Well ahem there has been two theory's in what would happen if they didnt drop both nukes. One a huge huge huge D-day x 50 would accure where they say it would probably cost 1 million american lives. Since everyone in Japan was willing to die for there emperor that would be a lot of people to fight against.
Two my fun one is there were around 1,200 Jet aircraft located in a mountain inside of Japan. Well planes going 600+ MPH would rape any of our planes at the time. They've done videos about 1946 with Japan using Jets and they would have devistated our ships and planes.
But then with Russia declaring war on Japan who knows. Japan was willing to kill all of itself than rather to surrender to an enemy. Unless if there God told them to lay there arms down. Which obviously he did. So ya
Definently NOT justified. A common excuse is that we would've had to invade Japan with millions of people dying in the process, but the fact is the Japanese were already on the verge of surrendering. The nukes were like a shove when really all that was needed was a little push. Japan was just used.
The real reason that the nuke was used was to show Russia that America was bigger and better than them. "Look what we can do, level whole cities with one bomb, so you better not mess with us." Japan was just a testing ground, used to show the effects of the nuke of humans, innocent humans. Something like 300,000 total lives lost when all that was really needed was a drop in some uninhabited area, scaring the Japanese into an early surrender and showing the Russians are new little piece of tech. But instead we had to kill 300,000 people with two bombs just for revenge.
Skin peeled from flesh while the people were still alive, children melted into the ground from the waist down, and shadows of bodies burnt into walls. Being ignorant of the bombs effect caused 100,000 to die slow, painful deaths. How can this be "justified"?
Well there's my view, hopefully some people who post in this thread will have seen the show last night on the History Channel, "The Decision to Drop the Bomb." was what I think it was called, very well made. Let us hope nukes will never be used again. Peace. (sorry for the hippy ****)
The key thing is whether you believe or not that Japan was in fact on the verge of surrendering. AFAIK most historians agree that they were in fact on the brink, and that Truman probably knew this when he decided to drop the bomb.
Marik_SteeleTo rule in hell...Join Date: 2002-11-20Member: 9466Members
edited September 2003
The idea of Japan being a sort of "testing ground" seems plausible enough, but I'm wondering to what extent that was the case. Did they drop the first bomb and say "ooh, look, it actually worked when dropped from a plane," or did they literally swarm in scientists in haz-mat suits to measure the effects on a city vs. the effects on the deserts they previously tested in? It seems a bit unsympathetic to use it on a mainly-civilian city for either reason.
War has always been "used" as a testing ground for endless numbers of tests.. biological, psychological, medical, technical, new weapons and so on... I belive that Japan was close to surrendering. I also belive that the American administration was aware of that. So I conclude that Japan was used as testing ground for their new weapon and to show the whole world their power.
Truman, Openheimer, the secretary of state, and a few other people met to discuss the use of the atomic bomb. Why'd they use it? Frankly, I think it was because the US was sick of the war. The japanese dragged us into the war we'd largly avoided. I'd nuke their **** too.
i believe the bomb is justified, but just remeber... we are discussing this 50+ years later, times were different back then, it was a different kind of war. the bomb was used to show the russians who was the best, but it also gave a message to the japanese, "if your going to fight to the last man than we can just drop these huge bombs to take u all out at once."
the theory that an invasion of the Japanese home islands would of costed 1 million american lives is the "worst case senario." 1 million soldiers would of died if everything went wrong, though there would of been a high body count.
the thing people must understand from the presidents view point is this, "why send thousands of americans to die when i can just drop the bomb from a bomber?" The american people would be outraged if Truman didnt use the bomb. They could accuse him of favoring the japanese over american soldiers.
thats my two and a quater cents. be my guese to comment
Firebombing in which you throw as many bombs as you can with the purpose of wiping a city off the map killed far more people than both atomic bombs combined. Heck the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. The nuclear weapons were terrible and killed lots of people, but so did firebombing in equally messy ways (and if you're dead, you're dead).
As for if the Japanese would surrender, that's a tricky question. From what I can tell, it was the firebombing of the other cities that moved the Emperor to surrender as it was (rightly) believed that the US would have at best a two to three of nukes, but thousands upon thousands of bombs. Even so, the Army attempted a coup that might have been successful. However I also have heard that the purposed Russian invasion could have been a reason. The problem with figuring all of this out is that since then the atomic bomb has been on everyone's mind along with the Cold War clouding views, opinions, and facts of that time.
Remember, America's view on Japan at that time may be as extreme as this: <a href='http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?collection=prelinger&collectionid=19296' target='_blank'>http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.p...lectionid=19296</a>
Consider that as your enemy, now decide if you would drop it.
I believe that a major part was the perceived threat of the Soviets. At this stage of the war, relations were already starting to break down between the USSR and the Western Allies, and the Allies were acutely aware that they faced a massive numerical disadvantage in Europe. Now whether or not Stalin ever would have invaded is of course open to endless debate, but suffice to say the Wetsern Allies were worried about such a scenario. Dropping the bomb did 2 things: it demonstrated to the Soviets that the Western Allies had an incredibly powerful weapon, and it brought Japan directly under US control, thus setting it up as an excellent position to spy on the USSR in the Far East. I believe Japan would have surrendered regardless, and I don't really think that the 2 reasons above justified the dropping of the bomb. But at the time, I think that frightening the Soviets and gaining control of Japan were the reasons for dropping the nukes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Two my fun one is there were around 1,200 Jet aircraft located in a mountain inside of Japan. Well planes going 600+ MPH would rape any of our planes at the time. They've done videos about 1946 with Japan using Jets and they would have devistated our ships and planes. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that it's too little too late. Even if you had the aircraft, you a) didn't have pilots. No, I mean literally. All the vets have pretty much died by now. Pilot quality of the survivors is below poor. They couldn't even train people to become kamikazi's in enough numbers to make a difference. And all you need to learn from that is how to point your aircraft at the ship pretty much.... they still missed often due to lack of any flight experience. In addition, jets require more experienced pilots to be effectively used when compared to piston aircraft.
b) didn't have gas. Again, literally. They ran out- if there WERE aircraft in the mountain, it was because they didn't have the pilots to fly them or the fuel to run them.
In any case, as to the bombings of japanese civilians, a lot of people don't understand their industrial layout. It wasn't a group of major centralized factories like in germany, and most countries today. In Japan, they had a very de-centralized system. They had mom and pop operations running out of their homes all over the place producing various goods for war. ALthough our mindset "allowed" for the bombing of civilians at the time, (wrong or not), when we fire bombed it was not to kill civilians en masse. It was to strike their industrial sector, and given the way it was organized (as mentioned) it would undoubtidly lead to very high civilian casualties.
I haven't yet given my opinion on whether or not it was justified, but I'll post an opinion of someone I know soon. It seems to be pretty well thought out- for now though, sleep time!
My knowledge of history is weak in certain ways. This is one of them so could you tell me again why US actually had to win Japan? They were isolated on their island, why couldn't US just leave them there to rot?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is one of them so could you tell me again why US actually had to win Japan? They were isolated on their island, why couldn't US just leave them there to rot? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Probably because the Soviets would have invaded them. Stalin declared war on Japan as a means to grab technology and factories; he very likely would have had no qualms about invading mainland Japan if it became clear that the US wasn't going to. Whether he would have done it; well that can never be proven or disproven. It's one of those quirks of history speculation which can only ever be debated.
That aside the actual reasons for having to conquor Japan more come down to precieved policies after the war as opposed to before it. With the USSR in control of Eastern Europe and showing no signs of upholding Stalin's promises to create free democratic states in these regions, the Western Allies essentially wanted to grab as many footholds in the East as possible. Ending the war as fast as possible and getting troops into Japan was one way to accomplish this, because with Japan's surrender the US could focus on securing it's positions in the East in preperation for a possible Soviet - Allied clash.
If Roosevelt hadn't died before the end of the war , Japan cities wouldn't have been nuked. He made sure the USA entered WWII , so I doubt he'd have dared use nuclear weapons.
At worst , atom bombs could have been detonated over desert regions in Japan (the mountains , that also are a symbol) so that the Emperor had a chance to consider surrending.
<!--QuoteBegin--DarkDude+Sep 15 2003, 08:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkDude @ Sep 15 2003, 08:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Definently NOT justified. A common excuse is that we would've had to invade Japan with millions of people dying in the process, but the fact is the Japanese were already on the verge of surrendering. The nukes were like a shove when really all that was needed was a little push. Japan was just used.
The real reason that the nuke was used was to show Russia that America was bigger and better than them. "Look what we can do, level whole cities with one bomb, so you better not mess with us." Japan was just a testing ground, used to show the effects of the nuke of humans, innocent humans. Something like 300,000 total lives lost when all that was really needed was a drop in some uninhabited area, scaring the Japanese into an early surrender and showing the Russians are new little piece of tech. But instead we had to kill 300,000 people with two bombs just for revenge.
Skin peeled from flesh while the people were still alive, children melted into the ground from the waist down, and shadows of bodies burnt into walls. Being ignorant of the bombs effect caused 100,000 to die slow, painful deaths. How can this be "justified"?
Well there's my view, hopefully some people who post in this thread will have seen the show last night on the History Channel, "The Decision to Drop the Bomb." was what I think it was called, very well made. Let us hope nukes will never be used again. Peace. (sorry for the hippy ****) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, your right. Who cares about a milllion troops walking to their deaths, its not you, right?
<!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Sep 16 2003, 02:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Sep 16 2003, 02:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yeah, your right. Who cares about a milllion troops walking to their deaths, its not you, right? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No one forced them to walk to their deaths. Why won't just leave Japan for Russians problem?
And I seriously think those bombs could have been dropped somewhere else. Like in military target?
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> I feel the same way Dread. Devil's Advocate is a great thing
As conservative as I am (usually considered Pro-War, though it was a Democrat in office, and house, and senate during WWII), I think only the first one was nessary.
I like Truman, so don't think of it as me blasting him because he was a democrat, but I honestly don't think we gave them enough time. Something that powerful would obviously cause mass confusion, and I think we dropped the second one a little too early.
Perhaps I'm wrong; perhaps they would have had more time to prepare and would have shot down the plane, but non the less, we could have threatened them with many more (even if we only had two anyways) and I'm sure in time they would have surrendered. The only problem is, if they didn't, we would have had to invade, costing the lives of countless more lives.
So yes, I think the first one was justified. The second one, we should have waited a little bit longer.
<!--QuoteBegin--DarkDude+Sep 15 2003, 08:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkDude @ Sep 15 2003, 08:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Definently NOT justified. A common excuse is that we would've had to invade Japan with millions of people dying in the process, but the fact is the Japanese were already on the verge of surrendering. The nukes were like a shove when really all that was needed was a little push. Japan was just used.
The real reason that the nuke was used was to show Russia that America was bigger and better than them. "Look what we can do, level whole cities with one bomb, so you better not mess with us." Japan was just a testing ground, used to show the effects of the nuke of humans, innocent humans. Something like 300,000 total lives lost when all that was really needed was a drop in some uninhabited area, scaring the Japanese into an early surrender and showing the Russians are new little piece of tech. But instead we had to kill 300,000 people with two bombs just for revenge.
Skin peeled from flesh while the people were still alive, children melted into the ground from the waist down, and shadows of bodies burnt into walls. Being ignorant of the bombs effect caused 100,000 to die slow, painful deaths. How can this be "justified"?
Well there's my view, hopefully some people who post in this thread will have seen the show last night on the History Channel, "The Decision to Drop the Bomb." was what I think it was called, very well made. Let us hope nukes will never be used again. Peace. (sorry for the hippy ****) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Now I disagree.
Even when we dropped the 1st one they were reluctent to surrender. We only had two as well. If we had detonated it on some uninhabited Island, what would they have done? Most likely they wouldn't have been effected by that, and we would only have one more chance to actually land one on their soil or we would have had to invade.
Like I said in my post above, I don't think the second one was needed, but the first one, most certainely. It's just not worth the risk to our soldiers lives to not drop one. You under estimate their loyality to what the Emperor wanted.
We warned them ahead of time that we had something that would absolutely devestate them, they didn't believe us, they paid the price.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Sep 16 2003, 08:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Sep 16 2003, 08:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Sep 16 2003, 02:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Sep 16 2003, 02:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yeah, your right. Who cares about a milllion troops walking to their deaths, its not you, right? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No one forced them to walk to their deaths. Why won't just leave Japan for Russians problem?
And I seriously think those bombs could have been dropped somewhere else. Like in military target? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> They didn't really have any major isolated military targets.
<!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Sep 16 2003, 07:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Sep 16 2003, 07:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yeah, your right. Who cares about a milllion troops walking to their deaths, its not you, right? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> A million people wouldn't have walked to their deaths because like I said, the Japanese were already getting ready to surrender and America knew this. The nukes served two purposes, to speed things up so Russia wouldn't get into Japan and to show the world the new power. "We have a new bomb so let's use the damn thing." That's really not justification, it's a reason, but not justification.
Xzilen I guess i can see your point. But look into it, (accurate stuff, not American patriotic bs) I don't understand why we couldn't have dropped this somewhere else. In a forest or just off the shores of Japan. Why should they believe us? We tell them we've got a single bomb that can wipe out an entire city do you think they will believe us? Hell no. Don't know how to make it clear enough but Hirohito wasn't a crazy, religous fanatic bent on world destruction. He was pretty reasonable when it was time for it. He WAS about to surrender, but we thought it was taking to long and we had this nice, new, shiny weapon here to speed it up. Why not use it? Not to mention that 300,000 lives is a pretty hefty "price" for them to pay.
We were going to invade if we didn't use nuclear weapons.
Those cities were only lightly damaged and saved for the use of nuclear weapons, they would have been pummeled by firebombing which would have killed more than 300,000. We, (and rightly in my opinion) chose the target that would have caused the most shock effect. Most damage. We couldn't afford for this not to work. Nuking a beach, airbursting a nuke, nuking a mountain or forest where only a few people could see is NOT the best way to send the message. Decimating an entire city did get the message across.
Bombing the second city may nave not been nessisary, but I think hitting the first would have been.
Whether or not japan was on the brink of surrender or not, they weren't going to do it before we invaded. They were gearing up for it. They may have surrendered shortly thereafter but the damage would have been done. More than 300,000 would have been lost on both sides.
Russia was going to invade as well, we asked them to- some people would say that the nuclear weapons were only a secondary cause of the quick surrender, and that actually the reason japan surrendered was when they found out russia was going to invade.
If anything, using nuclear weapons was a better option for the japanese people as well. Firebombing them for months would have caused worse suffering. Ideally, as we all know, we shouldn't have used either option, but we were going to. I suppose the long and painful route would have been better?
Dark, You may have a point when you say russia and a show of power was the primary reason we dropped it, but I disagree. It may have been a nice bonus.... but you can't tell me that ending the war early so american lives would not be lost wasn't even one of the considerations when they were deciding whether or not to use it. It was a consideration. Some would say saving US lives was only a bonus, and the primary reason was to show russia how strong we are, but I personally believe the reverse to be true, and our show of power was just a side effect.
Regardless, one way to look at it is that our using the nukes only put russias nuclear program in overdrive. In some situations, it may have been better for us to keep it secret and that way if we get into a tiff with russia, we could end it quickly and decisively.
I'm sorry if the following is a bit out of order, but I'm going to try and answer every point presented. I'm not a big forum user, but a friend pointed this out to me and I'm a huge WWII fan. Anyways, onto the debate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One a huge huge huge D-day x 50 would accure where they say it would probably cost 1 million american lives. Since everyone in Japan was willing to die for there emperor that would be a lot of people to fight against.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's correct. An invasion of japan would have cost millions of men, millions of resources, and quite possibley many years. It would be unwise to turn to that option when we had three massive bombs laying around. Not only could we end the war, we could flex our military muscle in front of Russia.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A common excuse is that we would've had to invade Japan with millions of people dying in the process, but the fact is the Japanese were already on the verge of surrendering.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Japanese surrendering is all well and good but there's still some uncertainty there. Let me present you with an example. Say a crazed hobo with a knife corners you in a dark alley a night (us fighting the japanese on thier own ground, a slaughter). Now let's say you have a gun (the atomic bombs). Are you going to sit there and not use the gun, because that hobo <i>might</i> not stab you? An actual fact for you. Years after the war was over, japanese soldiers were still defending islands in the pacific. Even if Japan had surrender, many of it's soldiers would have kept fighting.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why'd they use it? Frankly, I think it was because the US was sick of the war. The japanese dragged us into the war we'd largly avoided.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's right. Who decided one day to ship a couple hundred planes to Pearl Harbor to attack a non-beligerant military base that was comprised of many citizens? Japan. Who dragged us into a war we were trying to avoid? Japan. We were retaliating and setting a standard about our policy of war. We're not gonna fool around.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Firebombing in which you throw as many bombs as you can with the purpose of wiping a city off the map killed far more people than both atomic bombs combined. Heck the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. The nuclear weapons were terrible and killed lots of people, but so did firebombing in equally messy ways (and if you're dead, you're dead). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also correct. The only reason that isn't really publisied (spelling?) as much is because it wasn't a major turning event in the war or history.
Both Ryo-Ohki's and Burncycle's posts previously address two other points. To go a step further on Burncycle's, nearly everyone in Japan was considered a fighter. Women and children were learning how to fight with sharpened brooms and sticks while thier next door neighbors were fasioning crude pipe guns and repairing thier old WWI bolt action and autoloaders. The whole country was in gear for the war except maybe the most rural of parts.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is one of them so could you tell me again why US actually had to win Japan? They were isolated on their island, why couldn't US just leave them there to rot?
Probably because the Soviets would have invaded them. Stalin declared war on Japan as a means to grab technology and factories; he very likely would have had no qualms about invading mainland Japan if it became clear that the US wasn't going to.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have to remember that Truman wasn't privy to any of Roosevelts plans. Hence the whole distrust after the war about Russia thinking it owned half of Poland. Truman didn't know about the agreement with Russia where they were going to help us with Japan after we took care of the German war machine for them. Truman thought he want to help so taht he could take over it and the countries that it had conquered, mainly China. And since China is a huge part of our exports we would lose money if it wasn't free.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->At worst , atom bombs could have been detonated over desert regions in Japan (the mountains , that also are a symbol) so that the Emperor had a chance to consider surrending.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And waste millions in research to scare the Japanese into what might not be a surrender.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So yes, I think the first one was justified. The second one, we should have waited a little bit longer. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that's a great idea. Get a kind of roping effect where you can keep hitting them in stronger degrees until they surrender. Plus it would have saved money on keeping the second bombs, because would have probably been enough to sign the deal.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even when we dropped the 1st one they were reluctent to surrender. We only had two as well. If we had detonated it on some uninhabited Island, what would they have done? Most likely they wouldn't have been effected by that, and we would only have one more chance to actually land one on their soil or we would have had to invade.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The beautiful thing is that they didn't know we only had two. We could have had thousands for all they knew. And if the first one didn't prove that, I'm sure a second and third would have convinced them.
Well, that's about all I got for the moment. Hope this sets some people straight as to the facts. If you have any response, please post. I'd love to hear them. This combined my two favorite subjects, war and argueing (again, spelling?). Thank you and good night.
Your not dumb dread, you just see things in a whack way, at least in my opinion. I can give many examples where that argument defies any common sense.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I was under the impression that USA forced Japan in to war with a trade embargo.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US embargoed japan because of it's actions in it's surrounding countries. It's a common move done when you want to send a message but you do not want to go as far as to use force yet. We did not FORCE japan to strike us at pearl harbor. They initiated the violence. Read it again- yes they did so because in their eyes they had no other option, but if you think about it they put themselves in that position.
You can say "Japan would have never attacked the US if we hadn't put an embargo on them" but that argument is fallous..... because its a matter of interpritation. Let me give you an example. I can take your form of arguement, but take it a little further, and say "Well, the US wouldn't have put an embargo on japan at all if it hadn't been so aggressive and gobbling up it's neighbors". You see? We can go back and forth as much as you want, but Japan still threw the first punch.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And even though I've read all this I don't get why so many civilians had to be slaughtered. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People didn't think in the 40's the way they do now. They had different priorities. In their eyes, Japan struck america who generally wanted to stay out of direct conflict. The reason they did this is that they figured if they continued being aggressive, they would have to fight us eventually- they wanted the pacific, and we were going to keep our parts of it. So they chose to strike first in hopes of crippling us. In any case, the american people, and president, were in a position where they now had to get directly involved in a world conflict. At this point in time anything was a legit target- nowadays, especially with the technology the media has now, we see conflicts firsthand. We're lead to believe that war is a decisive action where there are little to zero casualties and it's over. Thats actually the exception rather than the rule- we've come along way, but still only two major conflicts had few deaths on the allied side. Gulf war 1, and gulf war 2. A few others could be considered (panama, etc) but those are the two major ones. Yet, the world has had hundreds if not thousands of wars. We live in an age where 8-10,000 civilians have died by mistake. 40 years ago, a MILLION may have died on purpose. So, to average joe, while 8-10,000 civilians is an outrage and unacceptable, to people in the military it's a pretty good victory considering how it used to be. That is not to say it's acceptable, but it's better. And hopefully it will continue to get better. Don't mistake this statement as thinking that we don't care. Indeed the only way it's gotten so low is because of how much we ARE concerned.
In any case, I digress. Back to the point- the mindset of WWII was unrestricted warfare. Japan used biological weapons, america ended up using nuclear weapons, and luckily no one in europe released chemical or bio weapons, although both were prepared to at any moment. Everyone was bombing everyone else- civilians were considered legit. That may not be "right" but thats the way it was.
American bombers would take out german factories in high altitude "precision" daylight strikes, with our bombsight that was quite excellent and allowed us to do this. (I put precision in quotes because bombs still sometimes strayed miles from target. We flew in groups of dozens, sometimes hundreds of bombers because that was the only way to ensure that one target got destroyed. This is called carpet bombing. We've come along way with precision weapons which dramatically reduces civilian casualties)
British bombers actually were somewhat more effective, or had the right idea at least. They did night-time raids because they had to get lower (if I recall correctly), and lower + daytime = bad. This means their bombs would spread over a larger area with less accuracy; they'd nail several city blocks instead of aiming for one factory. The reason I said this was the right idea, is because when you have a centralized factory, the workers of that factory usually lived nearby, as are the support buildings required to keep the factory supplied and running. While america would try and take out only the factory, they could have it rebuilt rather quickly. The british took out the factory, the surrounding buildings, and even the factory workers. This was again mainly a side-effect of the night-time bombings, rather than intention.
In japan, we were faced with a problem. They had no real centralized factories, as mentioned before. We had to bomb the entire city to get to the industrial base. This meaned a LOT of civilian casaulties, and it was horrible. But it's what we had to do in order to strike their industrail sector.
This explains somewhat why there were so many civilian casualties, although it doesn't excuse them. Looking back we can judge however we wish, and its easy to take for granted how far we've come, but being there, at the time, they did what had to be done even if it wasn't pretty. Japan had to be invaded quite simply because they needed to be conquered in order to stop them. You need to take into consideration other cultures; something I admit americans don't do often. The japanese were (and are) very dedicated people. They'd rather die than have their honor and pride hurt. Few people in america can say that, and so they don't understand why a people would do such a thing. I like our military because, in my opinion, it's composed with people with a different mindset. It was getting desperate, and they really probably knew they had lost after midway. But they would prepare and fight as long as possible. The war was already drug out, and tensions were increasing with russia- we wanted to end it as soon as possible, so we used what we had to do so; nuclear weapons. And it worked.
Never again came a time where nuclear weapons were so nessisary, and never again have we used nuclear weapons in anger. We've never threatened to use them offensively since.
Sorry to be so long winded, thats one of the problems I have. But I wanted to explain my viewpoint at least, and the reasoning behind it.
Should we have used the nuclear weapons? I don't think we should have been put in a position where we had to make that decision. But whats done is done....
<!--QuoteBegin--Xzilen+Sep 17 2003, 04:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Xzilen @ Sep 17 2003, 04:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Dare I jinx this and say I believe this has been one of the most civillized discussions we've had here in a while?
I've been enjoying it tremendously people, lets keep it up. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Indeed. Discussion forums are generally much more civil than they used to be, before the great lockdown. Forum mods rarely have to interfere.
Now on to Burncycles post:
I have to say that your post was an interesting read even though it had some 'extra' explaining in it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->. My knowledge of WW2 is much more concentrated on the main battle in Europe, for I example I was aware of the carpet bombing strategy and what it caused. Maybe my 'whacky' way of thinking is because I don't know so much about Japan/USA conflict so I'd be more than happy to learn more.
For example on this issue: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The US embargoed japan because of it's actions in it's surrounding countries.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What did Japan do and to whom?
And about the use of nuclear weapons: Why they had to drop 2? Why to civilian targets? Why not drop them in military/administrative targets to show what you have? Why Japan had to be 'stopped'? From doing what?
Yes, I feel like being 4 years old and asking everything from my mom <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> "What's that? What does it do? Can I touch it?"
Wait...I'm still like that <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What did Japan do and to whom?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Japan over-ran Chinese Manchuria, and initiated an all out war on China, capturing Peking, Shanghai and other important cities. I believe this was when they used biological weapons against the chinese. After this, they Seized Hainan Island, Took over all of Indochina, and Joined the axis by signing the Tripartite act.
This was in the late 30's, early 40's.
Only then did we decide to take action. I guess because we wanted to stay out of it..... but that didn't help the chinese much who were slaughtered. But who cares, its great being isolationist right? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> Thats another topic. Anyways, we then put the embargo into effect.
Japan wanted to continue expanding, and felt that they would have to eventually face us. Although it was a tactically a smart move to take pre-emptive action so they could fight us at their time and choosing, we all know the end result.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And about the use of nuclear weapons: Why they had to drop 2? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know honestly. One may have been enough; but it was like 3 days of no word before we dropped the other.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why to civilian targets? Why not drop them in military/administrative targets to show what you have?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By now, most of the military targets have been struck. I don't know our policy on striking high level adminstrative targets, but it wouldn't be very bright to obliterate the only guy who could surrender. The only thing left was the remnants of their industrial base, which as mentioned, was practially home-run by the civilians. We had firebombed all the major targets to nothing more than rubble, and Nagasaki and Hiroshima were among a list of cities that were nearly untouched, therefore potential targets. This was a big risk, if it failed we had no more bombs. We couldn't afford to detonate 2 nuclear weapons and have the emperor not understand the of significance of what we just did. So we hit the targets that would send the loudest message. There is speculation that we could have airbursted a nuclear weapon, or dropped it somewhere remote and the emperor would still have surrendered but we'll never know. At the time it was felt we couldn't afford the risk of failure I suppose. When the news that entire cities were taken out in one fell swoop, they surrendered.
I believe we did warn them ahead of time. So much pride.... they ignored it. Or at least the people in power did.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why Japan had to be 'stopped'? From doing what?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Taking over the entire pacific rim. Plus, they were part of the axis and the war wasn't over till they all surrendered or were defeated.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What did Japan do and to whom?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The slaughtering of Chinese, Southeast Asia, Manchuria... All those countries got a good slapping from the beat down stick of Japan.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And about the use of nuclear weapons: Why they had to drop 2? Why to civilian targets? Why not drop them in military/administrative targets to show what you have? Why Japan had to be 'stopped'? From doing what?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They dropped two bombs because we had to finish the war very very quickly. Fat man was dropped in a valley, so if you are so concered about body counts, be glad that it wasn't dropped on open land.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why not drop them in military/administrative targets to show what you have?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The cities were their military/administrative/industry targets.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why Japan had to be 'stopped'? From doing what?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Japan had to be stopped (as in, we had to make them surrender) because if we waited any longer there would be monstrous casualties on both sides (even more then the two bombs.) We had to stop the USSR from getting involved because if they had to step in, they would make all the stuff they conquered communist (just like they did with Eastern Europe, remember?)
Also, I really doubt that the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering because of their Bushido code. According to Bushido, you do not surrender, under any circumstance. You have dishonored yourself, your family, your ancestors, and you must now ritually disembowel yourself. The emporer was their god, if he said "keep fighting" thats what the Japanese would do.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Say a crazed hobo with a knife corners you in a dark alley a night (us fighting the japanese on thier own ground, a slaughter). Now let's say you have a gun (the atomic bombs). Are you going to sit there and not use the gun, because that hobo might not stab you?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ha silly stabbin' hobo's. Not quiet as friendly as singin' hobo's.
<!--QuoteBegin--Burncycle+Sep 17 2003, 09:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burncycle @ Sep 17 2003, 09:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why to civilian targets? Why not drop them in military/administrative targets to show what you have?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By now, most of the military targets have been struck. I don't know our policy on striking high level adminstrative targets, but it wouldn't be very bright to obliterate the only guy who could surrender. The only thing left was the remnants of their industrial base, which as mentioned, was practially home-run by the civilians. We had firebombed all the major targets to nothing more than rubble, and Nagasaki and Hiroshima were among a list of cities that were nearly untouched, therefore potential targets. This was a big risk, if it failed we had no more bombs. We couldn't afford to detonate 2 nuclear weapons and have the emperor not understand the of significance of what we just did. So we hit the targets that would send the loudest message. There is speculation that we could have airbursted a nuclear weapon, or dropped it somewhere remote and the emperor would still have surrendered but we'll never know. At the time it was felt we couldn't afford the risk of failure I suppose. When the news that entire cities were taken out in one fell swoop, they surrendered. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sounds like you had stopped them right there. I mean all their military targets and cities in ruble. Sounds like they couldn't have conquered anyone at that point?
And was China communistic then? If so, why USA was so concerned over the communistic bastages? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Or was it just to prevent the enemy from getting more power?
Comments
Two my fun one is there were around 1,200 Jet aircraft located in a mountain inside of Japan. Well planes going 600+ MPH would rape any of our planes at the time. They've done videos about 1946 with Japan using Jets and they would have devistated our ships and planes.
But then with Russia declaring war on Japan who knows. Japan was willing to kill all of itself than rather to surrender to an enemy. Unless if there God told them to lay there arms down. Which obviously he did. So ya
The real reason that the nuke was used was to show Russia that America was bigger and better than them. "Look what we can do, level whole cities with one bomb, so you better not mess with us." Japan was just a testing ground, used to show the effects of the nuke of humans, innocent humans. Something like 300,000 total lives lost when all that was really needed was a drop in some uninhabited area, scaring the Japanese into an early surrender and showing the Russians are new little piece of tech. But instead we had to kill 300,000 people with two bombs just for revenge.
Skin peeled from flesh while the people were still alive, children melted into the ground from the waist down, and shadows of bodies burnt into walls. Being ignorant of the bombs effect caused 100,000 to die slow, painful deaths. How can this be "justified"?
Well there's my view, hopefully some people who post in this thread will have seen the show last night on the History Channel, "The Decision to Drop the Bomb." was what I think it was called, very well made. Let us hope nukes will never be used again. Peace. (sorry for the hippy ****)
I belive that Japan was close to surrendering.
I also belive that the American administration was aware of that.
So I conclude that Japan was used as testing ground for their new weapon and to show the whole world their power.
the theory that an invasion of the Japanese home islands would of costed 1 million american lives is the "worst case senario." 1 million soldiers would of died if everything went wrong, though there would of been a high body count.
the thing people must understand from the presidents view point is this, "why send thousands of americans to die when i can just drop the bomb from a bomber?" The american people would be outraged if Truman didnt use the bomb. They could accuse him of favoring the japanese over american soldiers.
thats my two and a quater cents. be my guese to comment
As for if the Japanese would surrender, that's a tricky question. From what I can tell, it was the firebombing of the other cities that moved the Emperor to surrender as it was (rightly) believed that the US would have at best a two to three of nukes, but thousands upon thousands of bombs. Even so, the Army attempted a coup that might have been successful. However I also have heard that the purposed Russian invasion could have been a reason. The problem with figuring all of this out is that since then the atomic bomb has been on everyone's mind along with the Cold War clouding views, opinions, and facts of that time.
Consider that as your enemy, now decide if you would drop it.
The problem is that it's too little too late. Even if you had the aircraft, you
a) didn't have pilots. No, I mean literally. All the vets have pretty much died by now. Pilot quality of the survivors is below poor. They couldn't even train people to become kamikazi's in enough numbers to make a difference. And all you need to learn from that is how to point your aircraft at the ship pretty much.... they still missed often due to lack of any flight experience. In addition, jets require more experienced pilots to be effectively used when compared to piston aircraft.
b) didn't have gas. Again, literally. They ran out- if there WERE aircraft in the mountain, it was because they didn't have the pilots to fly them or the fuel to run them.
In any case, as to the bombings of japanese civilians, a lot of people don't understand their industrial layout. It wasn't a group of major centralized factories like in germany, and most countries today. In Japan, they had a very de-centralized system. They had mom and pop operations running out of their homes all over the place producing various goods for war. ALthough our mindset "allowed" for the bombing of civilians at the time, (wrong or not), when we fire bombed it was not to kill civilians en masse. It was to strike their industrial sector, and given the way it was organized (as mentioned) it would undoubtidly lead to very high civilian casualties.
I haven't yet given my opinion on whether or not it was justified, but I'll post an opinion of someone I know soon. It seems to be pretty well thought out- for now though, sleep time!
Probably because the Soviets would have invaded them. Stalin declared war on Japan as a means to grab technology and factories; he very likely would have had no qualms about invading mainland Japan if it became clear that the US wasn't going to. Whether he would have done it; well that can never be proven or disproven. It's one of those quirks of history speculation which can only ever be debated.
That aside the actual reasons for having to conquor Japan more come down to precieved policies after the war as opposed to before it. With the USSR in control of Eastern Europe and showing no signs of upholding Stalin's promises to create free democratic states in these regions, the Western Allies essentially wanted to grab as many footholds in the East as possible. Ending the war as fast as possible and getting troops into Japan was one way to accomplish this, because with Japan's surrender the US could focus on securing it's positions in the East in preperation for a possible Soviet - Allied clash.
At worst , atom bombs could have been detonated over desert regions in Japan (the mountains , that also are a symbol) so that the Emperor had a chance to consider surrending.
The real reason that the nuke was used was to show Russia that America was bigger and better than them. "Look what we can do, level whole cities with one bomb, so you better not mess with us." Japan was just a testing ground, used to show the effects of the nuke of humans, innocent humans. Something like 300,000 total lives lost when all that was really needed was a drop in some uninhabited area, scaring the Japanese into an early surrender and showing the Russians are new little piece of tech. But instead we had to kill 300,000 people with two bombs just for revenge.
Skin peeled from flesh while the people were still alive, children melted into the ground from the waist down, and shadows of bodies burnt into walls. Being ignorant of the bombs effect caused 100,000 to die slow, painful deaths. How can this be "justified"?
Well there's my view, hopefully some people who post in this thread will have seen the show last night on the History Channel, "The Decision to Drop the Bomb." was what I think it was called, very well made. Let us hope nukes will never be used again. Peace. (sorry for the hippy ****) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, your right. Who cares about a milllion troops walking to their deaths, its not you, right?
No one forced them to walk to their deaths. Why won't just leave Japan for Russians problem?
And I seriously think those bombs could have been dropped somewhere else. Like in military target?
I like Truman, so don't think of it as me blasting him because he was a democrat, but I honestly don't think we gave them enough time. Something that powerful would obviously cause mass confusion, and I think we dropped the second one a little too early.
Perhaps I'm wrong; perhaps they would have had more time to prepare and would have shot down the plane, but non the less, we could have threatened them with many more (even if we only had two anyways) and I'm sure in time they would have surrendered. The only problem is, if they didn't, we would have had to invade, costing the lives of countless more lives.
So yes, I think the first one was justified. The second one, we should have waited a little bit longer.
The real reason that the nuke was used was to show Russia that America was bigger and better than them. "Look what we can do, level whole cities with one bomb, so you better not mess with us." Japan was just a testing ground, used to show the effects of the nuke of humans, innocent humans. Something like 300,000 total lives lost when all that was really needed was a drop in some uninhabited area, scaring the Japanese into an early surrender and showing the Russians are new little piece of tech. But instead we had to kill 300,000 people with two bombs just for revenge.
Skin peeled from flesh while the people were still alive, children melted into the ground from the waist down, and shadows of bodies burnt into walls. Being ignorant of the bombs effect caused 100,000 to die slow, painful deaths. How can this be "justified"?
Well there's my view, hopefully some people who post in this thread will have seen the show last night on the History Channel, "The Decision to Drop the Bomb." was what I think it was called, very well made. Let us hope nukes will never be used again. Peace. (sorry for the hippy ****) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now I disagree.
Even when we dropped the 1st one they were reluctent to surrender. We only had two as well. If we had detonated it on some uninhabited Island, what would they have done? Most likely they wouldn't have been effected by that, and we would only have one more chance to actually land one on their soil or we would have had to invade.
Like I said in my post above, I don't think the second one was needed, but the first one, most certainely. It's just not worth the risk to our soldiers lives to not drop one. You under estimate their loyality to what the Emperor wanted.
We warned them ahead of time that we had something that would absolutely devestate them, they didn't believe us, they paid the price.
No one forced them to walk to their deaths. Why won't just leave Japan for Russians problem?
And I seriously think those bombs could have been dropped somewhere else. Like in military target? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
They didn't really have any major isolated military targets.
A million people wouldn't have walked to their deaths because like I said, the Japanese were already getting ready to surrender and America knew this. The nukes served two purposes, to speed things up so Russia wouldn't get into Japan and to show the world the new power. "We have a new bomb so let's use the damn thing." That's really not justification, it's a reason, but not justification.
Xzilen I guess i can see your point. But look into it, (accurate stuff, not American patriotic bs) I don't understand why we couldn't have dropped this somewhere else. In a forest or just off the shores of Japan. Why should they believe us? We tell them we've got a single bomb that can wipe out an entire city do you think they will believe us? Hell no. Don't know how to make it clear enough but Hirohito wasn't a crazy, religous fanatic bent on world destruction. He was pretty reasonable when it was time for it. He WAS about to surrender, but we thought it was taking to long and we had this nice, new, shiny weapon here to speed it up. Why not use it? Not to mention that 300,000 lives is a pretty hefty "price" for them to pay.
Those cities were only lightly damaged and saved for the use of nuclear weapons, they would have been pummeled by firebombing which would have killed more than 300,000. We, (and rightly in my opinion) chose the target that would have caused the most shock effect. Most damage. We couldn't afford for this not to work. Nuking a beach, airbursting a nuke, nuking a mountain or forest where only a few people could see is NOT the best way to send the message. Decimating an entire city did get the message across.
Bombing the second city may nave not been nessisary, but I think hitting the first would have been.
Whether or not japan was on the brink of surrender or not, they weren't going to do it before we invaded. They were gearing up for it. They may have surrendered shortly thereafter but the damage would have been done. More than 300,000 would have been lost on both sides.
Russia was going to invade as well, we asked them to- some people would say that the nuclear weapons were only a secondary cause of the quick surrender, and that actually the reason japan surrendered was when they found out russia was going to invade.
If anything, using nuclear weapons was a better option for the japanese people as well. Firebombing them for months would have caused worse suffering. Ideally, as we all know, we shouldn't have used either option, but we were going to. I suppose the long and painful route would have been better?
Dark, You may have a point when you say russia and a show of power was the primary reason we dropped it, but I disagree. It may have been a nice bonus.... but you can't tell me that ending the war early so american lives would not be lost wasn't even one of the considerations when they were deciding whether or not to use it. It was a consideration. Some would say saving US lives was only a bonus, and the primary reason was to show russia how strong we are, but I personally believe the reverse to be true, and our show of power was just a side effect.
Regardless, one way to look at it is that our using the nukes only put russias nuclear program in overdrive. In some situations, it may have been better for us to keep it secret and that way if we get into a tiff with russia, we could end it quickly and decisively.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One a huge huge huge D-day x 50 would accure where they say it would probably cost 1 million american lives. Since everyone in Japan was willing to die for there emperor that would be a lot of people to fight against.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's correct. An invasion of japan would have cost millions of men, millions of resources, and quite possibley many years. It would be unwise to turn to that option when we had three massive bombs laying around. Not only could we end the war, we could flex our military muscle in front of Russia.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A common excuse is that we would've had to invade Japan with millions of people dying in the process, but the fact is the Japanese were already on the verge of surrendering.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Japanese surrendering is all well and good but there's still some uncertainty there. Let me present you with an example. Say a crazed hobo with a knife corners you in a dark alley a night (us fighting the japanese on thier own ground, a slaughter). Now let's say you have a gun (the atomic bombs). Are you going to sit there and not use the gun, because that hobo <i>might</i> not stab you?
An actual fact for you. Years after the war was over, japanese soldiers were still defending islands in the pacific. Even if Japan had surrender, many of it's soldiers would have kept fighting.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why'd they use it? Frankly, I think it was because the US was sick of the war. The japanese dragged us into the war we'd largly avoided.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's right. Who decided one day to ship a couple hundred planes to Pearl Harbor to attack a non-beligerant military base that was comprised of many citizens? Japan. Who dragged us into a war we were trying to avoid? Japan. We were retaliating and setting a standard about our policy of war. We're not gonna fool around.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Firebombing in which you throw as many bombs as you can with the purpose of wiping a city off the map killed far more people than both atomic bombs combined. Heck the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. The nuclear weapons were terrible and killed lots of people, but so did firebombing in equally messy ways (and if you're dead, you're dead). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also correct. The only reason that isn't really publisied (spelling?) as much is because it wasn't a major turning event in the war or history.
Both Ryo-Ohki's and Burncycle's posts previously address two other points. To go a step further on Burncycle's, nearly everyone in Japan was considered a fighter. Women and children were learning how to fight with sharpened brooms and sticks while thier next door neighbors were fasioning crude pipe guns and repairing thier old WWI bolt action and autoloaders. The whole country was in gear for the war except maybe the most rural of parts.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is one of them so could you tell me again why US actually had to win Japan? They were isolated on their island, why couldn't US just leave them there to rot?
Probably because the Soviets would have invaded them. Stalin declared war on Japan as a means to grab technology and factories; he very likely would have had no qualms about invading mainland Japan if it became clear that the US wasn't going to.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have to remember that Truman wasn't privy to any of Roosevelts plans. Hence the whole distrust after the war about Russia thinking it owned half of Poland. Truman didn't know about the agreement with Russia where they were going to help us with Japan after we took care of the German war machine for them. Truman thought he want to help so taht he could take over it and the countries that it had conquered, mainly China. And since China is a huge part of our exports we would lose money if it wasn't free.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->At worst , atom bombs could have been detonated over desert regions in Japan (the mountains , that also are a symbol) so that the Emperor had a chance to consider surrending.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And waste millions in research to scare the Japanese into what might not be a surrender.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So yes, I think the first one was justified. The second one, we should have waited a little bit longer. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that's a great idea. Get a kind of roping effect where you can keep hitting them in stronger degrees until they surrender. Plus it would have saved money on keeping the second bombs, because would have probably been enough to sign the deal.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even when we dropped the 1st one they were reluctent to surrender. We only had two as well. If we had detonated it on some uninhabited Island, what would they have done? Most likely they wouldn't have been effected by that, and we would only have one more chance to actually land one on their soil or we would have had to invade.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The beautiful thing is that they didn't know we only had two. We could have had thousands for all they knew. And if the first one didn't prove that, I'm sure a second and third would have convinced them.
Well, that's about all I got for the moment. Hope this sets some people straight as to the facts. If you have any response, please post. I'd love to hear them. This combined my two favorite subjects, war and argueing (again, spelling?).
Thank you and good night.
And even though I've read all this I don't get why so many civilians had to be slaughtered.
Also I don't get why Japan had to be 'invaded'.
Maybe I'm dumb?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I was under the impression that USA forced Japan in to war with a trade embargo.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US embargoed japan because of it's actions in it's surrounding countries. It's a common move done when you want to send a message but you do not want to go as far as to use force yet. We did not FORCE japan to strike us at pearl harbor. They initiated the violence. Read it again- yes they did so because in their eyes they had no other option, but if you think about it they put themselves in that position.
You can say "Japan would have never attacked the US if we hadn't put an embargo on them" but that argument is fallous..... because its a matter of interpritation. Let me give you an example. I can take your form of arguement, but take it a little further, and say "Well, the US wouldn't have put an embargo on japan at all if it hadn't been so aggressive and gobbling up it's neighbors". You see? We can go back and forth as much as you want, but Japan still threw the first punch.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And even though I've read all this I don't get why so many civilians had to be slaughtered. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People didn't think in the 40's the way they do now. They had different priorities. In their eyes, Japan struck america who generally wanted to stay out of direct conflict. The reason they did this is that they figured if they continued being aggressive, they would have to fight us eventually- they wanted the pacific, and we were going to keep our parts of it. So they chose to strike first in hopes of crippling us. In any case, the american people, and president, were in a position where they now had to get directly involved in a world conflict. At this point in time anything was a legit target- nowadays, especially with the technology the media has now, we see conflicts firsthand. We're lead to believe that war is a decisive action where there are little to zero casualties and it's over. Thats actually the exception rather than the rule- we've come along way, but still only two major conflicts had few deaths on the allied side. Gulf war 1, and gulf war 2. A few others could be considered (panama, etc) but those are the two major ones. Yet, the world has had hundreds if not thousands of wars. We live in an age where 8-10,000 civilians have died by mistake. 40 years ago, a MILLION may have died on purpose. So, to average joe, while 8-10,000 civilians is an outrage and unacceptable, to people in the military it's a pretty good victory considering how it used to be. That is not to say it's acceptable, but it's better. And hopefully it will continue to get better. Don't mistake this statement as thinking that we don't care. Indeed the only way it's gotten so low is because of how much we ARE concerned.
In any case, I digress. Back to the point- the mindset of WWII was unrestricted warfare. Japan used biological weapons, america ended up using nuclear weapons, and luckily no one in europe released chemical or bio weapons, although both were prepared to at any moment. Everyone was bombing everyone else- civilians were considered legit. That may not be "right" but thats the way it was.
American bombers would take out german factories in high altitude "precision" daylight strikes, with our bombsight that was quite excellent and allowed us to do this. (I put precision in quotes because bombs still sometimes strayed miles from target. We flew in groups of dozens, sometimes hundreds of bombers because that was the only way to ensure that one target got destroyed. This is called carpet bombing. We've come along way with precision weapons which dramatically reduces civilian casualties)
British bombers actually were somewhat more effective, or had the right idea at least. They did night-time raids because they had to get lower (if I recall correctly), and lower + daytime = bad. This means their bombs would spread over a larger area with less accuracy; they'd nail several city blocks instead of aiming for one factory. The reason I said this was the right idea, is because when you have a centralized factory, the workers of that factory usually lived nearby, as are the support buildings required to keep the factory supplied and running. While america would try and take out only the factory, they could have it rebuilt rather quickly. The british took out the factory, the surrounding buildings, and even the factory workers. This was again mainly a side-effect of the night-time bombings, rather than intention.
In japan, we were faced with a problem. They had no real centralized factories, as mentioned before. We had to bomb the entire city to get to the industrial base. This meaned a LOT of civilian casaulties, and it was horrible. But it's what we had to do in order to strike their industrail sector.
This explains somewhat why there were so many civilian casualties, although it doesn't excuse them. Looking back we can judge however we wish, and its easy to take for granted how far we've come, but being there, at the time, they did what had to be done even if it wasn't pretty. Japan had to be invaded quite simply because they needed to be conquered in order to stop them. You need to take into consideration other cultures; something I admit americans don't do often. The japanese were (and are) very dedicated people. They'd rather die than have their honor and pride hurt. Few people in america can say that, and so they don't understand why a people would do such a thing. I like our military because, in my opinion, it's composed with people with a different mindset. It was getting desperate, and they really probably knew they had lost after midway. But they would prepare and fight as long as possible. The war was already drug out, and tensions were increasing with russia- we wanted to end it as soon as possible, so we used what we had to do so; nuclear weapons. And it worked.
Never again came a time where nuclear weapons were so nessisary, and never again have we used nuclear weapons in anger. We've never threatened to use them offensively since.
Sorry to be so long winded, thats one of the problems I have. But I wanted to explain my viewpoint at least, and the reasoning behind it.
Should we have used the nuclear weapons? I don't think we should have been put in a position where we had to make that decision. But whats done is done....
I've been enjoying it tremendously people, lets keep it up.
I've been enjoying it tremendously people, lets keep it up. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed. Discussion forums are generally much more civil than they used to be, before the great lockdown. Forum mods rarely have to interfere.
Now on to Burncycles post:
I have to say that your post was an interesting read even though it had some 'extra' explaining in it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->. My knowledge of WW2 is much more concentrated on the main battle in Europe, for I example I was aware of the carpet bombing strategy and what it caused. Maybe my 'whacky' way of thinking is because I don't know so much about Japan/USA conflict so I'd be more than happy to learn more.
For example on this issue:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The US embargoed japan because of it's actions in it's surrounding countries.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What did Japan do and to whom?
And about the use of nuclear weapons: Why they had to drop 2? Why to civilian targets? Why not drop them in military/administrative targets to show what you have? Why Japan had to be 'stopped'? From doing what?
Yes, I feel like being 4 years old and asking everything from my mom <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
"What's that? What does it do? Can I touch it?"
Wait...I'm still like that <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif'><!--endemo-->
Japan over-ran Chinese Manchuria, and initiated an all out war on China, capturing Peking, Shanghai and other important cities. I believe this was when they used biological weapons against the chinese. After this, they Seized Hainan Island, Took over all of Indochina, and Joined the axis by signing the Tripartite act.
This was in the late 30's, early 40's.
Only then did we decide to take action. I guess because we wanted to stay out of it..... but that didn't help the chinese much who were slaughtered. But who cares, its great being isolationist right? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> Thats another topic. Anyways, we then put the embargo into effect.
Japan wanted to continue expanding, and felt that they would have to eventually face us. Although it was a tactically a smart move to take pre-emptive action so they could fight us at their time and choosing, we all know the end result.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And about the use of nuclear weapons: Why they had to drop 2? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know honestly. One may have been enough; but it was like 3 days of no word before we dropped the other.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why to civilian targets? Why not drop them in military/administrative targets to show what you have?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By now, most of the military targets have been struck. I don't know our policy on striking high level adminstrative targets, but it wouldn't be very bright to obliterate the only guy who could surrender. The only thing left was the remnants of their industrial base, which as mentioned, was practially home-run by the civilians. We had firebombed all the major targets to nothing more than rubble, and Nagasaki and Hiroshima were among a list of cities that were nearly untouched, therefore potential targets. This was a big risk, if it failed we had no more bombs. We couldn't afford to detonate 2 nuclear weapons and have the emperor not understand the of significance of what we just did. So we hit the targets that would send the loudest message. There is speculation that we could have airbursted a nuclear weapon, or dropped it somewhere remote and the emperor would still have surrendered but we'll never know. At the time it was felt we couldn't afford the risk of failure I suppose. When the news that entire cities were taken out in one fell swoop, they surrendered.
I believe we did warn them ahead of time. So much pride.... they ignored it. Or at least the people in power did.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why Japan had to be 'stopped'? From doing what?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Taking over the entire pacific rim. Plus, they were part of the axis and the war wasn't over till they all surrendered or were defeated.
The slaughtering of Chinese, Southeast Asia, Manchuria... All those countries got a good slapping from the beat down stick of Japan.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And about the use of nuclear weapons: Why they had to drop 2? Why to civilian targets? Why not drop them in military/administrative targets to show what you have? Why Japan had to be 'stopped'? From doing what?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They dropped two bombs because we had to finish the war very very quickly. Fat man was dropped in a valley, so if you are so concered about body counts, be glad that it wasn't dropped on open land.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why not drop them in military/administrative targets to show what you have?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The cities were their military/administrative/industry targets.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why Japan had to be 'stopped'? From doing what?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Japan had to be stopped (as in, we had to make them surrender) because if we waited any longer there would be monstrous casualties on both sides (even more then the two bombs.) We had to stop the USSR from getting involved because if they had to step in, they would make all the stuff they conquered communist (just like they did with Eastern Europe, remember?)
Also, I really doubt that the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering because of their Bushido code. According to Bushido, you do not surrender, under any circumstance. You have dishonored yourself, your family, your ancestors, and you must now ritually disembowel yourself. The emporer was their god, if he said "keep fighting" thats what the Japanese would do.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Say a crazed hobo with a knife corners you in a dark alley a night (us fighting the japanese on thier own ground, a slaughter). Now let's say you have a gun (the atomic bombs). Are you going to sit there and not use the gun, because that hobo might not stab you?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ha silly stabbin' hobo's. Not quiet as friendly as singin' hobo's.
By now, most of the military targets have been struck. I don't know our policy on striking high level adminstrative targets, but it wouldn't be very bright to obliterate the only guy who could surrender. The only thing left was the remnants of their industrial base, which as mentioned, was practially home-run by the civilians. We had firebombed all the major targets to nothing more than rubble, and Nagasaki and Hiroshima were among a list of cities that were nearly untouched, therefore potential targets. This was a big risk, if it failed we had no more bombs. We couldn't afford to detonate 2 nuclear weapons and have the emperor not understand the of significance of what we just did. So we hit the targets that would send the loudest message. There is speculation that we could have airbursted a nuclear weapon, or dropped it somewhere remote and the emperor would still have surrendered but we'll never know. At the time it was felt we couldn't afford the risk of failure I suppose. When the news that entire cities were taken out in one fell swoop, they surrendered. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds like you had stopped them right there. I mean all their military targets and cities in ruble. Sounds like they couldn't have conquered anyone at that point?
And was China communistic then? If so, why USA was so concerned over the communistic bastages? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Or was it just to prevent the enemy from getting more power?