It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by AtheiX
Besides, if it wasn't for the US, Japan would rule all of Asia.
Originally posted by Seekerof
howmuchisthedoggy, economics has nothing to do with actual possession of.
seekerof
as posted by SomewhereinBetween
The dropping of those bombs was a vile and repugnant terrorist act! But obviously since it was America carrying out the terrorism, the terms and conditions of warfare, those like you scream about Iraqi insurgents not upholding, do not apply.
Originally posted by Seekerof
War is simply one act of terrorism after another, committed by all sides involved, period.
Originally posted by Seekerof
And there purpose was to bring Japan to terms.
Terrorism has succeeded again, huh?
Originally posted by Netchicken
But be sure if such views as you espouse were held by the people involved in planning the war back then we would either be speaking Japanese or German
.
[edit on 8-8-2005 by consprtrkr]
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetweenThe dropping of those bombs was a vile and repugnant terrorist act! But obviously since it was America carrying out the terrorism, the terms and conditions of warfare, those like you scream about Iraqi insurgents not upholding, do not apply.
Originally posted by Seekerof
First off, the firebombings of Japan and Tokyo killed and maimed more people than the two atomics being dropped did. And yet, people are having major grief over the US decision to use the atomic bombs, huh?
Secondly, why should the Japanese have been issued a warning before dropping the atomic bombs on them?
We were at war; they were at war. There is no fair play or a heads-up message to be given.
Heads up warnings are useless in war anyhow.
In the case of Japan, they would have simply told the US to shove it, which they basically did.
Germany should have warned Poland they were going to invade them.
Germany should have given warning that they were going to invade Russia with Operation Barbarossa.
Germany and Hitler should have given the Jews, Russians, Poles, Slavs, etc warning that they were going to be exterminated.
Japan should have given warning for Pearl Harbor.
Give Japan a warning? Hell, one would have to ask, did not the firebombings of Japan and Tokyo give enough warning that the US would end this war one way or the other?
Incidently, neither the firebombings nor the dropping of the atomic bombs changed or deterred Japan's resolve to fight on till the bitter end. It took the emperor of Japan to contradict the will and resolve of the Japanese miltary establishment to bring the war to an end.
In war, you use every means at your disposal to win and end the war. This is not a charity benefit or a moral and ethical dissertation on how to be politically correct by giving a "warning."
If the Cold War had gone south, would either the US or Russia have given a warning? Hell no. Strategic and tactical surprise is the name of the game. Its called first initiative or first strike, where surprise is of the essence. The only warning either would have recieved would have been when their early warning systems detected those incoming ballistic warheads/missiles and oncoming strategic bombers.
A warning? Please.
Originally posted by Seekerof
Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Yes, Japan offered a conditional surrender, but apparently and either unknown to you or twitchy or simply not being mentioned, is that the Japanese conditional surrender offer was not good enough. It was not good enough because during the wartime conferences, specifically the Potsdam Conference, it had been decided by Roosevelt and Churchill, concerning Germany, Italy, and Japan, that conditional surrender would not be acceptable or taken. Lessons from WWI, regarding the conditional surrender of Germany and how that backfired into WWII, had shown that nothing would suffice but a direct unconditional surrender from those nations making up the Axis powers. Hence the rejection of Japan's conditional surrender.
A conditional surrender for Japan would have allowed them to possibly maintain their war territory gains---you know how people are steadily whining and crying over Israel and them maintaining certain war territory gains---as well as, maintaining their army, navy, etc, setting up another possible Germany WWI conditional surrender situation. No, the US and Britain set out to make WWII the last major coventional global war and the lesson from that would be that if you decide to go to global war and lose, you lose it all, unconditionally.
seekerof
[edit on 6-8-2005 by Seekerof]
What are you saying? Germany was totally destroyed after WWI. Their economy was a mess, and they almost had no fleet. USA, USSR and GB did not request an unconditional surrender from Japan in order to avoid getting Japan a 2nd chance at conquering the world! your argument is just silly. There was no way that Japan alone could take the whole world, especially after WWII! Please, use your mind before speaking!
Originally posted by Frosty
Blockade of what, with what? With out having the Japs try to blow the ships up?
You really think anyone would want to entice the Japs to invade mainland US? Have you lost your mind?
Zero US troops died dropping two atomic weapons. Hundreds of thousands could have died invading the mainland.
The US was doing this and it did not have the effect of Thin Man and Fat Boy.
The Soviet Union had just lost 10 million troops and many civilians and were hesitant of invading Japan who at the time posed no threat to them. They gave a minimum of 6 months to help the US after the surrender of Germany.
Obviously one bomb wasn't enough considering the time frame between the two. The dropped one then waited three days to see if the Japs would change their minds, and they didn't.
Dropping a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima didn't convince them. Would it have worked better if the 2 hundred million tons of bombs dropped by allies been dropped on deserted areas?
as posted by masterp
But there was no need to invade the Japan mainland! it was just an excuse made up for dropping the bombs! Japan was already destroyed from the fire bombing!
as posted by masterp
What are you saying? Germany was totally destroyed after WWI. Their economy was a mess, and they almost had no fleet. USA, USSR and GB did not request an unconditional surrender from Japan in order to avoid getting Japan a 2nd chance at conquering the world! your argument is just silly. There was no way that Japan alone could take the whole world, especially after WWII! Please, use your mind before speaking!
Originally posted by Seekerof
as posted by masterp
But there was no need to invade the Japan mainland! it was just an excuse made up for dropping the bombs! Japan was already destroyed from the fire bombing!
And what you fail to understand is that a blockade of Japan would not have ended the war, nor would have a blockade coupled with strategic bombings. The Japanese, military and the civilian populace, were willing to fight and resist as long as necessary. You know, the Bushido code and the military code of honor, that both military and the vast majority of civilain populace rigidly followed? Blockade offered no guarentee that Japan would surrender unconditionally, while taking into account how fiercely they fought in the islands before evacuating into Japan.
As such, months would have went by to possibly a year or so, all the while, how many hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives would have been lost to disease, starvation, bombings, etc. versus the use of two atomic bombs, eh? Continue to spin this as you wish, but for all intents and purposes, the dropping of the two bombs saved more lives than all the other considered options. It decision was the best of all available options.
seekerof
[edit on 8-8-2005 by Seekerof]
You have no way of knowing that at all. No one knows what would have, or could have happened. All we know is what did happen, and what happened is generally looked at as a mistake from everyone with a moral centre.
The strategy of blockade and bombardment looked to end the war by starving the Japanese population and trusting that the emaciated survivors surrendered. This strategy was supported by naval and air officers who later claimed it could have ended the war without the atomic bombs. While General Marshall told Truman in June 1945 that the air campaign could not end the war with Japan, I believe that there is good chance (though not certainty) that the advocates of bombardment and blockade were correct. There is no absolute certainty as to when the war might have ended under this strategy given the contingency of so many events and the belief among many Japanese officers that it would be better for the Japanese people to perish than to surrender.
Japanese historians maintain that ten million Japanese were on the edge of starvation when the war ended. Certainly the records of the early occupation period I examined brought home forcefully an extremely dire food shortage that lurched very close to a famine during 1946. Had the U.S. chosen to rely simply on the blockade and bombardment strategy and not use atomic bombs or an invasion, it would have killed a great many of these ten million starving Japanese, if not all. Would we be morally more at ease with this outcome? How many of them were children? I believe for reasons I set out in my book that had the war gone on for only days after August 15, the revised targeting directive aiming the B-29s at the Japanese rail system and the food shortage would have locked Japan on a course to a mass famine regardless of whether the war ended shortly after the rail system was destroyed or not. Thus, it was far more imperative for the Japanese that the war end abruptly in August 1945 than they have appreciated. And it was far more fortunate that events worked out that they did surrender then.
This report became the basis for an agreed statement at the Roosevelt-Churchill meetings in Quebec during September 1944. That pronouncement defined Allied military objectives in the Pacific as "invading and seizing objectives in the heart of Japan," after "establishing [a] sea and air blockade, conducting intensive air bombardment, and destroying Japanese air and naval strength." (4)
The US military leadership did not treat the situation as an "either-or" choice of invasion versus blockade and bombardment, but rather as a melding of the two strategic concepts. For General Marshall and those on the planning staffs who agreed with his view, the JCS/JPS report and the Quebec statement amounted to a commitment to plan, prepare, and ultimately carry out the actions they believed would be necessary to gain Japan's surrender on the "unconditional" terms demanded by the Allies.