Hiroshima

[Torplexed]

The first of many misconceptions surrounding the last days of the Pacific War is the notion that news of Hiroshima and Nagasaki promptly led to surrender. Japan's militarists, in fact immediately began discrediting President Truman's claim that very day that an atomic bomb had destroyed Hiroshima even with the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The tiny Japanese atomic program may had provided them with no weapon, but it did arm them with the knowledge of the incredible difficulty of manufacturing fissionable material. Thus, Japanese officers immediately declared that whatever had struck Hiroshima could not be an atomic bomb. Admiral Toyoda advanced the idea that even if the US possessed atomic weapons it couldn't have that many and that international opinion would deter their further use. This unreal mental attitude among Japan's militarists with a flattened city in front of them pretty much puts to rest the idea that 'demonstrating' the bomb on a desert island would have ever induced a bloodless surrender.

Why did the Emperor finally step in to halt the war? He consistently gave three reasons when asked about his decision. One was his loss of faith in the Imperial Army staff. (finally!) A second was his deep fear that Japan's civil order would finally crack under endless bombardment and blockade. He also cited the atomic bomb. Even then the Emperor's intervention was not enough to guarantee that Japan's armed forces would surrender. For the overseas commands it was the looming threat of Soviet intervention that compelled them to finally comply with the order from Tokyo.

[August]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

The first of many misconceptions surrounding the last days of the Pacific War is the notion that news of Hiroshima and Nagasaki promptly led to surrender. Japan's militarists, in fact immediately began discrediting President Truman's claim that very day that an atomic bomb had destroyed Hiroshima even with the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The tiny Japanese atomic program may had provided them with no weapon, but it did arm them with the knowledge of the incredible difficulty of manufacturing fissionable material. Thus, Japanese officers immediately declared that whatever had struck Hiroshima could not be an atomic bomb. Admiral Toyoda advanced the idea that even if the US possessed atomic weapons it couldn't have that many and that international opinion would deter their further use. This unreal mental attitude among Japan's militarists with a flattened city in front of them pretty much puts to rest the idea that 'demonstrating' the bomb on a desert island would have ever induced a bloodless surrender.

Why did the Emperor finally step in to halt the war? He consistently gave three reasons when asked about his decision. One was his loss of faith in the Imperial Army staff. (finally!) A second was his deep fear that Japan's civil order would finally crack under endless bombardment and blockade. He also cited the atomic bomb. Even then the Emperor's intervention was not enough to guarantee that Japan's armed forces would surrender. For the overseas commands it was the looming threat of Soviet intervention that compelled them to finally comply with the order from Tokyo.

Nevertheless the atomic bomb did factor in the decision of the only person whose opinions actually counted in that system. As for the Imperial forces outside of Japan they were not going to be able to effect an invasion of the home islands one way or the other.

But yeah there were those among the Imperial General staff that wanted to continue the war down to the last bullet and last Japanese life. Had we been forced to invade it would have been a very bloody affair indeed.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by August

I've never understood how people see nuclear bombs as somehow more evil than any of the other numerous methods man has for killing his fellow man.

I'm not implying that conventional ways of killing large number of civilians are any
better or worse.

Everyone sensible would agree that in it's self, killing civilians a bad thing.
Most people, however, believe that is is necessary in some situations in order to
achieve a greater good. i.e. the end of a war.

Generally, the dispute occurs over whether the civilian attacks resulted in greater
good than the evil they necessitated.

I wish to find out how much those who think the good produced from the act out
weighed the evil.
Thus I ask, how many bombs (or any other form of mass civilian killing) could have
been justified to achieve the same ends?

There must be a limit, as to say "as many as necessary" would mean that you could
justify kicking the last crippled man to death because he wouldn't surrender.

So...how many A-Bombs (or conventional equivalents) could you justify?


Tom the people who say "None!", I ask, what if half a bomb could have ended the war?
If not, then how about just 50 civilians dieing? Surely that is justified? What is your
uppward limit?

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by U-96

I'm amazed by how many people are able to casually justify the Atomic bomb as just another tool in the big U.S. toolbox. And how 'necessary' it was. Maybe this is the way Americans try to cope with the guilt. But to me it's the 'Ceaser can do no wrong' syndrom at play here. If Germany dropped a nuke on Russia, I doubt anyone would praise them.

But since it's the U.S. who did it, it's excuseable according to alot of the supporters of this act. But the thing is, The Atomic bomb was neither necessary nor just. The Japanese were brutal people in those days, not just to other people but that doesn't mean they deserved the A-bomb either.

Why was the A-Bomb unnecessary. Let's dissect the arguements favouring the bomb.....

Nice arguement, I nod in approval at the time and thought you put in it.

You forgot the only arguement I need to justify dropping the A-bomb on Japan: Pearl Harbor. It's a shame we didn't have 50 of them on hand in Dec 1941, I bet that would have shortened the war.

War is war, where do you draw the line? Millions of men slaughtered, U-boats killing merchantmen without warning, bombers shredding cities, SS troops killing townspeople, soldiers raping and killing women, flamethrowers roasting men in caves... the people working in factories supporting their nation's war effort, the general population and economy is part of the war, a necessary part, and a target as well. The A-bomb was just another weapon, a big and powerful one. If your enemy has it, you can bet he will use it on you.

People today will argue forever about these things. For me, the important thing is it seems civilized nations are finally closing the book on world wars. For me, the important thing is the great people of Japan and Germany are pillars of the world now.

[August]

Originally Posted by Letum

I'm not implying that conventional ways of killing large number of civilians are any better or worse.

Everyone sensible would agree that in it's self, killing civilians a bad thing.
Most people, however, believe that is is necessary in some situations in order to
achieve a greater good. i.e. the end of a war.

Generally, the dispute occurs over whether the civilian attacks resulted in greater
good than the evil they necessitated.

I wish to find out how much those who think the good produced from the act out
weighed the evil.
Thus I ask, how many bombs (or any other form of mass civilian killing) could have
been justified to achieve the same ends?

There must be a limit, as to say "as many as necessary" would mean that you could
justify kicking the last crippled man to death because he wouldn't surrender.

So...how many A-Bombs (or conventional equivalents) could you justify?

I guess the answer is still "as many as necessary" to make the Japanese quit Letum. As it was with the Germans, nothing but unconditional Japanese surrender was going to satisfy anyone on the allied side.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by August

I guess the answer is still "as many as necessary" to make the Japanese quit Letum. As it was with the Germans, nothing but unconditional Japanese surrender was going to satisfy anyone on the allied side.

You know you could justify some pretty terrible things under the "as much evil as is neccicary" thing....

[Torplexed]

Going by what was historically available or in the pipeline.

The United States expected to have another atom bomb ready for use in the third week of August 1945, with three more in September and a further three in October. Most likely target for a third bomb would have been Sapporo in Hokkaido.

I'm glad 'how much' a question that never got an answer in this war anyway.

[August]

Originally Posted by Letum

You know you could justify some pretty terrible things under the "as much evil as is neccicary" thing....

Very true. Maybe a better answer would be "just enough to achieve the objective" which might be considered as splitting hairs but not really as a far worse thing would be "not enough".

[Biggles]

I'm gone for one week and you revive this thread? What the hell is going on here?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Biggles

I'm gone for one week and you revive this thread? What the hell is going on here?

I don't know Biggles but it is enlightening conversation to say the least!


I'm very surprised that no one has brought up the incendiary bombing of cities. Just as devastating as using the A-bomb. I suspect that this action would convince the Japanese to surrender. No response as to surrendering. Truman moves on to the A bomb?:hmm:

[STEED]

What is done is done and you can not change history.

[Biggles]

Originally Posted by STEED

What is done is done and you can not change history.

Buy this bloke a drink.....

[Dowly]

Has anyone ever though about the civilian losses that Japan suffered due to the A-bombs AFTER the war? AFAIK, it was still killing in the 80-90's. Use of as terrible weapon as those two bombs, that still kill 40-50 years after the war has ended cannot be justified. Not with Pearl Harbor, not with shortening the war. Civilian casualties are the byproduct of war, always been and always will be. But targeting deliberately to 2 civilian cities is just plain WRONG, no matter which side you are or what you're enemy has done. Sorry, but I just cant see how it can be justified.

But yeh, like our very own motormouth STEED said, it's done and cant be changed. I would like to say that luckily we've learned something from those days, but I cant as that would be an lie. Military targets still seem to have priority no matter the civilian casualties.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Has anyone ever though about the civilian losses that Japan suffered due to the A-bombs AFTER the war? AFAIK, it was still killing in the 80-90's. Use of as terrible weapon as those two bombs, that still kill 40-50 years after the war has ended cannot be justified. Not with Pearl Harbor, not with shortening the war. Civilian casualties are the byproduct of war, always been and always will be. But targeting deliberately to 2 civilian cities is just plain WRONG, no matter which side you are or what you're enemy has done. Sorry, but I just cant see how it can be justified.

But yeh, like our very own motormouth STEED said, it's done and cant be changed. I would like to say that luckily we've learned something from those days, but I cant as that would be an lie. Military targets still seem to have priority no matter the civilian casualties.

There is never justification for targeting civilian cities but with the shoe on the other foot, if it was possible (and was attempted), the west coast of the US would have been attacked. Indescriminate balloons with bombs in the jet stream headed to the US. Submarines off the coast shelling. One aircraft launched from a submarine that bombed the west coast of the US. There would have been more if it was geographically possible. Let's look at the Aleutians. Attempts to take the spit of land were made. This would be a stepping stone to the US. Sadly, military targets were often but in the city with the civilian population. Not until precision guided missiles did this tactic not work anymore. Altough the guided missiles are not 100% fail-safe but that is a whole other thread.

I believe Truman knew what the outcome would be if the bomb was used. The world would be changed forever....and it has been.

[joea]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Has anyone ever though about the civilian losses that Japan suffered due to the A-bombs AFTER the war? AFAIK, it was still killing in the 80-90's.

Well yes. However, do you think only the victims of the a-bombs were affected after the war? I know one fellow whose father was in the Filipino resistance and suffered health problems the rest of his life from being a forced labourer as a POW. Doubtless anyone a victim of Unit 731 or medical experiments at Auschwitz who survived had a lower life expectancy ... as did German soldiers who say survived the POW camps in Siberia. I don't doubt many civilians who were burned by conventional bombs or suffered malnutrition died later on or lived shorter lives. Another friend whose grandfather was an aircrewman on a Ju-52 (not sure what though they did transport fuel to North Africa , and would fly out over the Baltic with a gear to blow up Allied magnetic mines) suffered from what we call now "post-trumatic stress disorder" and would only recall the war when he drank a bit occasionally, apparently would tremble as well.