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

Originally posted by Shark VA84
Even if Japan was not prepared to surrender, the ethical and morally upright thing to do would have been to surround the island (which he had) and blockade it from any trade and/or military movement.

So, you are saying the moral and ethical thing to do would have been to starve the Japanese? How many more lives would that have cost them? What kind of position would they have been in to rebuild their country after using your method to defeat them?

Thousands of lives were extinguished for the simple fact they were Japanese...unforgivable and unexcusable in my mind.

No, they were attacked because they failed to heed our warnings and clear out of the area. Virtually everyone in those cities was invovled in the war effort, thus making them valid targets. I'll leave it up to you to do the research.

[edit on 18/5/10 by COOL HAND]

reply to post by COOL HAND


Research conducted.

Women and children are not valid targets, you sound like a F#ing suit.

We could have held off and managed to see how willing Japan was to starve itself to death. Starvation and economic strangling do not vaporize, blind, burn and poison tens of thousands of people in an instant.

I have actually killed on account of my country, have you?

I will struggle with what I have done for the rest of my days, they were "good kills" by military standards (armed combatants), but it does not make them just by my own moral and ethical standards.

How would you feel about detonating a WMD with the same nuclear yield and destructive power as the Hiroshima bomb over, say, Fallujah? (assuming we were the only country in the world with nukes).





[edit on 18-5-2010 by Shark VA84]

I think the sheer brutality of the way in which Japan was waging the war was what brought about the usage of nuclear bombs. And, yes, race did play an issue. Switch sides, and those of Japanese heritage live in Germany, and Germans live in Japan, and nukes would not have been used. That is the truth, and everyone knows it. Captured German prisoners got more respect than the Nisei soldiers who fought and died for America.

By 1945, the American leadership had really had enough of the war. We were starting to lose more and more men, and the Japanese were getting ever desperate in their attempts to defend their homeland. On Iwo Jima, we lost more men (dead and wounded) than Japan. On Okinawa, our losses doubled. It was getting very ugly.

The Nanking Massacre, in 1937 caused the entire world to realize just what the Japanese were capable of doing. They did not stop this type of behavior throughout the war. 30 million civilians and POW's are thought to have been killed by the Japanese during the conflict.

The Japanese looked on all of those they defeated as worthless. This way of thinking causes men to do despicable things that they would normally not do in war.

By 1945, all of this was known. Japan's treatment of civilians and POW's was not a secret. Intelligence gathered in China, and from recaptured US territory opened a lot of eyes. The leadership in the US were not willing to lose the millions that it would take to capture the island of Japan.

It is sad, indeed, but a nuclear bomb is the only thing that was capable of sending even the Japanese samurai to his knees. We firebombed most of Japan's major cities...burning them to the ground (this type of incendiary bombing had a much greater effect in Japan, as well, due to the large number of houses still strictly made of light materials such as wood and bamboo...as opposed to German cities constructed from heavier materials such as stone or brick), and that didn't even phase them.

Their culture, and our culture brought about this particular end to WW2. I honestly believe it to be the quickest way to end it, with as few casualties as possible.

And, to those who say the casualties among civilians was too high...what do you think most Japanese civilians (men, women, and children) would have been forced to do when they saw US marines hitting the beaches of Japan proper for the first time? And, what do you think those marines would have done to those civilians? It wouldn't have been pretty, and the civilian casualties would have been sickeningly high...in the 500,000 to 1,000,000 range I would say. And that is a low estimation, from me.

Originally posted by Shark VA84
reply to post by COOL HAND

 

Research conducted.

What kind of research did you do?

Women and children are not valid targets, you sound like a F#ing suit.

Resorting to name calling already? I can see this is going to be a worthwhile discussion.

You might want to look into the training that the Japanese citizens received to prepare themselves for fighting off the invasion. Might want to take a close look at what was being taught in the schools at that time.

We could have held off and managed to see how willing Japan was to starve itself to death. Starvation and economic strangling do not vaporize, blind, burn and poison tens of thousands of people in an instant.

Do you really think that the government of Japan would surreneder before losing far more people to starvation and disease? Would you be willing to continue the war as before while all that was going on? Would you be willing to accept the casualties that were caused on both sides as a result of that? Where is the morality in that?

I have actually killed on account of my country, have you?

Whatever. How does that have any bearing here? Because you killed for your country (so you claim) that gives you a better understanding of this than anyone else here? Does it give you more credibility than the rest of us? I think not.

I will struggle with what I have done for the rest of my days, they were "good kills" by military standards (armed combatants), but it does not make them just by my own moral and ethical standards.

Than why did you continue to do it? Why didn't you apply for CO or speak to your superiors about it. Did you have some kind of great awakening after the fact?

How would you feel about detonating a WMD with the same nuclear yield and destructive power as the Hiroshima bomb over, say, Fallujah? (assuming we were the only country in the world with nukes).

What? What kind of logic is that? In your dream world are the people of Fallujah fully involved in the war effort and trained to repel invaders?




[edit on 18-5-2010 by Shark VA84]

reply to post by COOL HAND


We are obviously not going to see eye-to-eye on this hermano.

You are under the assumption that an official surrender was necessary to end the war in the Pacific.

For historians, sure. In reality, we had crippled Japan's military to the point that a mutual stand down could have been achieved.

People yearn for revenge though. The agressors must be punished, eye for an eye, etc. Japan had to surrendor and face severe repercussions or else the general public would be in an uproar.

Thus the cycle of conflict continues as usual.

I am not implying that Japan would have, without a doubt stood down and withdrawn their troops. However that option was not explored to its fullest extent.

It matters not if the civilian population would have fought to the end. The American government was well aware of the mentality of the general public and the propaganda circulated and enforced by the government. That does not warrant the use of a nuclear weapon. If option A (invasion) and option B (Hiroshima/Nagasaki) both result in staggering and catastrophic loss of human life, civilian or military, then other alternatives should be investigated and attempted fully.

This is a highly subjective matter, so as I said, we are unlikely to ever meet in the middle on this.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Because an invasion would end the war quickly compared to a blockade. The loss of life on the Japanese side would have been many times what it was from the bombs.

And so by deductive logic dropping the bomb on two cities was the more humane thing to do?
And by further extrapolation, does a similar justification still hold validity in usage of the bomb?
Usage on civilian targets with guaranteed casualties vs. a blockade with multiple variables in how that turns out?
Do you honestly think the bomb was dropped as an option to a blockade because it saved more Japanese lives?
You can do whatever you need to satiate any moral lacunae that you may or may not have, but you cannot justify the dropping of the bomb as a means to save more Japanese lives in the long run.

The ineffectiveness of a blockade in today's multi-polar world where every superpower action has a counter (if not overt most definitely covert) in order keep one pole from achieving an edge, whether it be military or economic or political.
The effectiveness of a global blockade as an aftermath of WWII cannot be compared with similar events that occurred in different geopolitical landscapes and its ineffectiveness most definitely CANNOT be used as a means to justify nuclear weapons usage on civilian targets. Why not on military targets? Why not continue conventional bombing?

Are you asking me or telling me?
If it was already killed than why were they still producing war materials up to the day they surrendered?

The two bombs did not achieve any more tactical military value that multiple conventional bombing and incendiary raids could not have. Everyone knew what that kind of bombing could do through Cologne, Dresden etc..
The usage of the bomb was simple..
Maximum effect by using a mass destruction weapon on a soft and big target.. And the objective was to end the war, not to save the Japanese from mass deaths through starvation in a blockade.

How does that differ from conducting a kamikaze 'strike' on a symbol of economy that is soft, and has the most impact (economic, financial, social etc..)?
The people carrying out that strike (soldiers in their own sense), have justified to themselves that this is the only means of attacking an enemy that is too big, and cannot be hurt in any way and continues to do something that they (these kamikaze men) violently reject.
They also use the shock and awe policy..
I and I can bet my life that the training camps for these kamikaze men around the world use the atomic bomb as a stark example of what their enemies are capable.. they have it as ready fodder for consumption..

No, a demonstration would not have sufficied. The Japanese would have never believed it. They had to see it with their own eyes.

When I say a demonstration, I mean usage in proximity that showcases impact..a live demonstration.. And what was the harm in trying out a demonstration and seeing the response before resorting to such means? Was each bomb, the adv of surprise etc. more valuable than tens of thousands lives spent away?

No, just a fear that the Japanese government would attempt to block any efforts to show the people the example.

But the example was for the military leadership..not the people.. It was the leadership that required to surrender.. not the people..

One other thing to consider was that at that time, we did not have any more weapons to use for a demonstration. There would be no more bombs till September of 1945.

And what would have been lost by waiting till then? Would one not have benefited from observing what impact the Soviet Manchurian campaign had on the minds of the already half-dead Japanese war machine? Perhaps a demonstration then would have tipped the scales..
What perplexes me the most is the usage of the bomb 4 days before the Soviet commitment to invade Manchuria expired..

Now you sound like you are drinking the Kool Aid. If we wanted to send a message to foes-to-be (we did not) we could have done a much better job of it. The message was intended for it's target audience, no pun intended.

no pun intended but ignorance and satire directed at a topic of immense sensitivity observed and noted.

And as for the unsent messages to the foes-to-be.. I am eager to hear your ideas.. And I expect StellarX would be too.

I already told you that there were not sufficient assets to warrant a demonstration. We already had told them of the device and that we would use it if they did not surrender.

and I contest the very need to give that ultimatum. And also the concept of weighing insufficient assets vs lives.. potentially innocent lives..
This is priceless.. I've seen this been brought up a few times now..
"We could not have used the bomb in a demonstration because we didn't have enough"

You've got to be kidding me..

I doubt if they really needed to get any more public support for a war against Japan. Do you really think Americans then would not support using a weapon that would save Allied lives?

I think that any citizen of any decent country with an ounce of morality would have NOT supported the use of weapons on civilian targets and in extension would NOT have supported an invasion of the home islands for the very reason you mention.. to stop the loss of american lives..

The same reason the very SAME people (or their offspring ) did not support a war in a rain forest across the planet for a cause that they did not understand..
The same reason they do not support a war in a country that had almost no relation to 9/11..

Yes, the Japanese Army in China was cut off. US submarines sank anythign they could find in the area. There weren't enough of the right type of ships in Japan to bring that Army back.

And so how does this relate to using nuclear weapons?

How else would you measure the effectiveness of an untried weapon? Can you come up with a better way?

Oh.. I totally agree.. thats why I said that we should try out the effects of the megaton yield weapons on 'live targets' to assess the some of the primary , many of the secondary and most of the tertiary fallout effects.. Im sure that no amount of testing can give realistic results.. because most of the secondary and tertiary effects (plotted on the genetic, ecological .. etc.. scales) are too abstract to extrapolate by even the most powerful simulation computers today

We are not foolhardy adolescents to resort to trial and error with such weapons.. especially after live tests showcased its destructive power..

Stalin told Truman that he should go ahead and use it. The Russians were just as eager as we were to bring the war to an end.

Yea.. Well I never said that the Russians were oblivious to the bomb and America's ability to use it. The Russians most definitely preferred a protracted campaign that would result in the shared occupation of Japanese territory and the denial of such share occupation is another fundamental reason for using the bomb..

I think you are wrong about stopping the Cold War. It didn't happen because we were the first to develop atomic weapons.

It happened because the concept of tolerance and acceptance of different forms of society/government were unacceptable to both sides and the mistrust kept growing.. the uninformed usage of the bomb was a great (if not single most important) contributing factor causing the mistrust to spill over into a proxy war..

reply to post by Yog-Sothoth


and so if the situation demands, will you support the usage of such a weapon again? in similar circumstances.. ?

Pre-emptive use nuclear weapons on a force that cannot be defeated by american conventional might.. and yes such forces (whether currently allied, neutral or in opposition the American foreign policy) do exist in the world today.
And note that this is not in defense of American sovereignty.. it is in defense of american foreign policy..


[edit on 20-5-2010 by Daedalus3]

Question for Daedalus3,

Do you think that only America would have used the bomb?

Do you think the Soviets would have hesitated to use it, or the Germans or the Japanese had they obtained it first?

58 percent of the deaths in WW II were Allied civilians, while Axis civilians accounted for 4 percent of the casualties.

American male population of all ages in 1940 was 66 million by 1945 America had 16 million men in the services which was virtually every man of fighting age, America was at the end of its manpower and most allied countries were in the same shape.

I think the Cold war and Arms race were on no matter which nation Soviets or Americans got the bomb. I actually believe that if the Soviets had of gotten the bomb first they would have used it on Germany and Finland then used it on whatever Allied forces were on the European continent. Stalin like Hitler had no boundaries. I could very easily see the Soviets becoming allies with the Japanese and then using the bomb against Allied forces in Asia.

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
Question for Daedalus3,
Do you think that only America would have used the bomb?
Do you think the Soviets would have hesitated to use it, or the Germans or the Japanese had they obtained it first?

I agree, they would not have hesitated, and there is no morality in the genocidal actions that these countries carried out without nuclear weapons before or after the use of the bomb. But that doesn't justify its usage for the US does it now? Like I said before, the US had the highest moral ground in the war till that point in time and yet it resorted to such use which leads me to believe that we are all screwed in the near future..

58 percent of the deaths in WW II were Allied civilians, while Axis civilians accounted for 4 percent of the casualties.

Yes but how does that factor in here..?

I think the Cold war and Arms race were on no matter which nation Soviets or Americans got the bomb. I actually believe that if the Soviets had of gotten the bomb first they would have used it on Germany and Finland then used it on whatever Allied forces were on the European continent. Stalin like Hitler had no boundaries. I could very easily see the Soviets becoming allies with the Japanese and then using the bomb against Allied forces in Asia.

Yes but the ironic failsafe here was that Stalin being the oppressor that he was, oppressed scientists into work and design and invention and that never really bore any results because innovation needs cajoling and praise.. Only after the death of Stalin did the real Russian technological prowess begin to arise (likes of MiG etc..)

If the Americans are not going to use the bomb and just blockade Japan, are the Americans going to continue prosecuting the war against Japan in the other countries that Japan occupies or ar they just going to let Japan continue to occupy these areas and continue thier atrocities there?

Taiwan, Korea, French Indo China, Thailand, Malaya, Sumatra, Borneo, Celebes, most of the Caroline Islands, Marshall Islands are still occupied in addition to many other islands besides those.

Empire of Japan 8/15/45

During a blockade how many deaths of either civilians under occupation or Allied forces fighting Japanese are acceptable?

It really the age old philisophical questions do you kill 10,000 to save 1,000,000. The is no correct moral answer and there is no high ground on either side of the question.

The Soviets were innovative enough, Their tanks were better than the Allies at the end of WW II and in 1940 they already had the original RPG, they were getting the AK 47 style rifles by 1948, by 1949 they had the bomb , Stalin was in power until 1953 so they did okay under his oppression as far as military development was concerned.

Dropping the 2 bombs ended they war with immediate effect and saved uncounted civilians in the occupied territories, uncounted American and Allied soldiers, and a uncounted amount of Japanese soldiers and civilians.
So the American administration sacrificed approximately 200,000 Japanese to save possibly millions in the Pacific

Hiroshima was not a purely civilian target. At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops.
Nagasaki was not a purely civilian target either ,The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. contrast to many modern aspects of Hiroshima, almost all of the buildings were of old-fashioned Japanese construction, consisting of wood or wood-frame buildings with wood walls (with or without plaster) and tile roofs. Many of the smaller industries and business establishments were also situated in buildings of wood or other materials not designed to withstand explosions. Nagasaki had been permitted to grow for many years without conforming to any definite city zoning plan; residences were erected adjacent to factory buildings and to each other almost as closely as possible throughout the entire industrial valley.

Originally posted by andy1033
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.

Sorry, you must have forgotten the Germans bombing Warsaw, London and Rotterdam, just to name a few.

And the Soviets doing a fine job of turning Berlin into a parking lot, too.

And the Japanese bombing Manila and who knows how many Chinese cities.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by signal2noise]

Originally posted by UmbraSumus
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

I have a quote....

Thank god for the bomb...

Not a one of the dumb bastards listed would have gotten their feet we on an invasion of Japan. It's easy to look back and reflect on something that you had no control over but think people would care what you thought.

Now to reference my quote. My father would have gotten his feet wet and had more combat experience, first hand not leading from the rear, than any person listed. Millions of Americans, in my generation, are alive because of the bombs.

reply to post by signal2noise


Let's see what Emporor Hirohito says in the Imperial Rescript of surrender, ( though the word surrender was never used by Japan).

"the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest. Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is indeed incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

Not necessarily to Japan's advantage is right!
There you are, apparantly Hirohito WAS influenced to finally end their hopeless war by the A bomb. Hirohito was the only guy who's opinion counted.
Too bad the God/Emporor didn't figure it out sooner. As far as I'm concerned, the deaths of most Japanese civilians are on Hirohito, and certainly those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He could have ended anytime he chose.
[edit on 20-5-2010 by OldDragger]

[edit on 20-5-2010 by OldDragger]

It's great the weekly meeting of blame America for everything people here. Looks like the revisionists crowd stepped for chat also. And of course you are all expressing you thoughts on how bad Americas is by using the blood of our military that gave you that right.

Let's put the invasion of Japan in perspective. I don't care how many of the Japs would have died or did die. I'm on the side that was attacked and then we kicked their collective ass. Not an American side but the allied side.

As for Allied casualties, with Americans in mind; Purple Heart medals were ordered in the year 2000. It took that long with the Korean and Vietnam conflict included, to knock the supply down to where they needed to be reordered. This was WW2 surplus medals waiting to be used on American servicemen during the invasion and occupation of Japan. 65 years after the war's end.

You can go back to bicking on bad we are now.

reply to post by hinky


It's great the weekly meeting of blame America for everything people here. Looks like the revisionists crowd stepped for chat also.-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You got that right.
Revisionist history isn't even history! It's re writing history into a propaganda tool. Very handy for totalitarian regimes. Japan to this day does not teach it's children the truth about the war. Shamefull and disgusting.
ALL history must be interpreted through the the times in which it happened,. There is no other way to understand it. Unfortunatly America's educational system has adopted false concepts, like "moral equivalancy", and does not teach or encourage critical thinking. Most young people don't have a clue about history, and we will eventually suffer for it.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by OldDragger]

[edit on 20-5-2010 by OldDragger]

Originally posted by Daedalus3
reply to post by Yog-Sothoth

 

and so if the situation demands, will you support the usage of such a weapon again? in similar circumstances.. ?

Pre-emptive use nuclear weapons on a force that cannot be defeated by american conventional might.. and yes such forces (whether currently allied, neutral or in opposition the American foreign policy) do exist in the world today.
And note that this is not in defense of American sovereignty.. it is in defense of american foreign policy..

I don't really see why you are asking me this question, as it has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.

But, I guess I will answer, even though my previous statements as to my feeling that the US was put into a position to use nukes was clearly from their standpoint in that moment, so many years ago.

No, I do not support the usage of nuclear weapons. Any usage of nuclear weapons today, will lead to widespread escalation of those weapons, and the end of mankind as we know it today. No other argument can be given, as too many nations with dubious leaders have nuclear weapons at their disposal.

However, as I said, that was not the world in which the US lived, in 1945.

Originally posted by hinky
As for Allied casualties, with Americans in mind; Purple Heart medals were ordered in the year 2000. It took that long with the Korean and Vietnam conflict included, to knock the supply down to where they needed to be reordered. This was WW2 surplus medals waiting to be used on American servicemen during the invasion and occupation of Japan. 65 years after the war's end.

Are you sure about that? Last I heard, the US was still using up Purple Hearts that were ordered for the Japanese invasion.

reply to post by OldDragger


Not sure why you're replying to my post, but good info. Thanks!

Everyone seems to be focusing far too much on no war in Japan being the reason the bombs were dropped. One again this is the story the Government wants you to believe. That we dropped the bomb to save countless American lives in a land invasion.

What many people neglect to look at is that the ONLY reason the Soviets did not invade Japan sooner was because we told them not to yet. For those of you thinking the Soviet invasion would have alone stopped Japan, the Soviets were ready to attack and Japan knowledgeable of their attack for quite some time.

The Soviets smelled blood and were ready to take it at a moment's notice, they had NO problem throwing of millions of lives away on a land invasion to gain more territory.

The reason their attack was delayed was so that WE could finish the preparations on the atomic bomb, drop the bomb, and end the war BEFORE the soviets could invade and claim any more territory.

The cold war had already begun when the soviets were allowed so much land after the fall of Germany, and we knew it. The last thing we wanted was for yet another territory, especially Japan as vital as it is and as strategic as it is, to fall partly into Soviet hands.

NOTHING could have prevented the Cold War, especially not the holding back of our nuclear weapons and land invasion of Japan instead. So in reality, not only did it save lives from an invasion, it prevented the Soviets from gaining another territory.

reply to post by Yog-Sothoth


yes but would use of nuclear weapons against a state incapable of proportionate response still be justified?

The reason I ask this, if because if the reasoning behind using the bombs in WWII is valid.. a similar situation could be justified in todays world as well in the following conditions:

1)The intended target is under siege/occupation by American forces
2)There is no direct threat to the American population and mainland by this target though the siege/occupation has resulted in unacceptable losses or is projected to reach that stage in the near future..
3)The intended target does not have the means of a nuclear deterrence and/or does sit under the protective umbrella of another nuclear state.

In today's world nuclear weapons usage against another nuclear state with proportionate capabilities can only be in one of two scenarios,

1)A preemptive first strike to take out a very high majority of the enemy's nuclear strike capability (and so nukes on nuke states are not used in a tactical fashion)
2) Retaliatory strike after being targeted by a first strike..

However the options of usage against a state with no nuclear deterrent (borrowed) are extensive... And the justification of the WWII bombs makes it so easy to justify usage again.. which is the scary part..