Did you know that Hiroshma and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets?

reply to post by RKWWWW


I'm sorry. I understand what you are trying to imply but the problem still lays with the fact that 10s of thousands of innocent civilians (hmmm, sounds kind of familiar, can't quite put my finger on where I have recently seen this.....oh yeah! IRAQ!) were murdered and made to suffer disease from those bombs to this very DAY! It does not make right that they harbored military installations. Period. The day we ever willingly use another nuke on another nation is the day this world ends as we know it. Because that time will be the one where everyone who has them gets involved and this planet will cease to exist.

So, as plainly as I can put it, a bad move is still a bad move. Even if it saved thousands of American soldiers (though that is the only saving Grace I can see from those bombings).

After the first one it should have been enough. We SAW how massive it was. There was no need for the second one. Just the threat of the second one would have been enough. Yet our brave leaders made the call to do it again.

They may have been legitimate targets. But I wouldn't call them legitimate nuclear targets. There is a huge difference in my mind. In my own little biased mind, there is no such a thing as a legitimate nuclear target. Unless it's a film staring Wesley Snipes (sadly, it exists)

Originally posted by Oscitate
They may have been legitimate targets. But I wouldn't call them legitimate nuclear targets. There is a huge difference in my mind. In my own little biased mind, there is no such a thing as a legitimate nuclear target. Unless it's a film staring Wesley Snipes (sadly, it exists)

This point may well be right, especially about Wesley Snipes. But like quite a lot of arguments about the American attitude to nuclear weapons, it removes the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings from the context of the time.

I'm not saying that there were not vigorous arguments against their use even in the 1940s, but the fact is that we have now had more than 60 years to debate what happened and whether it should happen again. It's very easy now to judge whether it was a good or bad idea. But essentially it's a pointless exercise, because we cannot view the debate through the eyes of those who were there then.

LW

Let's try this again for those who would say there was no justification whatsoever to use these nuclear weapons.

It's 1945. Japan, instead of weakening and determining that surrender is inevitable, is digging in even deeper.

The war in the Pacific has been going on for three, long, bloody years. Millions have died in this theater already, and now it's time for the big show.

Okinawa, the last in a parade of island invasions just showed us how bloody the invasion of Japan mainland will be. Realistic estimates indicate one million American casualties, and something like 20,000,000 Japanese casualties, and likely another year or year and a half to end the war.

Fact: The Japanese absolutely, positively, will not surrender, but will dig in all through the country.

Option 1 Invasion: Likely, 21,000,000 casualties both sides.

Option 2 Nuclear Bombs: 200-250,000 casualties on Japanese side.

Now, what idiot is going to suggest that dropping these two bombs in Option 2 is the atrocity of the two choices.

I would suggest that the humane solution was the bombs.

I would suggest that to withhold these weapons and instead kill maybe 20,000,000 would have been the atrocity.

Come on! Wrap your mind around this number!

Quick, clean and 200,000,

Long, dirty, painful, and 20,000,000.

One other thing. There is another word for civilians: Enemy enablers. intentional or unintentional, willful or compelled. The population sustains the military. Again, not something some folks want to hear, but that doesn't change the truth nor the nature of the truth.

We can go higher, deeper, farther, longer, and faster. But we can never go back. So by the time due to hesitation, you've lost a city, battle group, or battle due to an enemy offensive action, you can never go back and correct your prior lack of resolve.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, then you didn't prepare properly and your execution positively sucks.

There are many things worse than war. Devastation, starvation, extinction, subservience, slavery, uncertainty, fear.

To avoid suffering these possibilities, you bring every advantage, every weapon, and every intuition to make the war as violent as possible to make it short as possible, to end it quickly and minimize suffering.

Winning quickly, using all weapons, is your moral point in war.

I don't think you can say it's a fact that the Japanese weren't going to surrender. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that they were actively trying to do so. Search on google. There are tons of links. Here's but one:
Japan tried to Surrender

Also you only list 2 options. The Japanese were finished. Was a land invasion really necessary? They were totally isolated. The U.S. could have also have dropped the nuclear weapon on an un-populated area as a warning. In spite of calls by U.S. generals not to use the nuke, it was done anyway. The sick people in power though wanted to showcase their new weapon and make a statement to the rest of the world of what they could do. Japan was the perfect excuse to use it. Rationalize all you want though.

We should never try to purposely win a war. How dare we. I mean, its just awful to think, that we should use a weapon that would almost instantly stop further spreading of an already horrible war. No, we should let the war rage on and fight it to lose, allowing millions more to die. Let the Bully keep punching our noses. After all, we deserve it, we are Americans. How dare we want freedoms and prosperity.

Gee, I wonder who started the war? Oh thats right, we being Americans, must have started it.

reply to post by ghofer


No, you can rationalize all you want. There were only two options. Invade, or cook.

We cooked, and saved millions of lives. Japanese lives.

You say we could have dropped one bomb and demonstrated it's destruction, and they would have immediately have surrendered.

Wrong.

If the Japanese were in any mood to surrender, they would have surrendered after the first bomb.

We only had two weapons.

We assumed the Japanese wouldn't surrender easily, and to give a demonstration would waste one bomb. That assumption was correct.

So you would waste one bomb, and we clearly know from history that the first bomb dropped on the population didn't work.

Now you're back to invading, millions dying.

Your third option was no option at all.

Rational thinking is impossible when one clouds his thinking with emotional preferences.

Think. Two options, two decisions, and one will save millions of lives.

For every general or admiral you find that found the use of nuclear weapons distasteful, I could dig up a hundred who believed it the only rational option.

Here in my hometown, one of the most successful generals of the Air Force in combat recently said he could never see any justification for using nuclear weapons.

Here's the trick. More and more as a man gets older and more comfortable, it is easy to look back and use philosophy to evaluate past events, and then draw conclusions toward future events. They more and more like their comfort and forget the conditions of the actual moment that one makes these decisions.

One other thing. We in the US haven't won a single war since 1945, and since the creation of the Joint Chiefs. Not one win in war, and yet we've been fighting for 3 years in Korea, 14 years in Vietnam, five years in Iraq, and seven years in Afghanistan.

It becomes quickly clear that US generals don't know their butts from a hole in the ground, and certainly don't know what it takes to win a war. So we painfully slug it out year after year, when a concentration to win, using the basic principles of warfare could have concluded any one of these wars within 18 months. Hell, I could do it.

Back to the nuclear decision. This isn't that hard, and a fourth grader using simple math could come to the right conclusion.

We in the US were attacked in a cowardly fashion. We were pissed. We wanted payback. We saw what the Japanese did with their victories in Nanking.

No such atrocities for the US. Unconditional surrender.

Pull back? Let them continue? So all these efforts, all these individual sacrifices in the years prior, all for nothing? We just let them walk?

Just how utterly stupid would that be?

We made the only possible decision.

The right decision.



[edit on 13-11-2008 by dooper]

Well I said it was justified under the conditions that both nations declared war on each other. Japan declared war, we declared back. The Japanese in fact try to bomb American cities by the usage of the balloon bombs that the U.S. govt. kept secret for morale purposes. We were already killing civilians with conventional bombs and firebombing the cities. It took two atomic bombs to get Japan to give up, NOT ONE!! The Japanese figured that they can somehow get Americans to the negotiating table in better terms by inflicting massive casualties on our side to the point that we weren't interested in full surrender of Japan.

If Japan had the atomic bombs and bombed American cities that was their justification because in their mind, they think they could win that way. In my view I think the same thing. Drop that A-Bomb. Drop it again twice. If it doesn't kill that many, go back to firebombings that has killed more than what the two atomic bombs did. Kills twice as many. As long as it can lead to victory. Remember people... that Japan was using chemical and biological warfare as well.

Originally posted by ghofer
I don't think you can say it's a fact that the Japanese weren't going to surrender. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that they were actively trying to do so. Search on google. There are tons of links. Here's but one:
Japan tried to Surrender

You know that the link you supplied has no sources on it. Just one guys opinion and that's it.

It said that the Japanese had "peace feelers" out after Midway. Really? If so, why did they fight so hard afterwards?

And it talks about "the transfer of Atomic bomb making plans and an an entire bomb-manufacturing industry from Oak Ridge to Moscow"? WTF? You gotta be kidding me!!!!

Like I said, that is one of many links... probably not the best. Japan was clearly defeated. The U.S. could fly over Japan without concern. The oil supply was cut off. The U.S. navy controlled the seas. Any land invasion was unneccesary and the talk of potentially 20,000,000 more people being killed, is completely ridiculous.

I think some of the below quotes indicate the real reaon for dropping the bomb. So let's see, shall I accept the opinions of people here or those of General Eisenhower who was in a position to know and considered the use of the bomb unnecessary? Hmmm... I pick General Eisenhower (see last quote):
First Cold War Strike

While Japan was desperately trying to surrender, the U.S. knowing that the war could be ended without a land invasion dropped two A-bombs: The opening shot of cold war.

By 1945, Japan's entire military and industrial machine was grinding to a halt as the resources needed to wage war were all but eradicated. The navy and air force had been destroyed ship by ship, plane by plane, with no possibility of replacement. When, in the spring of 1945, the island nation's lifeline to oil was severed, the war was over except for the fighting. By June, Gen. Curtis LeMay, in charge of the air attacks, was complaining that after months of terrible firebombing, there was nothing left of Japanese cities for his bombers but garbage can targets. By July, U.S. planes could fly over Japan without resistance and bomb as much and as long as they pleased. Japan could no longer defend itself.

One of the few people who had been aware of the Manhattan Project from the beginning, Stimson had come to think of it as his bomb, my secret, as he called it in his diary. On June 6, he told President Truman he was fearful that before the A-bombs were ready to be delivered, the Air Force would have Japan so bombed out that the new weapon would not have a fair background to show its strength. In his later memoirs, Stimson admitted that no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb.

Finally, we have Gen. Dwight Eisenhower's account of a conversation with Stimson in which he told the secretary of war that:

"Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. ... I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. The secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions."

reply to post by ghofer


There was no such event that Japan was "desperately" trying to surrender. You surrender or not. You don't raise your hands and decided uh no I don't want to surrender. How many atomic bombs did it take to get Japan to surrender?

Something I learned in History that i rarely see mentioned is that the Japanese killed many more innocent Chinese civilians in their three years of Fire bombing Chinese cities than the Americans killed Japanese by the bomb (most houses were made of Bamboo or other woods, so fire bombs could tear a city apart).

Of course nothing justifies a nuclear attack, but the fact that the Japanese were slaughtering such massive amounts of Chinese goes to show that they were not innocent victims (not to mention all the Chinese and Koreans who died while being used as forced labour). If it weren't for the problems associated with radiation (which to be fair were not common knowledge back then), I would argue that Firebombing was a much more brutal military tactic than dropping a WWII sized nuclear bomb.

Would you kill a man to stop him from killing two other men?
Would you kill a man to save three of his countrymen and ten of yours?

War is full of brutal decisions, it is a brutal thing.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by WuTang]

Whether Japan was trying to surrender or not is irrelevant though. The bomb was unnecessary as Gen Eisenhower said. The point was to let the Russians and the rest of the world know, that the U.S. had developed the nuclear bomb and would use it, even if not militarily necessary for victory.

This policy, which came to be known as atomic diplomacy did not, of course, spring forth full-grown on the day after Nagasaki. The psychological effect on Stalin [of the bombs] was twofold, noted historian Charles L. Mee, Jr. The Americans had not only used a doomsday machine; they had used it when, as Stalin knew, it was not militarily necessary. It was this last chilling fact that doubtless made the greatest impression on the Russians.

What did the U.S. military think? Here there is also dispute. We actually know very little about the views of the military at the time. However, after the war many–indeed, most–of the top World War II Generals and Admirals involved criticized the decision. One of the most famous was General Eisenhower, who repeatedly stated that he urged the bomb not be used: “[I]t wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” The well-known “hawk,” General Curtis LeMay, publically declared that the war would have been over in two weeks, and that the atomic bomb had nothing to do with bringing about surrender. President Truman’s friend and Chief of Staff, five star Admiral William D. Leahy was deeply angered: The “use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . [I]n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”

added another quote

[edit on 13-11-2008 by ghofer]

reply to post by ghofer


Well that is his opinion. My opinion is drop it. No response, drop that sucker again.

reply to post by ghofer

I would never tell a man he's full of crap, but that seems to be the situation at times.

You seem hung up on some nebulous third option. I'll type this real slow just for you. There was no third option!!!

I don't give a hoot in hell if Japan's oil was dried up. I don't care if our navy had them cut off. It doesn't matter!

They were going to dig in and bleed us dry!

Think about the mentality of Hitler at the end! His thinking was that since the German people "failed" him, and failed the Reich, they didn't deserve to survive. And so they were rounding up kids and handing out panzerfausts!

Are you really that dense?

No third option!

Eisenhower in fact, later told China that if they continued in Korea, he was going to nuke the hell out of them, and that is what brought them to the peace table.

A hell of a thing to say from someone who didn't like the idea of dropping the bombs.

Scholars and academia always want to revise history, and those with an agenda want to skewer the facts to meet their preconceived notions.

Won't work here.

Pick another subject. You have neither the facts, the opposing mindsets, nor the principles in operation at the time of the conflict.

ok, i havent read all the pages so forgive me if someone posted this already but it seems many facts contradict my learning and research.
First off, Japan didnt start this war. We started an embargo on japan of oil and steel that we KNEW would force them to a position of difficulty, and we also had already started moving B-52's to the pacific to start bombing raids. We KNEW the japanese had already broken our codes and knew this, and THIS is when japan bombed pearl

Second, Japan had been BEGGING for MONTHS prior to the bombing, to surrender to us with just one condition, that their emperor remain on the throne. We denied this and demanded only unconditional surrender, but after the bombs allowed their emperor to remain on the throne anyhow.....which shows that we just wanted to drop the bomb, and for reasons other than just their one condition.

THESE are the facts.

Originally posted by pexx421
ok, i havent read all the pages so forgive me if someone posted this already but it seems many facts contradict my learning and research.
First off, Japan didnt start this war. We started an embargo on japan of oil and steel that we KNEW would force them to a position of difficulty, and we also had already started moving B-52's to the pacific to start bombing raids. We KNEW the japanese had already broken our codes and knew this, and THIS is when japan bombed pearl

Second, Japan had been BEGGING for MONTHS prior to the bombing, to surrender to us with just one condition, that their emperor remain on the throne. We denied this and demanded only unconditional surrender, but after the bombs allowed their emperor to remain on the throne anyhow.....which shows that we just wanted to drop the bomb, and for reasons other than just their one condition.

THESE are the facts.

First, so we picked a fight with Japan by placing an oil embargo on them forcing them into a "position of difficulty"? That's utter nonsense. Most of the world had placed an oil embargo on Japan in an effort to stop Japan's brutal rape of China.

Second, for a country to assume that they can dictate the terms of a unconditional surrender is absurd. Every allied country had signed on to the Potdam Declaration that defined the surrender terms. Japan chose to continue their official policy of never surrendering. That tens of thousands of Japanese had to die because Japan wanted to keep the Emperor in power is on them, not us.

As I posted earlier in this thread, Iwo Jima was defended by 21,000 Japanese troops and 20,000 of those fought to the death. That was the degree of fanatical resistance the allied troops were up against. Japan's goal, as stated publicly by Prime Minister Suzuki, was to ignore the Potsdam Declaration and extract as many deaths as possible from the allied troops.








[edit on 14-11-2008 by RKWWWW]

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by ghofer

 

You seem hung up on some nebulous third option. I'll type this real slow just for you. There was no third option!!!

I don't give a hoot in hell if Japan's oil was dried up. I don't care if our navy had them cut off. It doesn't matter!

They were going to dig in and bleed us dry!

Are you really that dense?

No third option!

Pick another subject. You have neither the facts, the opposing mindsets, nor the principles in operation at the time of the conflict.

Well, as mentioned I'll agree with most of the top generals at the time who claimed it wasn't necessary who DID know what was going on at the time of the conflict. Obviously these people had a 3rd option in mind. How on earth would they "bleed us dry" when they were finished militarily? Are you really that dense?? Why would I listen to your opinion over theirs? You're personal attacks show that you are not level headed enough to consider any ideas other than your own. "Deny Ignorance" is the motto of this site... give it a try.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by ghofer]

reply to post by pexx421

Japan didn't start the war?

I suspected for decades that our educational system was failing, but holy crap!

You have your timeline wrong, the code-breaking completely backwards, and in fact, just about everything you have written is backwards.

Pexx, just for you. Japan had begun its war long before December of 1941, when it made the mistake of attacking the US. Japan previous to this was busy attacking and raping China, which began back in 1931, and got really bad in 1937. They occupied Vietnam in 1940 under an agreement with the puppet Vichy government of France.

To slow their war machine, the US stopped shipping war making materials and components. This embargo is like when your mom would give you a time out for earlier, bad behavior.

The US didn't have any B-52's anytime during the war, regardless of your "learning and research."

Prior to the bombing with nukes, the US promised "prompt and utter destruction." They were warned in advance.

You really should read the text of the Emperor's declaration to his people, instructing them of the surrender, and why it was necessary.

It finally (after two nukes) hit the that they were lost.

Crack a book now and then. You'll not believe some of the things you'll discover.

I have read plenty books, and while it was a while ago, and some of my points (perhaps not b-52's, but bombers) may be unclear, the main points were clear. EMBARGOS ARE AN ACT OF WAR. Its easy to forget this in the US, where we have no respect for international law, and judge a war based on whether its affordable or winnable rather than whether its wrong to kill people for money or not, but this is how the big dog on the hill always acts, and im sure whoever supplants us as the preeminent country will use terrorists here and coerce our elections and demand our resources just as we have done to others throughout africa, the middle east, and south america.