Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings

This thread, only properly started.

Was it necessary to use atomic bombs in Japanese cities to end WWII in Pacific?

I've read that Japan was having thoughts about surrendering and Soviet Union's declaration of war was a big factor in making Japan surrender, so it might not have been necessary after all to force them with the bombs.

In any case, I think conventional military actions would have been at least more appropriate than nuclear weapons, though the makers of the bomb might not have been aware of that.

If the previous thread's opened, this one can be closed.

Now using Trivialis handle.

Thank you.

Too bad for the censorship. Chomsky was right... we might not live in the Soviet Union... but we are controlled much better by our goverments ideologies, and questioning of the "official story" is seen as ofensive when is presented with every ounce of respect and reason.

This is what happened with Hiroshima. We have been feed an "official story" and we believe it. At least the Soviets knew they where being lied to.

edited 3rd Sep '11 4:37:38 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

I've already explained why (I think) they were the correct—albeit not necessarily good—decisions. I feel no need to retype more arguments...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Yes it was necessary. The Soviet Union could not threaten mainland Japan, their navy was shit and even the IJN which more or less had ceased to be an effective fighting force by June 1945 was more than a match for the Soviet Pacific Fleet. (Especially if you factor in kamikaze strikes which the Soviets would have had absolutely zero experience with.)

If you read up on Operation: Downfall not only do you learn the full scale of the battle required *

but the projected casualties American *

^{(minimum 250,000 KIA, 500,000 WIA minimum expected)}

and Japanese *

^{(minimum 2 million KIA, upwards of 10 million or more plausible)}

and you find the nuke strikes were merciful compared to that. (Assuming Emperor Showa continues to decide that further resistance was futile otherwise...)

Then you have one other fact with Downfall. We were planning that should we have to invade mainland Japan in a Final Battle, nuclear weapons were fair game. Meaning there could have been dozens of nuke strikes over 1946 as the campaign got bloodier and bloodier.

Can you cite contemporary sources of the era that indicate that Japan was on the cusp of surrender prior to the bombings? That argument has always struck me as history revisionist. Certainly the European press of that era did not indicate Japan was ready for a cease-fire of any kind.

edited 3rd Sep '11 4:39:32 PM by ForlornDreamer

As an American, I've more or less been led to believe in my history courses that the Japanese military/government would not have surrendered unless we convinced them by force.

This would either be done by 1 - a direct invasion, or 2 - our secret weapon.

Basically, both actions would have resulted in a load of deaths. However, using Fat Man and Little Boy had the distinct advantage of not costing any American lives. Considering how many people we had already lost in Europe (as well as the Pacific), and considering how little sympathy we had for the... less than civil codes of enemy Japanese soldiers, and finally, taking into account that we had this neat superweapon available in the first place, of course we would choose to bomb instead of invade.

I think it's a bit more arguable though, about us dropping two bombs instead of one.

They never travel alone.

Weather they where about to surrender or weather they would have gone on to fight until the last piece of earth in Japan was nuked.

IT WOULD STILL BE TERRORISM.

Still why didnt we nuke Tokyo Bay to see just if, maybe, they would have sourrender? Wasnt it worth a shot???? I mean... we where theoretically ready to keep on nuking them until they sourrendered or so the argument goes... so Why not give them a proper heads up.

edited 3rd Sep '11 4:41:34 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

It was war between two countries. Japan wouldn't have hesitated to nuke every American city if it could have. We used marked planes, we were in uniform, and we warned them. We could have just dropped it out of the blue and then you'd have an argument. But we told them to evacuate the cities. They didn't. Those people died at the hands of the Japanese Government just as much as they died at the hands of the pilots of that airplane and the US Government.

We only had two nukes. We had to be sure it would work, because if it didn't, we'd have to make more and then we defaulted to Operation: Downfall.

edited 3rd Sep '11 4:42:49 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

In the case of the Invasion by U.S. forces it is likely to have been the least costly option. You have to remember the Americans were looking at the various Islands they had to take from the Japanese by force. Assaulting Japan would have likely 10 times worse then any of the islands. Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Guadal Canal, Wake Island, and Tarawa were all horrifically bloody for both sides.

They were esitmating American casulaties alone would be in the millions. Someone also mentioned the Attempted military coup to continue the war.

On most of the islands the Japanese did their damndest to fight to the man. Imagine invading someones homeland and what might happen then.

As for other conventional means it would have been just as nasty but with fewer bombs. Incendiary bombings caused massive damage because of the building materials still in use in Japan.

There is a big difference form considering surrender to actually surrendering. The people who controlled the military did not want to surrender.

Who watches the watchmen?

Can you define terrorism for me? As I stated in the other thread, I find it to be a fairly ineffectual term meant to stigmatize an act or set of acts as "particularly abhorrent."

So I would conclude that, assuming we apply that label to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, "terrorism" is a relatively broad term that conveys little information.

EDIT: It should be noted that the original post of this thread never mentions the actions taken in H&N as "terrorism," so your interjecting the term might be considered a thread derail. Just a FYI.

edited 3rd Sep '11 4:55:22 PM by ForlornDreamer

The U.S. expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October

ter·ror·ism   [ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

edited 3rd Sep '11 4:47:05 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

I think "terrorism" has become an issue of semantics, so I won't talk about it at the moment. I mean, it's not like it has to fit into terrorism to be deemed bad.

There's a book I've read called Don't Know Much About History by Kenneth C. Davis and it suggests that recent findings do show that the Japanese government was under pressure to surrender and the Soviet Union's war declaration pushed that further. So I would like to point out that we could've been in the defensive for a little longer and waited longer.

Now using Trivialis handle.

It's roughly equivalent to two guys standing on islands, yelling things at each other. They both used to have these little RC toys they shot BBs with, but now the one guy's toys are all gone. The guy who no longer has any toys is so high-strung on drugs that you'd have to put an entire magazine of .45 rounds in him to stop him, but the other guy doesn't have that. Instead, he has a catapult with really big rocks, but getting more rocks is expensive, and by the time he does—if he misses or it doesn't convince the other guy that it isn't worth it—he might as well just do an all out attack by swimming over and trying to beat the other guy up. But doing that will probably get him hurt a lot too, so he shoots off the catapult, and when all the other guy's food and stuff is smashed, he gives up.

Oversimplified, but basically what we're dealing with. There was no reasoning with them. They would not have believed us unless we really did vaporize a city.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Exactly.

Terrorism doesnt mean a thing. The point of my last thread (and thus the wording) is that terrorism is just a tag we use against people we dont like.

Thus now that we are remembering 9/11 we should think about the even worse tragedy than the War on Terror has been.

I am not saying bombing Hiroshima was the wrong decision. I am just saying it was terrorism.

And in a way we have been brain washed by the media... but that is a topic for another discussion.

edited 3rd Sep '11 4:50:40 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

Baff can it with the terrorism shenanigans for this thread. Are you trying to take this one down too?

The point of discussion here is, is terrorism ever justifiable? The answer seems to be yes.

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

In a very technical sense, yes, it was terrorism. It was done for the purposes of ending a conflict in a way that would not result in millions of deaths.

9/11 was done by illegal combatants, without a declaration of war, on mostly civilian targets, and in order to start a conflict. I fail to see the equivalency.

I am now known as Flyboy.

The conflic had alrady started, Bin Laden declared war on the U.S and had a press conference about it. But I am not traying to draw an equivalency. I am just using the rethoric about terrorism I hear every day on the TV and aplaying it to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

Major Tom is dead on, here, Baff. Introducing highly loaded words like "Terrorism" for no real purpose is extremely counterproductive to discussion. If you want discussion, you need to knock that off. If you keep doing it, after having been warned (which this is,) we'll assume that you're doing it on purpose, and that trolling, and that will get you banned.

edited 3rd Sep '11 4:54:34 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

^^^^ Incorrect on this topic. The question at hand is...

...not whether or not it constitutes terrorism.

^ Thank you.

edited 3rd Sep '11 4:54:52 PM by MajorTom

The only reason why we cant discuss the second one its because certain people (including a mod) happen to be believe is offensive and inflamatory, but I dont see how.

But you are right.

So I will leave this alone.

edited 3rd Sep '11 4:57:10 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

Another question is, if Japan was so die-hard about fighting till the end, why did they surrender after two bombs? They weren't finished by then.

Now using Trivialis handle.

^ Mostly Hirohito wanted to avoid further loss of life and damn near suffered a coup de-tat for it.

So couldn't we have done that without nuclear fallout?

Now using Trivialis handle.

We already knew that the term "terrorism" has been devalued. That's old news. Where have you been for the past 7-8 years?

In the meantime, speculating on history in any meaningful way when the question is only answerable based on human intent is essentially pointless. What we do know is that, speaking in terms of probability, the chances of Japan surrendering with anything less than a direct nuclear strike or all-out invasion were slim-to-none. The Soviets were useless in a naval sense and would have taken far too long to make a difference. The Japanese were still hell-bent on killing Americans. From a commander's standpoint, the decision was completely correct. The deaths were entirely regrettable, but given a choice between 300,000 and 30 million, I can't fathom why you would chose the 30 million.

I am now known as Flyboy.