Swammerdami
Chieftain
One point I'd make is that "seeing is believing": had atom bombs not been dropped on Japan, they would have been used later, perhaps in Korea. Demonstrations will never be as convincing as real use -- cf. David Copperfield and the power of illusion. Atom bombs would have been used at least once.
"Perhaps" be more costly??? Are you sure?
It would have been more costly not only in terms of American dollars, but American lives, the suffering of the Chinese and other Japanese conquests that wouldn't suffer directly from a blackade, and even in terms of Japanese suffering. Don't forget that Japan had an almost suicidal morality and lost about 150,000 lives just defending Okinawa.
The atomic bombs saved lives.
The 9 March 1945 bombing of Tokyo cost 100,000 lives; such fire bombings were on-going. Ending the war quickly saved Japanese lives.
Correct.
Perhaps. But is it wrong for a pragmatic President to play RealPolitik? Would Japan have been "happier" if it were divided like Germany and half fell behind the "Iron Curtain"?
I'm not a big fan of American imperialism in general, but to focus U.S. atrocities, rather than those of Japan in W.W. II shows profound ignorance.
Naval blockade, total trade sanctions, bombings of all major industrial sites and Japan has to surrender, just a matter of time and without the use of Atom. Would take longer and perhaps be more costly but would eventually work ....
"Perhaps" be more costly??? Are you sure?
It would have been more costly not only in terms of American dollars, but American lives, the suffering of the Chinese and other Japanese conquests that wouldn't suffer directly from a blackade, and even in terms of Japanese suffering. Don't forget that Japan had an almost suicidal morality and lost about 150,000 lives just defending Okinawa.
The atomic bombs saved lives.
... the destructive force or casualties were not dramatically different from fire bombing Tokyo. But mass bombing of cities was standard operating procedure for the war, so I'm not sure why these two should be singled out.
The 9 March 1945 bombing of Tokyo cost 100,000 lives; such fire bombings were on-going. Ending the war quickly saved Japanese lives.
Yes, it was a ruthless action. And being ruthless was the most merciful course of action.
Ending the war in a single decisive strike (which is usually going to be horrific) is better for the vast majority of people on every side than a protracted slow bleeding death. Yes, it means being willing to sacrifice many lives, but that's a willingness that, in some circumstances, has a place in warfare. (It's not really a valid excuse in a war you started, though).
Correct.
Let's be honest. The rush to end the war, on every front, was mostly driven by the pending division of spoils among the victors. The Soviets were willing to sacrifice troops to establish territorial claims, and the US wasn't.
Perhaps. But is it wrong for a pragmatic President to play RealPolitik? Would Japan have been "happier" if it were divided like Germany and half fell behind the "Iron Curtain"?
I'm not a big fan of American imperialism in general, but to focus U.S. atrocities, rather than those of Japan in W.W. II shows profound ignorance.