Given the mind-set of Japan's armed forces, what was remarkable was not that a palace coup was attempted, but that only a tiny handful of officers actually joined in. For all their anger, dishonor and a significant number of suicides in the days to come, the overwhelming majority of soldiers submitted to the emperor's will and quit. Some believe that will was much augmented by the new circumstances of Soviet entry into the war and the atomic bombs.

Historians have argued and will probably continue to argue for years whether it was the influence of the bomb or the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and possible Soviet invasion of Hokkaido that had the greater effect on inducing surrender. Both played their parts. One Japanese historian states unequivocally that the specter of the a-bombs clinched the decision for Japan's civilian politicians, and for the Imperial Japanese Army the last straw was the Russian invasion of Manchuria.

Ah but it is now and I think it will become even more so as time goes on and the technology improves. Cops will be first to wear body cams but they won't be the last. I'm sure that Soldiers won't be far behind.

Judging by the footage that comes out of 'stan and Iraq, I'd say that many US and British ground forces do wear helmet-cams, probably at least one per unit. Helps with debriefing I imagine, like the airforce do with their tapes. :hmmm:

They use them to help write AARs I would imagine.

I don't think it's a bad thing if police / soldiers wear body cameras. It should weed out the bad ones who commit abuses and protect the integrity and honor of the good ones. It should also protect them from unfounded allegations. Like Oberon and Stealhead said, there are many uses.

Great thread with everyone putting forth so much info.

Good or bad it's going to fundamentally change how we fight wars. The micromanaging that will follow implementing these cameras will be the death of personal initiative which has been a major strength of our military throughout the centuries. I worry how we'll manage against a capable opponent who doesn't play such games.

If the current 'War on Terror' is anything to go by, the answer is pretty poorly. Still, it's a fairly stop-gap measure because human beings are going to be gradually phased out from the direct battlefield, for the most part at least. Obviously those caught out where the battle is happening are still going to be up the creek, but the battle itself will be more technologically involved, drones and the like. There will still be a need for a flesh and blood representative on the ground, but much of the actual killing can be done remotely.
That's where the trend is going anyway, the technology is coming along, but it's always going to be a mouse vs mouse-trap situation just like any major technological military update. They invented lighter than air devices, so they invented anti-aircraft guns, they invented tanks, so they invented anti-tank rifles, and so on and so forth.

The military, throughout history, have been more than effective in trying to quash personal initiative, particularly if it makes the top brass look bad in comparison. More than one officer, noncom, or grunt has been put up on charges, demoted, or expelled because they took an effective initiative that made people ask the top brass or the politicos "Why didn't you think of that first?" or made the top brass look like the bunglers they are all too often. My favorite example is Lord Nelson, who if memory serves was beached two or three times, not because he failed, but because he succeeded where the brass had basically given up; the Battle of Copenhagen comes to mind...


<O>

I think you're confusing Monday Morning Quarterbacking with micromanagement. They are two different things.

A soldier in the field may make the wrong decision and be criticized for it but it is (was) still his decision to make. That is not going to be the case when the commander can not only see and hear everything the soldier can but also tell him what to do in real time.

Turning a soldier into a call of duty character controled by a pencil pusher in a bunker kilometers away.
I see what you're getting at.

That's an interesting way of putting it but it is spot on correct.

They already do this read about the 2002 battle in Afghanistan known ad Roberts Ridge Predator drones sent feeds to CENTOM. There is very strong evidence to suggest that command observed things to suggest that a certain objective was not worth the risk but they ordered it anyway.

Back in previous wars command has always pushed the front line fighter when they had at best what could be heard over the radio so in that reguard things haven't changed.

Look for FLIR footage that is unedited for example an Apache crew what they do to get permission to engage its lengthy of course an officer miles away approves.

My dad in Vietnam they often got crazy orders from the rear the ones that where pure suicide they "misinterpreted".

You mean like the micromanaged wars such as Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq? Vietnam was micromanaged to an inch of it's long tortuous duration, in real time. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were plagued by Bush Administration oversight, managed, reputedly, by Dick Cheney, to such an extent the revolving carousel of field commanders was embarrassing. Every time one of them would speak out about the need for increased troop levels, better equipment, etc., they were quickly shown the door, all while the Administration dragged its feet and the senior officers seemed to be too cowed to come to the support of the field commanders and the troops...

I fear such micromanagement will only increase as the US military becomes more technologically dependent. The prospect of future military operations devolving into a "Call of Duty" scenario is all too real and the micromanagement will only get worse when the soldier taking the orders is in the same bunker with the brass...


<O>

okay...back to the surrender..

that was also an attempted coup on august 14 by a few die hards who did not want to surrender to occur:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident
__________________


The first enemy soldier to ever step foot on Japanese soil in the guise of a conqueror would be a member of MacArthurs staff, Col. Charles Tench, who, on August 28, 1945,

''stepped from a C-47 onto the bomb-pocked runway of Atsugi. Instantly, a mob of howling Japanese headed for him. He was reaching for a weapon when they braked to a halt, bowed, smiled, and offered him a cup of orangeade''.

William Manchester, ''American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964''. Little and Brown reprnt.1998.

The line between Tench and the new 2015 NISSAN Frontier pickup truck, available at the nearest American car lot for about 18 grand MSRP, is as direct as it is fascinating in its relation to its 1945 beginnings.

No, I think it'll be orders of magnitude greater. They' be able to see what every soldier sees and feels (and maybe what he can't too) in real time and communicate with every individual soldier rather than the pre-operation meddling that you're taking about, which BTW is nothing new in history, nor is rotating generals for that matter.

In any case look at how much that control capability has increased in just the 4 decades between those three wars you listed. Unsecured voice comms over a short range PRC-77 is a far cry from Satellite Communications with secure voice, data and video transmission capability. The technology trend is hardly going to stop there.

What I fear is this dependence on technology is making us increasingly unable to fight without it.