasten the end of the war and show the Soviets what we had.
But I think no one really calculated the long lasting horrific consequenses of using the bomb.
In a way it had a dual purpose. Hasten the end of the war and show the Soviets what we had.
Yeah, that's fair enough I guess. Nuclear weapons may inflict more long term damage on the area, but it still impacts civilians whether it's a C4 or uranium warhead.
Granted that 'showing the Soviets' wasn't the only factor - as JustAFan intimated, there were various factors in play. But it troubles me that several books about Hiroshima/Nagasaki come across as exciting, as if the pure science element (as brilliant as it was, no doubt) trumps the untold misery inflicted on thousands and was truly 'collateral' instead of something shameful; the human element is somehow lost or pushed aside in this stirring tale of a race against time, genius scientists, Big Politics, sinister Soviets and wartime heroism. This, to me, reeks of storytelling, expediency in the guise of a palatable narrative. And all the excuses for the bombing make near-comfortable reading for us, sad to say...because it was only 'the yellow man' who suffered, not people like you or I. It isn't 'close to home' enough to affect us as emotionally as it should.
Only trouble is, none of those reasons has ever seemed very convincing to me. It's true that the Japanese didn't even surrender after losing one city, and took a while after the second. So a test might not have worked. But the US didn't know that in advance. (There's also the question of the overtures being made by elements in the Japanese hierarchy to sue for peace via back channels through Switzerland. Last time I discussed this Mathiaslg sent me a PM telling me I was wrong, so maybe I am. One thing's for sure, the Bomb got them far better terms than any other peace would have done.)
One factor may be that they only had two bombs at that point (I think). They wanted to give the impression that they had an inexhaustible supply of the things and could just cancel city after city from the earth (and that's the real power of the A-bomb - a psychological power... as others have said more damage was done in some conventional raids). But in reality if Japan had kept going it would have taken a while to get another bomb into action.
Another factor is the inherent tendency for new technologies to be used. When some of the Manhattan Project scientists - notably Szilard - set about arguing against use, they met with total incredulity from the top brass. They told him straight - I'm paraphrasing - "You understand that having spent all this time and money building this thing, we are going to use it?" They'd spent a couple of billion dollars and basically built three cities from scratch to get this toy, getting a major strategic head start on the Russians...there was basically zero chance of them just sitting on it. In fact, what's amazing is that it has never been used since. MacArthur was probably keen on using it in Korea (though he denied it), and Kennedy was under huge pressure from his generals during the Cuba crisis. I'm surprised it wasn't used in Vietnam.
But I do think the 'message to the Russians' thing played a big part. "This far and no further, Joe". In fact, people totting up the costs on both sides ought arguably to consider the costs of a war with Russia before 1950. It's especially interesting that Truman played poker for about 2 weeks solid before he made the call (or rather, raise).
That said, I don't really get Steve's point about soldiers. Soldiers at that point were ordinary citizens, and they were being killed in numbers that are inconceivable today. I think the absolute apocalypse that a land invasion would have been surely played some part in their thinking.
Have you read Robert Jungk's 'Brighter than a Thousand Suns'? That tells the story - which just is exciting, I'm sorry if it makes me a bad man but you could tell it to me in Finnish and I'd be rapt - while making the moral questions the centre of the book. Though some of its claims are contested.
There is no way the US should have launched a land invasion of Japan instead. You only have to look at how that has turned out on a much smaller scale in Asian wars since then.
I don't buy the supposed negotiated peace option either.
I don't buy the supposed negotiated peace option either.
And the test?
I thought you said they had a very limited supply of bombs?
They still could have used one of them for a test
Ha, no, mate.
The story is, I'm sure, gripping, particularly if one seperates the scientific achievement from the human cost; your mention of Szilard & his naivety really brings this home - what on earth did the Project scientists expect to happen once the bomb was ready to use in the 'real world'?
As the first one didn't actually end in a surrender, I guess it's lucky they didn't do the test.
I think if you look at all of the fallout from WWII around the world, from the Cold War, to the division of Europe, to Korea and the rest of it, surely the way it all worked out in Japan has to go down as one of the big success stories? I'm not really sure why people are focussing on that being where we should have done something differently.
From what I understand, I think most of them expected it to be used. When the war started, everyone thought it was a race against time against a Nazi bomb. (And they'd have been right if Hitler had had a bit of foresight.) So I don't think they had too many qualms, especially as half of them were refugees from Nazi Europe.Ha, no, mate.
The story is, I'm sure, gripping, particularly if one seperates the scientific achievement from the human cost; your mention of Szilard & his naivety really brings this home - what on earth did the Project scientists expect to happen once the bomb was ready to use in the 'real world'?
Later, when they realised it was going to be used on the Japanese, some of them had qualms, but even most of them - Oppenheimer for instance - were very conflicted. Worth remembering that in terms of atrocities the Japanese weren't a whole lot better than the Nazis.
And the point about the general level of carnage does have to be borne in mind. They'd already torched Tokyo with firebombs, with far worse casualties. Civilian towns got routinely destroyed in WWII. THe Bomb is different mostly for what it means... but that may not have been obvious at the time.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
http://www.spectacle.org/696/long.html
A couple of interesting articles.
http://www.spectacle.org/696/long.html
A couple of interesting articles.
Talking about the aftermath of WWII, I often wonder if the Americans regret not letting Japan keep Taiwan, that would have worked so much better with their 1st island chain strategy against China right now.
I used to live in Oak Ridge where the uranium for fat man and little boy were enriched and theres a Japanese community that lives in the area and work at the plant. I thought that was the height or irony.
Would you kindly refrain from using that term? Thanks.
Is "Japs" insulting? I always thought it was like "Brits", "Yanks" or "Canucks".
I think it is, in the United States at least.
have heard older people use that term...though most younger ones don't and correctly so.
Though the truly derogatory one is 'nips'.
You'd think that would be better, considering Japan is Nippon.
If this hasn't been mentioned yet.
Dropping the bombs saved millions of Japanese lives, most likely tens of millions of Japanese lives.
If you know anything about post WW2 Japan, you will know that the last people to die of starvation in that country due to the war destruction and famine resultant from it, died in like 1950 or 1951.
First, let's just completely discount any notions of surrender because they are unrealistic within political framework of the time. The conditions Japan was prepared to contemplate surrender were nowhere near what the USA was willing to consider.
If the US had invaded, the level of destruction in country would have been absolutely devastating. Tens of millions would have been displaced. There would have been virtually no potable water available. Deaths from dysentery alone would have been one the greatest tragedies of the entire war. It is not a stretch to predict civilian deaths in excess of 10 million due to dysentery and starvation in the immediate aftermath and that would be conservatively low.
Then we can look at Okinawa as an indicator of what sort of direct civilian casualties during the actual fighting. Again, horrifying.
There are some hard realities people seem to ignore when they talk about the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. First, they were not even the most devastating bombing runs on Japan during the war. Most damaging single explosions sure, but in terms of deaths and devastation, the WP attacks on Tokyo were worse.
The atomic bombs dropped in 1945 were nothing like the world ending retard devices we have now, and I think people tend to forget that as well.
The reasons for the bombs can be debated ad-nausea but what really cannot be argued is the millions and millions of lives they saved.
Dropping the bombs saved millions of Japanese lives, most likely tens of millions of Japanese lives.
If you know anything about post WW2 Japan, you will know that the last people to die of starvation in that country due to the war destruction and famine resultant from it, died in like 1950 or 1951.
First, let's just completely discount any notions of surrender because they are unrealistic within political framework of the time. The conditions Japan was prepared to contemplate surrender were nowhere near what the USA was willing to consider.
If the US had invaded, the level of destruction in country would have been absolutely devastating. Tens of millions would have been displaced. There would have been virtually no potable water available. Deaths from dysentery alone would have been one the greatest tragedies of the entire war. It is not a stretch to predict civilian deaths in excess of 10 million due to dysentery and starvation in the immediate aftermath and that would be conservatively low.
Then we can look at Okinawa as an indicator of what sort of direct civilian casualties during the actual fighting. Again, horrifying.
There are some hard realities people seem to ignore when they talk about the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. First, they were not even the most devastating bombing runs on Japan during the war. Most damaging single explosions sure, but in terms of deaths and devastation, the WP attacks on Tokyo were worse.
The atomic bombs dropped in 1945 were nothing like the world ending retard devices we have now, and I think people tend to forget that as well.
The reasons for the bombs can be debated ad-nausea but what really cannot be argued is the millions and millions of lives they saved.
Complicated. Aussies is fine, Pakis is not.
Never understood that but its definitely not pc to say Paki.
It's amazing how much influence Alperovitz can have on a discussion by misquoting Truman's diary
I don't know if this has been discussed either, but nucks does raise some valid points. Fire bombing and naval blockades were devastating Japan.
The invasion would have been a bloodbath, for both sides. If Stimson's estimates are anything to go by, it would have been in the millions. Hell, they're still using the Purple Hearts today that they made in anticipation for the invasion
I don't know if this has been discussed either, but nucks does raise some valid points. Fire bombing and naval blockades were devastating Japan.
The invasion would have been a bloodbath, for both sides. If Stimson's estimates are anything to go by, it would have been in the millions. Hell, they're still using the Purple Hearts today that they made in anticipation for the invasion
Nagasaki one day after the atomic bombing seen in newly-discovered pictures
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...seen-in-newlydiscovered-pictures-9472178.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...seen-in-newlydiscovered-pictures-9472178.html
Still think there should have been a demonstration of the power of the bomb somewhere (off the coast of Tokyo perhaps) with a real grave warning of Japans future destruction.If the U.S. had " bluffed" as in to say we had many more of these weapons, then the Japenese probably would have surrendered. If not then a second demonstration surely would have convinced them.
This sums it up well, I think.
Defensible? I don't think the indiscriminate bombing of civilians is ever defensible, but I don't see much of a moral difference between the firebombing of Tokyo, London or Dresden killing tens of thousands of people in the process and the dropping of the atomic bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima. And given the context of the war and what had happened before and was very likely to happen next had the bomb not been dropped I think the decision is very much understandable, and certainly from a self-preservationist perspective.
A lot of shit happened in WW2 that was atrocious and morally indefensible, but it doesn't make much sense to me to single out the US for having some extra responsibility or blame for dropping the nukes when tens of millions of civilians were killed by other means during the war. The bar had well and truly been set before then. And I usually find that the people who do so invariably have some fanatic anti-US agenda, determined to smear them at every opportunity.
A lot of shit happened in WW2 that was atrocious and morally indefensible, but it doesn't make much sense to me to single out the US for having some extra responsibility or blame for dropping the nukes when tens of millions of civilians were killed by other means during the war. The bar had well and truly been set before then. And I usually find that the people who do so invariably have some fanatic anti-US agenda, determined to smear them at every opportunity.
Last edited:
Possibly, but then again maybe not. Any demonstration target would have had to have been something that could actually be destroyed that the Japanese could actually see. Lighting up some empty ocean 100 miles off the coast, might not have been convincing.
The Japanese leadership knew for at least a year that the war was lost and yet they kept fighting. So it can not be assumed that a demonstration would have changed their minds.
But of course we have no way of knowing for sure what would have happened, we can only guess. Same with the outcome of an invasion or continued blockading of the main Japanese home islands. Would the end have come quickly with fewer deaths? Or would it have dragged on killing more then the two bombs did? No way to know for sure.
They didn't surrender after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Why would they surrender after it was dropped off the coast instead? With only two bombs and no impending help from the other Allies for a land invasion, the US was hardly going to waste them and hope the Japanese surrendered because of the spectacle. It still took 6 days after Nagasaki for them to announce their surrender.
Don't know if it has been asked in this thread. yet or not, I'd imagine it had been asked elsewhere but...
Why couldn't they drop a nuke on a less populated part of Japan and then ask the question "what do you think this would have done to any of your cities? Surrender now or you will find out, several times"
Why couldn't they drop a nuke on a less populated part of Japan and then ask the question "what do you think this would have done to any of your cities? Surrender now or you will find out, several times"
It was an option, but then you have to let them know exactly where to be looking and if it fizzles you look foolish. If the Hiroshima bomb had fizzled, say the regular explosives went off but due to some technical failure it did not set off the plutonium chain reaction, well the Japanese would have been none the wiser except for perhaps noticing a small explosion in the air.
Or it gives them an opportunity to take whatever fighters they have left and shoot down the bomber carrying your secret weapon before it can use it.
Plus as already pointed out they just might have said, "That's interesting, but we will keep fighting anyways."
The reality is one dropped on Hiroshima did not lead to an immediate surrender, so it is unlikely that a test drop would have either. Though we have no way of knowing for certain. Though a number of sources I have read indicated that intercepts of Japanese communications indicated that they thought only 2, at the most 3 other bombs could exist and therefore while losing 2 or 3 additional cities (after Hiroshima) would be awful, the war effort could continue.
If this is true, then it shows that a demonstration would probably not have had much of an effect on making the Japanese end their war efforts.
Also should be noted that the two bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were I believe the only two the US had at the time. It was expected that one more could be readied in August, with a couple of more ready in Sept and Oct.
That answers my question, thanks very much.
There isnt any way to justify these attacks, those bombings are some of the worst examples of humanity or lack there off.. The allies wanted to hurt their enemies as much as possible.. Justifying this and the allied bombing of Germany couldnt be done in any shape or form.
Claiming that Japan still had resistance and the bombing of Germany was strategic doesnt hold much water, for example the bombing of Dresden included 796 bombers in 4 raids from 13th-15th of febuary in 1945.. 3900tons of explosives was used which ruined 90% of this historic city.. In these raids 6 bombers were lost 3 of them by other allied bombers.. So the German defence managed to shoot down 3 bombers of 796! Other cities in Germany got a similar treatment, in March the allies droped close to 5000tons on Dortmund with little or no resistance at all..
This was an act of revenge and just bringing them back to the stone age was a statement of intent, you mess with us we will hurt you bad.
Even with all of the bad things Germany and Japan did in the second world war the fact stays that the USA is the only country to ever use a A-bomb at wartime vs their enemies and the results of that was seen generations later in Japan. History is written by the victors and some things are better left unwritten. Luckly some have strived to bring us the truth about these terrible acts of warcrimes but sadly winners arent held accountable.. It was a hard lesson but hopefully we learned something from this.
Claiming that Japan still had resistance and the bombing of Germany was strategic doesnt hold much water, for example the bombing of Dresden included 796 bombers in 4 raids from 13th-15th of febuary in 1945.. 3900tons of explosives was used which ruined 90% of this historic city.. In these raids 6 bombers were lost 3 of them by other allied bombers.. So the German defence managed to shoot down 3 bombers of 796! Other cities in Germany got a similar treatment, in March the allies droped close to 5000tons on Dortmund with little or no resistance at all..
This was an act of revenge and just bringing them back to the stone age was a statement of intent, you mess with us we will hurt you bad.
Even with all of the bad things Germany and Japan did in the second world war the fact stays that the USA is the only country to ever use a A-bomb at wartime vs their enemies and the results of that was seen generations later in Japan. History is written by the victors and some things are better left unwritten. Luckly some have strived to bring us the truth about these terrible acts of warcrimes but sadly winners arent held accountable.. It was a hard lesson but hopefully we learned something from this.