Hiroshima bombed today

[bookworm_020]

Looking at the plans for the invasion of Japan, I would have to agreee with dropingthe bombs. The deaths would have been massive on both sides if it had gone ahead.

The bombing of tokyo, which caused a firestorm, cost more lives and distruction than droping the bomb ( dicounting the longer lasting effects of radiation)

[Raptor1]

Annihilating cities was nothing new by the time of the Hiroshima bombing (Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg...), it was just a new more efficient way of doing it

I agree, dropping the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ultimately saved millions that would have died had they gone through with Operation Downfall (And probably saved us from nuclear war)

[Platapus]

Well the debate on whether it was "good or bad" to drop the atomic weapons on Japan has been going on since 1945 and will probably continue.

One thing I do want to point out is the fallacy that there were only two exhaustive and exclusive options.

1. Use Atomic weapons
2. Invade Japan.

There were other options being considered that warrant mentioning

1. Blockade and contain Japan. The islands of Japan were never "officially" blockaded. But through normal military anti-shipping operations, submarine and air forces effectively blockaded the islands of Japan. One option was to step up this blockade and contain the Japanese forces and influence until capitulation.

2. Invade Korea. This option would have been used in conjunction with the blockade option. Many of the heavy military industries, to include a nascent nuclear weapon program, were located in Korea. Invading and controlling Korea would paralyze what was left of the Japanese military industry and could have lead to capitulation.

3. Invasion and occupation of the island of Hokkaidō. Hokkaidō was less populated than the island of Honshū as well as less defended. An occupation of Hokkaidō would have allowed the US forces to post land based bombers and extensive fighter support for nonstop conventional bombing.

It is quite correct that the Japanese were ready to "fight to the death" but that would only apply if we allowed the war to go in that direction. It is most difficult for Japanese military and citizens to "fight to the death" if we don't directly fight them (classic Sun Tzu).

Invading the island of Honshū would have incensed the population and would have greatly boosted the influence of Prime Minister Tojo. It is worth noting that while Tojo enjoyed great popularity at the start of the war, by 1944 he had fallen out of disfavour with the government and the military.

A war of isolation, containment, and starvation without the patriotic fever of defending the motherland from direct invasion might have lead to the Prime Minister stepping down or being removed.

I won't get into whether it was good or bad to drop the atomic weapons on Japan. I just wanted to point out that there were other options other than

1. Invading Honshū
2. Dropping the Atomic weapons.

However, from the United States standpoint, there was one good reason for using the Atomic weapons on Japan.

People in the United States were getting real tired of the war. It was costing the US mucho money and lives and people were tired. FDR recognized that after almost five years, the citizens were losing patience with the government. If you review the newspapers of the time, it is surprising at how unpopular the war was in 1945. Things were not all that swell back home politically. The Democratic party, while willing an unprecedented fourth term, was garnering less and less popular votes every term. The use of the Atomic weapons were a viable way of bringing the war to a quick end.

It is possible that the decision to use the Atomic bombs was more political vice military.

[joea]

One comment Platapus, Tojo was no longer PM in 1945 but an Admiral Suziki IIRC.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by joea

One comment Platapus, Tojo was no longer PM in 1945 but an Admiral Suziki IIRC.

Ach you are right it was 44 when he was forced to resign

Good catch

[Sailor Steve]

Not to belittle the discussion or make light of it, but when I saw the title I did a double-take. My first thought was "WHAT! Not again!"

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Not to belittle the discussion or make light of it, but when I saw the title I did a double-take. My first thought was "WHAT! Not again!"

Yeah, I wish we could edit titles.

[StdDev]

Originally Posted by Platapus

<SNIP> ( <-- uncanny editing technique!)
from the United States standpoint, there was one good reason for using the Atomic weapons on Japan.

People in the United States were getting real tired of the war. It was costing the US mucho money and lives and people were tired. FDR recognized that after almost five years, the citizens were losing patience with the government. If you review the newspapers of the time, it is surprising at how unpopular the war was in 1945. Things were not all that swell back home politically. The Democratic party, while willing an unprecedented fourth term, was garnering less and less popular votes every term. The use of the Atomic weapons were a viable way of bringing the war to a quick end.

It is possible that the decision to use the Atomic bombs was more political vice military.

There was also a very real desire to conclude the war before uncle Joe could get too involved.
By ending the war quickly the US and England could effectively keep Russia from claiming any of the "spoils of war".. which undoubtedly is a good thing.
Look what the situation was in Germany after the war (West/East Berlin etc..), Imagine what the situation could have been like in Japan!
The US knew that the Soviets were going to be one of the biggest problem in the post war world, and ending the war before the Russians were invested in the Pacific theater was a deliberate agenda.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by StdDev

There was also a very real desire to conclude the war before uncle Joe could get too involved.
By ending the war quickly the US and England could effectively keep Russia from claiming any of the "spoils of war".. which undoubtedly is a good thing.
Look what the situation was in Germany after the war (West/East Berlin etc..), Imagine what the situation could have been like in Japan!
The US knew that the Soviets were going to be one of the biggest problem in the post war world, and ending the war before the Russians were invested in the Pacific theater was a deliberate agenda.

You are exactly right! That was one of the other factors of using the bomb, was to keep the Russkies out of the region.

Nikimcbee opens the door to an aspect of the atomic bombings that is almost entirely ignored when discussions about the 'rights' and 'wrongs' are conducted. I think that some major issues tend to be overlooked or merely given lip-service.

1. The stratigic bombing of cities was considered a legitimate military operation in a total war setting. The Allies placed the morality of the policy on the back-burner as it were, and I believe that at that time and place, they were entirely correct in doing so. By extension, the use of the Bomb on Hiroshima an Nagasaki constitued a more efficient application of firepower and was fully in accordance with the doctrine in effect at the time. The events should be considered in that light.

2. The awful examples from 1945 acted as a vivid reminder to leaders whenever a finger got itchy on the nuclear trigger throughout the Cold War. How much of a deterent would there have been at say Berlin or Korea or Cuba without the world having the images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki burned into it collective consciousness. What would have happened in subsequent crisis' without the lessons of the atomic bombing's placing a restraining hand on the decision makers? Employing the small and dirty Fat Man and Little Boy probably prevented first use from being later, thermonuclear and hundreds of times larger. No one nuclear test shot (and there were some 800+ surface tests) comes to mind when one thinks about using nuclear weapons but the images from Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly do.

3. One of the great myths of the event was that there was no third bomb. Several Fat Man assemblies were at Tinian and the fissil material for the next bomb (target Kokura Arsenal for 15 August) remained in the United States when Pres. Truman forbid the next attack. This happened before the formal acceptance of Potsdam by the Japanese and is evidence that the nuclear weapons paradox has already started to kick in. The paradox is that this most powerful of weapons is essentially useless and employing them at all constitutes an excellent example of a zero-sum decision.

Every year about this time the use of the Bombs comes under scrutiny using contemporary morals, rhetoric and 20/20 hindsite and this will likely continue until somebody nukes another city. I do believe however that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were big, although greatly understated factors in the Cold War not turning hot.

Good Hunting

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

Nikimcbee opens the door to an aspect of the atomic bombings that is almost entirely ignored when discussions about the 'rights' and 'wrongs' are conducted. I think that some major issues tend to be overlooked or merely given lip-service.

1. The stratigic bombing of cities was considered a legitimate military operation in a total war setting. The Allies placed the morality of the policy on the back-burner as it were, and I believe that at that time and place, they were entirely correct in doing so. By extension, the use of the Bomb on Hiroshima an Nagasaki constitued a more efficient application of firepower and was fully in accordance with the doctrine in effect at the time. The events should be considered in that light.

2. The awful examples from 1945 acted as a vivid reminder to leaders whenever a finger got itchy on the nuclear trigger throughout the Cold War. How much of a deterent would there have been at say Berlin or Korea or Cuba without the world having the images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki burned into it collective consciousness. What would have happened in subsequent crisis' without the lessons of the atomic bombing's placing a restraining hand on the decision makers? Employing the small and dirty Fat Man and Little Boy probably prevented first use from being later, thermonuclear and hundreds of times larger. No one nuclear test shot (and there were some 800+ surface tests) comes to mind when one thinks about using nuclear weapons but the images from Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly do.

3. One of the great myths of the event was that there was no third bomb. Several Fat Man assemblies were at Tinian and the fissil material for the next bomb (target Kokura Arsenal for 15 August) remained in the United States when Pres. Truman forbid the next attack. This happened before the formal acceptance of Potsdam by the Japanese and is evidence that the nuclear weapons paradox has already started to kick in. The paradox is that this most powerful of weapons is essentially useless and employing them at all constitutes an excellent example of a zero-sum decision.

Every year about this time the use of the Bombs comes under scrutiny using contemporary morals, rhetoric and 20/20 hindsite and this will likely continue until somebody nukes another city. I do believe however that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were big, although greatly understated factors in the Cold War not turning hot.

Good Hunting

I'm glad you understand my point. i think the dropping of these bombs made all sides think twice before they moved during the Cold War. Dropping H-bombs would have been much worse.