Use of Nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: A more humane way to end the war just as quick?

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   
So this question troubles me:

Was the use of Nuclear Weapons on Japanese cities necessary to break the Japanese
will?

Initial estimates of a land invasion of Japanese home islands were thrown off by the realistic resistance and causalities during the invasion of Okinawa.

Also the Japanese Military regime's morphing of ritual suicide during the final months of the war in the Pacific with the added bolstered defence of the home islands (potentially the creation of a home guard exceeding 20 million) created doubts on a quick and successful end to the war.

However, was there a need to use nuclear weapons on a city? Would a demonstration have sufficed? Were there ulterior motives to use this as a means of aggressive diplomacy against the soviets?
Wasn't the invasion of Manchuria sufficient?
Was it necessary to use 2 bombs?
Was this a live test of radiation fallout on humans and landscapes?

And here is the million dollar question:
Would it have been prudent to inform and achieve consensus with the other world powers (namely soviets) prior to use? Would this simple step have prevented the cold war that followed by saved future generations (us) from living under the fear of nuclear extinction?

I know there is a lot of material available on the case for and against this, but this one of the major blots on human history (amongst others) and so I'm putting it up for discussion.


[edit on 16-5-2010 by Daedalus3]




posted on May, 16 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I personally hold the view that it could have been avoided quite easily, but the time,money and research put into project manhattan...plus the shock and awe factor to other powers in the world at the time in using such devastating devices far outweighed the civilian casualty toll to the US administration. Let's remember it was the USA that technically started war with Japan, even if they didn't fire a shot. This is all in hindsight of course.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by Solomons]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
I think they also dropped the bomb as a ritual, the people who made the bomb where all into the occult, and i think it was as much a ritual as to end the war.

They care not for lifes lost, of course america should never of done this bombing.

Exactly as op said, they could of used a demonstration of what the bomb could of done to the japs.

I think it was as much a ritual as it was to end the war.

[edit on 5/16/2010 by andy1033]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
. Let's remember it was the USA that technically started war with Japan, even if they didn't fire a shot.
[edit on 16-5-2010 by Solomons]


Didn't quite get that bit..

Plus shock and awe could have been achieved through demonstration..

We have weapons that exceed the yield of those bombs by 1000 fold today, and yet we know their destructive power through demonstration..
The usage (and manner of communication) of those 2 bombs has forsaken us as future generations because of the mistrust and fear they birthed in all nations capable of building such devices.



[edit on 16-5-2010 by Daedalus3]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 


But you also have to remember that usa and uk absolutely bombed german cities to bits, so they where certainly no saints in the usa military and there planners.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
Let's remember it was the USA that technically started war with Japan, even if they didn't fire a shot.


How about backing this statement up?

Time for a little history lesson. Japan was being run by a junta of military officers. The Emperor was kept in the dark about much of what was happening. If there was a demonstration of the atomic bomb, there was no guarentee that it would have convinced the Japanese to surrender. Even after the first bomb was dropped there were still factions in the Japanese government who were convinced that the US only had one bomb. Even after the second bomb was dropped these factions still attempted a coup and attempted to assasinate the Emperor to prevent surrender.

More people were killed in bombing raids than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. US casualties alone were estimated to be 2 million and Japanese casualties at 20 million if Japan was invaded. Casualties from a blockade were estimated to have been 10-15 million, mostly women and children.

Consider the thousands of aircraft stockpiled for kamikazee missions, the speed boats full of explosives and the training of Japanese civilians to make suicide charges against invading forces.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 


Some quotes from prominent U.S military/government figures, relating to the atomic bombings of Japan.

DWIGHT EISENHOWER

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)


"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.
I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HERBERT HOOVER

"The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RALPH BARD
(Under Sec. of the Navy)


"In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb."


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEWIS STRAUSS
(Special Assistant to the Sec. of the Navy)


"It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world...".


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL NITZE
(Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey)


"Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary."


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These and other quotes from many others who disagreed with the use of atomic weapons on Japan found HERE



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Japan attacked the US homeland, and we used the best available resources to put a stop to that. The destruction was pretty bad from those 2 bombs, but achieved the goal and send a pretty clear message to Japan and anyone else who attacks our homeland. This is all history now, but that has been a pretty good deterrent by demonstrating the world would not survive an all out nuclear war.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by UmbraSumus
 


Like i said above it may of been some sort of ritual too.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Actually assassination of leaders of enemy nations would be the fastest and humane way to end wars. If we had killed Saddam, his sons and maybe a few other standout power mongers in pre war Iraq there would have been no need for that war. Lots of American and Iraqi people would still be drawing breath as I type. Trillions of dollars would have been saved.

America's no assassination policy is inhumane and maybe even a crime against humanity.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by Xeven]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
I read that the Japanese didn't surrender even after the two bombs were dropped. They surrendered when they were threatened with Russians I think. The whole event was pretty much covered up.

That or the US somehow managed to capture the emperor. Those Japs wouldn't surrender to the last man unless you capture their "God".



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
There's a lot of room for interpretation and revision when looking at these two events. The historical record shows a lack of consensus in the Roosevelt Whitehouse with some parties being hawks and looking for payback after Pearl Harbor. Other interests were against using the bombs. US intelligence was aware that Japan had no more fight in them, they were almost out of fuel due to Allied forces cutting supply lines.

If I recall correctly, Japan had made noises about surrendering on at least two occasions with that info being kept from the western public for propaganda reasons.

The answer is clearly yes...they could have used other opportunities to end the war in the pacific. Unfortunately, the military-industrial complex wasn't new even then. The chance to demonstrate new technology and intimidate rivals like the Russians was too good to miss.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 


The US needed to demonstrate its strength and "ignored" the offer to surrender from Japan. You can read a bit here.

worldwar2database.com...

They say a word was misinterpreted and peace offers were ignored...



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I still find it ironic how so many people try to put rules and limitations on war.

War. Life. The Ultimate Survival Game.

It seems to me the only rule is how far you can bend them without having the world hate you.

The U.S certainly pushed that envelope to the edge.

And I fear this is not the last our species have seen of such nukes. Those will look like babies compared to what we see next.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Although I was not yet born when the bombs were dropped on Japan and none of us know what the outcome would have been if the US had not dropped them...one thing is for certain, the war ended soon after.

There is a saying that goes something like this: "what do you tell someone with 2 black eyes? Nothing! There is no need to say anything; because they have already been told twice"

I figure those 2 "black eyes" changed the face (no pun intended) of warfare and, because of that, will make any country think twice about being an aggressor towards a nuclear power.

However, with that being said, I am all for elimination of nuclear weapons the world over. There is no place in this world for such destructive power. There are plenty of other ways to give a "black eye".



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aresh Troxit
reply to post by Daedalus3
 


The US needed to demonstrate its strength and "ignored" the offer to surrender from Japan. You can read a bit here.

worldwar2database.com...

They say a word was misinterpreted and peace offers were ignored...


Not true. At first I myself thought that it was irresponsible for us to drop the bombs on Japan but after finding out more about WW2 and researching it a little, it was the most humane way to end the war quickly with the least loss of lives. Otherwise it would have been a continued bloodbath not only of Japanese but Americans too.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


Though I agree in the part with the weakness in the argument of the US 'starting' a war with Japan.. the quantitative loss of lives with the 2 bombs versus the millions (of Japanese) lives that would have been lost is not my argument.

Agreed.. the first bomb didn't really make a dent in the Military leadership's will to push on, though it is generally believed that the invasion of Manchuria is what prompted the military leadership in Japan to come up and discuss possibilities of an unconditional surrender. The second bomb strengthened that resolve.

A military coup in Japan would IMO opened the eyes of the Japanese public to the atrocities of the Military leadership, thus weakening the resolve of the war machine.

Informing the Soviets and other of the possible use of the bomb and even arriving at a consensus on its timely use may have postponed and even prevented the cold war thus potentially preventing/postponing the Korean bunch of other major conflicts, thus perhaps reducing the effective loss of life over many generations.

Perhaps I trivialize the ramifications of not using the bomb or using it in another manner, but I exercise the luxury of contemplating on this in hindsight.

Makes you appreciate every single decision taken today.
Invasion of Iraq, potential war with Iran... etc etc.

Another vague irony I stumble upon:
The original invasion plan of the Japanese main island of Kyushu had the beach-heads codenamed with names of American car manufacturers: Pontiac, Reo, Rolls Royce, Saxon, Star, Studebaker, Stutz, Austin, Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Chrysler etc etc..
Today some of the surviving car manufacturers face invasion of another kind by the likes of Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi etc etc..

Today Japanese (and Korean) governments rise and fall based on decisions revolving around removal of American bases.

Sowing the seeds of discontent.. that are reaped in future generations..







[edit on 16-5-2010 by Daedalus3]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by tellmemoreok
 


That is an unfair generalization..
Pushing the Japanese back to the mainland and enforcing an Allied blockade of the Japanese main islands would have ended the war and allowed for joint Soviet US operations to continue, thus possibly preventing the cold war.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Oh great another the evil Americans killed civilians with the Atomic Bombs thread

Lets see how Japan got to the point where Atomic bombs were used against them

China Estimated 7,000,000 civilans murdered low estimate, 16,000,000 high estimate

Dutch East Indies 3,030,000 civilians murdered low estimate, 4,030,000 high estimate

French Indo China 1,000,000 civilians murdered low estimate, 1,500,000 high estimate

India 1,500,000 civilians murdered low estimate, 2,500,000 high estimate

Philippines 500,000 civilians murdered low estimate, 1,000,000 and consider that these people are American citizens at the time

these are just the major instances of Japanese atrocities

Japan lost 580,000 civilians from 1933-1945 ,70,000 died in Hiroshima from the intitial blast, 40,000 died in Nagasaki from the intitial blast, high estimates for casualties from radiation and other causes from both bombs combined range from 90,000 to 166,000 including lack of medical services.


Everytime this evil Americans dropped atomic bombs thread comes up, which seems to be on a quarterly basis at a minumum, we seem to forget how japan got itself in the position they were in

Allied civilians killed by Japan low estimate in the 5 areas I have named above low estimate 13,030,000 and the high estimate 26,030,000.

Even with the atomic bombs the allies killed 580,000 Japanese civilians from 1933-1945


Projected American casuaties for Operation Downfall (the invasion of japan) From Wikipedia

Estimated casualties
Because the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population",[11] high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes—which included advocating for and against the invasion. Afterwards, they were reused in the debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:

In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.[40]
A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[41] A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 U.S. casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days.[42] When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.[43]
In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties).[44] Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[45] Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.[45]
Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa,[46] and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.[1]
Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."[47]

The Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 U.S casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing. (This is conservative, because it excludes several thousand U.S. soldiers who died after the battle indirectly from their wounds.) The entire island of Okinawa is 464 square miles; to take it, therefore, cost the United States 407 soldiers (killed or missing) for every 10 square miles of island. If the U.S. casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had only been 5 percent as high per square mile as it was at Okinawa, the United States would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).

Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the sixty years following the end of World War II—including the Korean and Vietnam Wars—have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[48] There are so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan are able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to wounded soldiers on the field.[48]


Invasion of Japan would have doubled the number of Americans killed in combat during WWII probably taking the death count over 1,000,000.

Keep in mind that until after the bombing of Hiroshima the Soviet Union was an ally of Japan throughout the war it was only after Hiroshima that they declared war on Japan and invaded Manchuria. The US did not need to demostrate the Atomic bombs to the Soviets , thier spies already knew the US had the bomb. Teh US did not start the war in the Pacific that war had been going on since 1933 long before Pearl Harbor.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
I think they also dropped the bomb as a ritual, the people who made the bomb where all into the occult, and i think it was as much a ritual as to end the war.

[edit on 5/16/2010 by andy1033]


Definatly! Bunch of complete creep-ohs...

I was adopted, and am quite outspoken and a bit of a freedome fighter, my dads creepy cougar girlfriends father, bragged to me that he dropped one of thse bombs, and said it almost ripped his arm off it was so heavy.... that was the last family dinner I attended i was so disgusted... and he is canadian by the way..... why would a canadian be helping to drop the bomb??

Also, we had these plates at our cabin that you draw on with special felt pens, and the one I did back when I was around 9, was full of the checker boards, all seeing eye, pyramids, and even the mason symbol, along with fire and bubbles all over it..... pretty deep for a nine year old...

The disgusting family that adopted me were alos into child abuse of every kind.....the kind I can't mention, if you know what I mean, and I am pretty sure I witnessed a lot more than my memory will allow me to look at..... I even rember fire in a cirlce and bits of other weird crap... but YES, they are definatly occult people.

This is also one thing that warps my mind though with the timeline crap.... where I grew up, and exsisted until the dang ameriacan somoa quake, there was only ever a bomb dropped on Hiroshima....


[edit on 16-5-2010 by mellisamouse]





new topics
top topics
 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join