There was no good reason for dropping Nukes on Japan during WW II

Psychopath is a relative term.

What would you classify the act of bombing Pearl Harbor as?

reply to post by rickymouse


Just look at the middle east. 1.8 million civilians dead since 2004 at the hands of the American military. It's always been "kill the innocent" You know why? Because if they didn't target civilians the war would be over to quick and wouldn't make any money off of it.

Civilians die in urban combat. Of course it is horrible, but it is nothing new, and certainly not something that supposed "smart bombs", and drones, have solved. Don't believe the hype of the military industrial complex, when it says it can pinpoint target something. It's called human error.

Civilians die in combat. Look at history. Villages have been pillaged and the women and children raped and killed since the beginning of time.

That's why it's called war.

Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by rickymouse

 

Just look at the middle east. 1.8 million civilians dead since 2004 at the hands of the American military. It's always been "kill the innocent" You know why? Because if they didn't target civilians the war would be over to quick and wouldn't make any money off of it.

I'm pretty certain you just made that number up... 1.8 Million civilian deaths seems a very high estimate. (I did do a search on the internet for more accurate numbers and even the highest one I found are much lower than that number)

As far as dropping the bombs, knowing what we know now but they didn't know them about the full extent of radiation effects, who knows whether they would have dropped both bombs. They probably would have dropped the first, but had the Japenese known the full effects they would have surrendered after the first. We learn from our past, hence no more nuclear weapons have been used since then in war.

Well, not used on people, at least.

Originally posted by mythos
call be naive, but could the US not have dropped the A-bomb into the ocean off the coast of Japan... a proverbial warning shot across the brow?

is that too civil a gesture in war?

LEWIS STRAUSS
(Special Assistant to the Sec. of the Navy)
Strauss recalled a recommendation he gave to Sec. of the Navy James Forrestal before the atomic bombing of Hiroshima:
"I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate... My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood... I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest... would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will... Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation..."
Strauss added, "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...".
quoted in Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 145, 325.

Originally posted by XLR8R
I don't care what the reason is, there is no justifiable reason what so ever to drop a nuke. Whether it's to show might, for human experimentation or to kill your enemy. Those responsible for doing so were immoral psychopaths.

Yes, and they knew much more when the Manhatten project got under way. You could say that those working on the project itself were in harms way, but only a select few had knowledge of signs and symptoms that affected others.

reply to post by smurfy

I know what you're alluding to and that's not true. They were learning about the effects of radioactivity and radioactive decay as they went along.

After the bombs were dropped study groups went in to examine the effects of the bombs on the survivors.

It was a terrible way to learn the lessons, but that is how it happened.

reply to post by crawdad1914


Another aspect that rarely comes up in these discussions is the thousands of South Koreans living and working in Slave labor camps in both cities at the time of the bombings. Rough estimates are 1 in 10 killed by the blasts were South Korean, about 20,000 in total.

Originally posted by lunarcartographer
We owned the seas surrounding Japan, and the skys above. We clearly would have won without dropping the atomic bombs using conventional weapons, such as the big naval guns, along with bombers high above. Ground troops would not have been necessary as all military targets could have been taken out without the indiscriminate mass killing of the population, which consisted of a high percentage of childern and women.

That said, the Japenese military command brought this on themselves when they commited the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor; however many of the civilians paid the ultimate price instead of the military hierarchy.

So mass starvation of the entire population would have been better than dropping the bomb? The fact of the matter is not even the two nukes completely convinced Japan to surrender it also took the entry of the Russians. Even then elements of Japans military tried to take out the emporer to continue the war. Surrender was not an option for the miitary. The reason the had issue will killing POWs was that they were considered without honor for being taken alive. People seem to forget in WW2 the population was often the target as they were a part of the enemies war time economy. The idea of trying to avoid civilians is very moder post WW2 American idea because US military dominace makes it possible.

Originally posted by rickymouse
I don't understand why the bomb wasn't dropped on the leaders of the Japan instead of on the regular people. I guess you are allowed to kill all the pawns but not the kings and queens. Notice in chess, the king is never killed. We are conditioned from young, and so were our ancestors, that we cannot kill the main character.

A very astute observation. It is truly a shame that the ones responsible for the horrible decision to go to war are never the ones to pay the price for their actions.

There are good tactical reasons for not targeting the leadership though. At the end of a war, it is necessary for some type of leadership to exist to be able to give the order to the troops to stand down and stop fighting. If you destroy all of the leadership, then no legitimate power exists which the military will recognize to tell them it is time to end the fighting. The soldiers may not be as effective in their tactics without leadership but, if they have been trained to fight 'till the end as many of the Japanese soldiers were, they will never give up without anyone in a real position of authority to tell them when the fighting is over.

The stories of lone Japanese soldiers on islands all over the Pacific continuing to believe the war was on decades after the war ended because they had never received the order to surrender is the perfect example of what could happen if the leadership of a nation were destroyed in a war.

reply to post by inverslyproportional


Exactly.
Compulsory second line.

reply to post by SrWingCommander

Where is the revisionist history so much in full swing, or what do you mean by revisionist might be more to the point. Did you know that 'Little boy' had a target, the Aioi Bridge, which it says missed by only 800ft say, WTF it was an airburst explosion, no crater.

Originally posted by PrplHrt
reply to post by smurfy

 

I know what you're alluding to and that's not true. They were learning about the effects of radioactivity and radioactive decay as they went along.
I

No, that's not correct to say that. They already had workers affected on the Manhatten project. That 'Little boy' as a piece of unstable artillary may or may not have been known, that's another story. Fallout was known.

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by SrWingCommander

 

Where is the revisionist history so much in full swing, or what do you mean by revisionist might be more to the point. Did you know that 'Little boy' had a target, the Aioi Bridge, which it says missed by only 800ft say, WTF it was an airburst explosion, no crater.

I am not even sure what your saying.

Revisionist as in, "oh, the US is the Bad Guys, they shouldn't have dropped a big ole' bomb". It was TOTAL WAR, WWII......not Vietnam, not Iraq...but TOTAL WAR...They had ample reason, it wasn't taken lightly, it wasn't just to "test' it.They did it to end the war and save lives of both sides.

Yes it had a target, yes it was airburst, and no there was no discernable crater.....what's your point?




Some one brought up civillian casualties in the Iraq war. there are numerous numbers of civillian death, and what you brought up is the highest number I recall.

Most of those deaths are due to sectarian violence.

reply to post by smurfy

As I said, they were learning as they went along.

There were many things going on during the time of WWII that actually led to the culmination of the dropping of the 2 atomic weapons. .
The Empire of Japan was not so innocent as it would portray itself to be. Before the start of the US involvement in WWII, the Japanese empire was very aggressive towards its neighbors, some of its policies started to take a stance of xenophobia. Mass rush to modernize its military and a lack of resources. Military was in control of the government, that much as been shown in its documents. This starting at 1904, with the Russo-Japanese War, where Japan launched a surprise attack on the Russian navy. 6 years later it annexed Korea, invaded Manchuria, and China, in 1937. After that it started with a boarder war with the Soviet union and then had a neutrality pact with them, and in 1941 it attacked Pearl Harbor. During that time frame the Empire of Japan spread through out much of the Pacific region, invading and establishing provinces, where the local populations was either imprisoned or if they toed the line treated like a second class citizen. Much of what was known of the mindset of the Japanese people and soldiers came from either the soldiers that were captured or the people who were under the rule of the Japanese during their occupation. Much came when the island of Okinawa was taken and what the people there stated. Of all of the weapons that were used, propaganda was far worse, that could only weigh on the minds of the US leadership.
The US and its allies were preparing for the costly invasion of Japan, but that was slow going, even though the war in Europe was ended, and there was many logistics involved in shifting military and manpower from the Atlantic to the Pacific theater of operations. Japan was not sitting idle at the time, and were shifting both military and civilian personnel around. What the best intelligence reports stated was as follows: A combination of geography and military force would make it costly for an invasion of Japan. Japanese forces are as estimated for the following: 4 veteran divisions were withdrawn from the Kwantung Army in Manchuria to strengthen the forces in Japan, along with the creation of 45 new divisions activated. Immobile formations for Costal defense, and 16 mobile divisions. In total there were 2.3 million Japanses army troops to defend the islands, along with 4 million army and navy employees along with a civilian militia of 28 million people. The Casualty predictions were varied, but all were extremely high. Estimates that there would be 20 million Japanese deaths.
There were calls following the Potsdam Declaration for the surrender of Japan, however they were ignored. Japan did not want to surrender on any terms but that which it was willing to take. Combined with the stalling tactics of the USSR, only prolonged the war a bit longer than it should have. The USSR was working on its own agenda, and not for its own good, by taking possession of territories it wanted, rather than just working with the rest of the allies. And there were secrets that it wanted to protect, not having revealed.
So the dropping of the 2 bombs was inevitable, one was to end the war as fast as possible, as the US and its allies did not want the USSR to get involved in the pacific theater of war, as it would have taken more territory. The geopolitical lines were starting to be drawn for the modern day world, and it still have effects to this day.
The USSR was not so innocent as it would lead the world to believe, as it had been actively spying on the USA and its allies. Make no mistake, that Stalin knew what the weapon was, and his experts had given him some idea on the potential in its destructive potential. When the news was announced to the allies, Stalin was not surprised at all, as he knew exactly what had happened. The USA, at the time, only had 2 devices, either one could have failed, but after both exploded, a bluff was played, and the government of Japan decided not take a chance. It ended the war, and ultimately saved lives on both sides. And as it seems with any of these discussions, what is failed to mentioned, is that after the end of the war, the US went in to clean up and offer aid to those affected by the nuclear devises that were dropped, to include cleaning up tons of soil and radioactive materials.

reply to post by sdcigarpig

P A R A G R A P H S

Great thread OP, and this is a topic that should be discussed time and time again. I am indifferent about the decision to drop atomic weapons on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I did a thread awhile back that looked into what the land of invasion might have been if it had gone through as planned.

One of the last remaining questions of WWII?

Have a look, and perhaps it could compliment this thread and provide further analysis? In light of the topic, I do believe it was horrible decision on every notion of decent human conduct. However, I do believe how the Japanese prosecuted the war in the occupied territories and against their enemy was just as horrendous. That war was one of the lowest points in human history and cost millions of lives, and decimated many nations. The firebombings of Japan was just as devastating as dropping the atomic bombs, but that little tidbit takes a back seat to this topic in most revisionist circles. Perhaps it is the shock and awe of that huge mushroom cloud?

Moreover, if it kept the Soviet machines from occupying Northern Japan, and kept them honest in their dealings with Europe. All the better. Furthermore, another tidbit would be that Purple Hearts manufactured for the invasion that was never to be were still being issued in our current conflict in Afghanistan and in Iraq, The invasion of Japan would have been a bloodbath, and a lot of us would probably not even be here discussing this matter because our Grandfather was killed during that military operation. Even after the two bombs were detonated some of the hawks wanted to carry on, and even overthrow the Emperor. It would have been the utter destruction and annihilation of a people and culture. They were a fanatical foe with no thought of surrender or defeat. Every man, woman, and child would have been hurled at the US war machine. Unfortunately, my view is that it was a necessary evil.