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

reply to post by OldDragger


I suggest you read some too. No amount of historical references will lead me to believe that the Japanese would commit mass suicide at national scale, whatever the circumstances be. I have read enough history to conclude at least that much

Moreover I would like you to quote a single reference that even indicates such a possibility, I would appreciate it.

reply to post by Daedalus3


I just gave you one.
Ponder the question.

reply to post by Miracle Man[/url] Actually Miracleman, I don't need a pen or piece of paper and read American Field Manuals.

I am a former British forces Defence Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare Instructor with over 30 years experience.

You see in my day, when you went on the Instructors course at DNBCC & CMR, you were given history lectures because they helped us to understand what was and still is, a somewhat complicated subject.

For example the [alleged] first use of a biological weapon occured in the year 1346 at Kaffa where the plague infested bodies of Tartar soldiers were catapulted over the city walls.

So my friend, I do know my subject although for the life of me I do admit in failling to understand how biological and chemical agents which can kill at best, only a few hundred people, can be classed as WMDs when in fact
they are not.

I reiterate what I have said before:

Chemical weapons are an ideal first strike weapon when mixed with tubed or rocket artillery strikes during an initial bombardment of enemy positions and are thus deemed to be battlefield weapons;

Biological weapons on the other hand are better suited to infecting the civil and military population behind the forward staging areas, thus hindering the resupply of enemy forces, clogging roads and overwhelming the local medical services.

Biological agents do not have to kill in order to achieve the strategic aims of the country using them but they are a double edged weapon and their use must be carefully considered.

reply to post by OldDragger


yeaaa...

Well the thing is :

1) Drawing analogies to Japan being a shattered gem after the use of the bombs and occupation as opposed to intact tile w/o bomb usage doesn't really help me with a historical reference or evidence suggesting the Japanese nation would commit suicide, unless events would have unfolded the way they did. (Again presuming that is the question you meant)

2)I do not deal in riddles and metaphors, and prefer to stick with facts, and
perhaps extrapolations of events that may have occurred based on facts.
I would request you to do the same so we can have a constructive conversation (far from that as of now)

3)And this goes out to all pro-bomb use posters/readers on this thread:

Based on my understanding of the need to use the bomb in Japan during WWII (communicated here by posters on this thread), I feel it is necessary to draw parallels to the war that ensued just a few years later and no more than 500 miles from the site of war the first bomb was dropped.
This war had the same administration toting nuclear weapon use and the only real reason they backed down from such a stance is interesting especially when you compare it to reasons given here by esteemed members supporting the use in Japan.

What are the differences in your minds gentlemen? Why not in Korea and why in Japan?


[edit on 5-6-2010 by Daedalus3]

Originally posted by fritz
I am a former British forces Defence Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare Instructor with over 30 years experience.

Oh my! I did not know that.. Funny how people are around for a while and one does not know them

So a question on fundamentals here:

Chemical weapons are tactical frontline weapons because use and radius of effect are limited to the target area?
While biological weapons are considered strategic weapons as they involve a infection and propagative means of spread, well beyond the initial target area, thus giving little or not control to its users in terms of limiting scope to a tactical use?

reply to post by fritz


Youre an NBC instructer, wow what a coincidence, I worked on the Manhatten project and built the very first A bomb.

Now that we are done telling lies maybe you can get over yourself and read what I said.

I wasn't talking about anything British. I said US ARMY, believe it or not, we do things a little differant then you. So yes, you might want to read up on those FMs for so you can become educated in the way the US handles and responds to differant scenerios.

I don't care what happened in your day. I am telling you how it is in this day and age, not thirty years ago.

I can give a rats behind what the SOP was for the US ARMY thirty years ago.

Live in the now.

reply to post by Daedalus3


Not to be insulting to you, but if you never heard the "gem' question then you are not understanding the Japanese militarist mindset. It was a common statement/question in Japan during the war , anyone that has read on the subject would know it instantly. I think you are looking at it from 2010 and a distinctly Western viewpoint. You need to not only put yourself in Truman's place, but the Japanese as well.
I can compile a list of quotes, exclusivly Japanese, but I doubt it would change your mind. Study the ENTIRE war to get perspective.
Korea and WW2 are not comperable in any way. McArthur did propse nukes, Truman sais no. A war with the USSR/China was not our goal.
Apples and oranges.

reply to post by Daedalus3


I do not deal in riddles and metaphors,
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, not an insult.
But you will never understand the Japanese, then or now ! with that point of view.

Originally posted by Miracle Man Youre an NBC instructer, wow what a coincidence, I worked on the Manhatten project and built the very first A bomb.

Now that we are done telling lies maybe you can get over yourself and read what I said.

How dare you call me a liar! You do not know me and I do not know you.

For all I know, you DID work on the Manhattan Project and if you did, more power to your elbow!

I attended the Defence Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare Instructors Course at DNBCC, Winterborne Gunner, near Salisbury in June 1984. I was then a Lance Corporal promoted to Acting Sergeant in order to get on the course which our own instructor SSgt Dave Bird, put me forward for.

My course Instructor was a Staff Sergeant Eric Foggins of the Royal Signals who, when he discovered I was a junior rank, tried to have me thrown off the course.

The Officer in charge of course training at the time was Major Christopher Le Hardy, one time Adjutant to our Colonel, Rollo Clifford.

It was agreed that if I passed all the theory examinations (of which there were five) and provided that I attained 10% above the pass rate, I could remain on the course.

Up until the final theory exam, I was working towards a B+ grade, having passed the final practicle exam with a B grade.

To be honest, I cocked up over the soak time which should be allowed for the misfire of the then Atomic Bomb Simulator or ABS.

(The ABS was a 50 gallon drum filled with an explosive charge of either PE4, PE808b or even C4 could be used, with a very small radiological source. It was buried in the ground amd covered with about 2 inches of earth. It was electrically fired)

I answered that it should be 30 minutes when the correct answer was in fact 10 minutes. Because of that, my B pass was downgraded to a D but I still passed the course.

Over the years, I have attended every update course run by the 43 (Wx)Brigade Specialist Training Team and I also took [but failed] the Warning, Monitoring and Reporting Course in 1987.

I have trained 4 assistant NBC instructors in my squadron, two of which attended the course at Winterborne Gunner and passed with flying colours. One is now a captain and the other is a WO II.

Those are my credentials Miracleman. I would appreciate an apology if you are man enough to offer one. Private by U2U will suffice.

WELL IF YOU'D BOTHER TO LOOK AT A PERSONS PROFILE, YOU SEE A FEW FACTS! before jumping in with both feet.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by fritz]

Originally posted by Daedalus3
What are the differences in your minds gentlemen? Why not in Korea and why in Japan?

Quite simple;
Dropping the bombs in Japan had taught the world exactly whatthe full and devestating results are of using such weapons and as such must be a last resort, (not even then i.m.o. but...).
The last thing either China or the USA wanted was nuclear confrontation with possible global repercussions over what was, at the end of the day, a localised issue.

Using the bombs in Japan, as horrific as it was, saved thousands of lives and shortened the war.

And it taught the world that these bombs should never be used again, and they haven't been despite all the global tensions there have been since.
MAD is a real and effective deterrent for the major super powers.
It has certainly prevented major military confrontation between the USA and USSR in the past.


I must say that having just caught up with this thread there seems to be quite a bit of aggravation between the two opposing views culminating in accusations of lying and quite bitter and aggressive responses to each other.
I thought we at ATS were better than that?

reply to post by Freeborn[/url]

Yeah I suppose you are right. I am sorry for the reply before your post but to be called a liar by somebody who does not know me, tends to make me go red in the face with steam coming out of me ears.

reply to post by Daedalus3[/url]

If you U2U me, I will send you details

reply to post by OldDragger


Yeap im waiting.. Its not like I would say: dont show em' quotes and that 'common' reference!

If you've got something, lets see it. And then (here's the important part) lets see it relate to mass suicide and 'saving thousands of lives' and the Japanese pysche..

You make the Japanese Military leadership out to be 'alien' in culture and mindset. Different, yes. Henious yes, all human traits. Incomprehensible w/o your gem-based metaphor?
I doubt it.

Lastly, based on your comments:

1)The bomb was used in Japan because it was with the security that the enemy would not be able to retaliate with comparable lethal force..
So basically, use it on a half-dead enemy because the half-live bit to too hard to take care of through the (still questionable) means of total invasion/unconditional surrender, and the half live bit is too hard to stamp out.

2)Not used in Korea because of the obv. disadvantages in the European theatre, the foe being too strong et al.
Nobody wanted war with China/USSR? Then why in blazes did they go beyond the 38th after recovering all of SK? Adventurism (and both sides were guilty of it in this war).

I'll tell you why, because nobody took China/USSR seriously, both in will to engage and ability to fight/counter Western technical superiority.

Originally posted by Freeborn
Using the bombs in Japan, as horrific as it was, saved thousands of lives and shortened the war.

Yes, well I find that very hard to interpret and digest. It will always be and it always make me worry about usage of the weapons today, when a one side has it and the other does not.

And it taught the world that these bombs should never be used again, and they haven't been despite all the global tensions there have been since.

Another argument is that it taught all the wannabes in the world this : 'Hey.. I want me one of those!'

MAD is a real and effective deterrent for the major super powers.
It has certainly prevented major military confrontation between the USA and USSR in the past.

I somehow think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not pivotally contribute to that stance. The various tests/demonstrations each side carried out in the next decade were the real deterrents.

I must say that having just caught up with this thread there seems to be quite a bit of aggravation between the two opposing views culminating in accusations of lying and quite bitter and aggressive responses to each other.
I thought we at ATS were better than that?

I never thought that anyone was above personal attacks.
All I know is that when a point of view runs out of information to support it, the debater has 2 options:
(1) Read up on the the subject more to understand the other point of view and possibly find more matter to support his/her own point of view or
(2) make it personal.

Now (2) is so much more easier, and satiating, and that is an unfortunate fact.

When thinking about what was right and what was wrong in the 2 WW. You need to know all the facts about the japanese. This documentary shows the war in the pacific with ALL its nightmares. I think it might be usefull for this thread.

WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES:

Hell in The Pacific - Pt1 "Inferno"

Hell in The Pacific - Pt2 "Purgatory"

Hell in The Pacific - Pt3 "Armageddon"

Hell in The Pacific - Pt4 "Apocalypse"

The use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was for the sole purpose of destroying weapon factories. Hiroshima and Nagasaki both produced weapons for the Japanese Imperial Army. The USA figured it would be better to destroy the factories, than invading the main land. Who knows how many lives would have been lost if the main land was invaded. So while it was a quick way to end the war, it also would have saved the lives of many American soldiers.

reply to post by hesse


Thanks for the links! Very interesting, I hadn't seen any of these before.

I believe that the nuclear weapons were more Humane then the alternative of the invasion of Japan.

The invasion plan called for two separate invasions.

Operation Olympic was the sub-plan that targeted the Japanese home island of Kyushu. It was scheduled to take place on 1 Nov 1945, code named X-Day, with Okinawa acting as the primary staging area. The invasion fleet was to include 42 aircraft carriers, 24 battleships, and over 400 destroyers and destroyer escorts. The fleet would escort 14 American divisions, both Army and Marine Corps, that would form the initial assault force. The American forces were to conquer and hold the southern third of Kyushu. A deceptive operation, Operation Pastel, was to be launched against cities on the Chinese coast and Formosa in support of Operation Olympic.

Operation Coronet was to take place on 1 Mar 1946, code named Y-Day, assuming Operation Olympic had successfully secured airfields so that additional land-based air support would be available. It was to be the largest amphibious operation in history, with 25 divisions participating in the initial invasion, including those in floating reserve; the great invasion force was to include those transferred from the recently-concluded European War. The invasion beaches were to be at Kujikuri on the Boso Peninsula and Hiratsuka at Sagami Bay, and the forces would work their way north across the Kanto plain toward Tokyo.

Because Japanese geography did not provide many invasion beaches, the Japanese organized a strong defense, particularly at Kyushu. Over 10,000 aircraft of various types and sizes were prepared as kamikaze aircraft. Underground networks of bunkers and caves stored food, water, and thousands of tons of ammunition. 2,350,000 regular soldiers and 250,000 garrison troops were deployed, 900,000 of which were stationed in Kyushu by Aug 1945. 32,000,000 militia, in other words all males between the age of 15 and 60 and all females between 17 and 45, were given the task to supplement the regular military; their weapons include everything from antique bronze cannons to Arisaka rifles, from bamboo spears to Model 99 light machine guns. Perhaps the eeriest fact was that after the war the United States discovered even children were trained to become suicide bombers when necessarily, strapping explosives around their torsos and rolling under the treads of American tanks. "This was the enemy the Pentagon had learned to fear and hate", said Dan van der Vat, "a country of fanatics dedicated to hara-kiri, determined to slay as many invaders as possible as they went down fighting". Although there was a strong dovish movement in Tokyo to end the war by seeking a conditional surrender, Ketsu-Go (Operation "Decision") continued to move forth, aiming to cause as much casualty as possible in order to sway American popular opinion. If they could cause more casualties than what the American people could accept, they thought, Japan might have a chance at negotiating for an armistice.

Naturally, the American plan considered Japanese resistance. It noted the possibility that the invasion "will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population", which would result in high casualties. In a study done by the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff in Apr 1945, at least 456,000 casualties were to be expected for Operation Olympic alone. Some other evaluations were also done, and their casualty estimates ranged anywhere from 30,000 to 1,000,000. In preparation, the United States manufactured 500,000 Purple Heart medals to award to those injured in combat.

more can be read here: ww2db.com...

I can see both sides of the argument: It was necessary to stop them and not even the nukes did that. but however, did they go too far?

I cant imagine what operation olympic would have been like. Im happy for the soldiers, that they were done in okinawa. It was more then enough for em, the whole war. That goes for everybody effected by it.

reply to post by AbnormalJoe


Its funny, but I think this section has been linked/quoted at least once before..