Atomic Weapons usage in WW2

[Hunter]

This thread is a continuation of a thread located in the conquest area and I hope will now continue here.

where this discution left off:

I posted: including a quote from civzombie

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by civzombie
To anyone that tries to argue that the bomb wasn't necessary and that Japan was ready to surrender anyway, notice it took TWO nukes to get the proper surrender terms from Japan.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now I wish there had been anouther way but useing nukes most likely was the only way. A test explotion off the coast of Japan might not have had any effect plus the Russians would not have been scared by a nation only willing to threaten.

BUT

I do belive the second bobm was droped before any responce could ever have been made scince reports were still coming in and they were hard to believe (a city destroyed by one bomb???)
It was once said the the first bomb was to hit them hard and the other was to prove it wasnt a fluke.
In other words we can do it again Japan and USSR.

civzombie's reply:

Everything after the word BUT in your post, is a political rewriting of history by the american Universities. Use your common sense, one bomb was dropped on the 6th, the other bomb was dropped on the 9th. NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR A RESPONSE COULD HAVE BEEN MADE??? Give me a break, one day to assess the damage and offer a full surrender would have been plenty if the Japanesse army and government was not so fanatical and hell bent on fighting until the bitter end. You should challange your college professors that teach you this, and ask them to explain why Japan didnt have time to surrender between the 6th and the 9th!!!

And the idea that the bomb was dropped to intimidate the Russians completely ignores the emotion of that time period and supposes that the decision makers were using cold, heartless calculation when deciding to drop those bombs.

My reply to that now is this:
The atomic bomb was an increadable and devistating weapon the likes of which had never been seen before so to say they had plenty of time to surrender is haisty. There had never before been a city destroyed by ONE bomb and it would have taken a month to anilize the reports not 4 days. NO government would have surrendered in four days without proper intel. I however am not saying that the second bomb was a mistake, it indeed proved that the American power was unstopable, something that was nessisary.
As for using "cold, heartless calculation" the american government was not, it was thinking of protecting its people. Finish Japan and keep the Russians in line, two birds with one stone. However if they did not try to impress apon the Russians their power then they were fools. Even during the war Russian western relations were strained at best and it was clear they would be the western worlds new threat. And I belive it was Patton who first openly made comments to that effect.

 

[omichyron]

one bomb was almost certainly necessary. Two? I think maybe we should have given the Japanese more time, even if just for them to say "nah, you can't do it again" before we dropped a second one.

 

[Hunter]

I fear the second was useful however it would have been nice to have given them more time as they may have come to terms and then the second would not have been needed. The second atom bomb did I feel crush the fighting spirit of Japan although was it in nessasary to do so? However I do stand by my statement that it did impress apon the Russians how strong the USA had become. But one could argue that even "one" atom bomb would have done that.

 

[steviejay]

everyone can say now that "one" atom bomb would have done it, 60 odd years after they were dropped but at the time Americans and Japanese were dying in their hundreds and thousands, the war needed to ended NOW, that very second. With the size of the American fleet they could have baracaded the Japanese Homelands until they had NOTHING left, and the country would have just cease to function, but that would have taken alot more time and would have cost more dead, which no one wanted or ever wants.

The bomb was dropped (twice) the first time was necessary if you look at the estimated figures for casulties in Operation Downfall (planned invasion of Japan) The second time......... hmm........ I'm personally indecisive. I can see the logic in dropping one and then sitting about and just say "oh and just incase you didn't know, we have more" but I do understand that the American Generals wanted the war ended soon.

ok, I've rambled enough, my opinion is ......... the bomb(s) needed to be dropped. The war needed to be ended ASAP, and in order to do that if cost the Japaneses 360,000 lives. if the war went on that number....... well in terms of just Japanese lives just add a 0 to the end of that number.

If I remember correctly a Captain or Admiral on an American Carrier entering Pearl Harbour on the evening on the 7th of December said "at the end of this war the Japanese language will only be spoken in hell". if America invaded Japan then the Japanese people would have suffered in a way that cannot be expressed in words.

You could even speculate if America had to invade Japan it would have weakened them to the extent where they couldn't have stood up against Soviet Russia, they couldn't help the South Koreans and the Soviets would have won the Cold War............. but I'm not gonna go into that one, thats a totally different subject and just total speculation

Can I just add one more thing, go out and get the book Operation Downfall. I read it and its a chilling read. its very good and explains all the reasons. (there's even a bit where it talks of the uncertainty over the A-Bomb and how scientists even considered using the bomb as a DISTRACTION, something to blind front line troops so the other forces could advance. Needless to say this was before people realised about radiatation

 

[omichyron]

The firebombing of Hamburg was much more questionable than dropping the atomic bomb. if I had to guess I'd say it probably killed more people as well. True, there was the issue of radiation but that wasn't really understood at the time. and even with that, starving out the islands would have also resulted in slow, painful deaths of many civilians.

 

[steviejay]

wasn't it Dresden?

 

[Hunter]

The Royal Air Force firebombing of Hamburg killed some 40,000 people I dont know how many died in Tokyo when it was fire bombed.

As for the invasion option well that would have been messy Russia and the USA would have had to suffer the bulk of the casualties. In the end (of couse this is just speculation) but Japan would have been devided like germany. Not to mention the millions of dead and ultamately the USA would have had to use the Atom bomb on a target to end the fighting (obviously speculation again).

I guess it could be said that no good (or even OK) nation likes civilians to be harmed but push comes to shove our rage or need for vengance can take over.

We would rather kill then die.

 

[pawpaw]

Originally posted by Hunter


We would rather kill then die.

i agree, at that point if the choice was 300,000 dead american soldiers and 300,000 dead japanese soldiers or 300,000 dead japanese civilians the civilians were going to lose everytime

 

[rilnator]

2 atomic bombs? Japan started the war and their human rights records in China during the 30s and the way they treated allied prisoners is dispicable. I don't think 2 bombs was too harsh. They should consider themselves thankful that they were strategically important as well, or they would have never been rebuilt.

 

[steviejay]

although a agree with rilnator to a certain degree. If there was a Japanese Army out on manuvers or something then a third bomb should definately have been used (although if I remember correctly they didn't have a third bomb, they used all their nuke material in the first two) but I think nuking a third city with civilians in it would have been a tad harsh, no civilian deserves to die because of what a fanatic with a gun did, although I'm not saying the Civilians were completely free of blame

 

[Hunter]

I agrea in part with rilnator as well however is all we have tit for tat? Should we not live by a higher code then our enemies? If they are crule should we not be merciful or lest we become our enemies even in victory.

As I said before I belive two bombs were needed but could we the better people with the upper hand not have found a way to spare the civilians? Was there no other targets (for arguments sake)?

 

[allhailIndia]

Reasonabel estimates have put the number of Allied soldiers who would have been killed in the invasion of Japan around a million and at least 4 times that many Japanese dead. It would have been a trauma from which I'm not sure Japan would have ever recovered. They were very proud of the fact that their home islands had never been successfully invaded and it would probably have been a great cause for dejection and despair had it been so.
Also, the Japanese Generals believed that the Allies had only 1 such bomb and would take a lot of time to build another one.

 

[Richard III]

For the millionth time in these forums, I will repeat that the second bomb was necessary for a very specific reason: the Japanese cabinet had already met and concluded that it would not surrender. The Americans did not need to wait for a formal "no," because this fact was made clear through MAGIC intercepts.

Ditto that archives and other sources now prove that a near-majority of the cabinet wanted to keep fighting EVEN AFTER THE SECOND BOMB.

Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

R.III

 

[Titan2018]

I know quite a bit about the situation and have come th conclusion that even the first bomb wasn't needed. Why? Because the main sticking point to japan's surrender was what would happen to the emperor. Remember that that in Japanesse (especially at that time) the emperor was seen as a god on Earth by the Japanesse people who were honor-bound to defend him at all costs. Many Americans wanted to put the emperor on trial for war crimes and this the Japanesse people could not allow. If we had promised to leave the emporer alone after the war (which we did after the surrender anyway) then Japan would most likely have surrendered without the bomb.

This and the "Truman Doctrine" are the 2 things I hate most about they guy.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Titan2018
I know quite a bit about the situation

Oh, do you really?

Apparently, you don't know enough. That's clear from what you've written below - which incidentally conforms perfectly to the conventional wisdom of the past few decades - conventional wisdom that was blown away like dust upon the discovery of japanese archival material and the release of classified American material. Your argument is nothing new, and kaka.

Originally posted by Titan2018
Because the main sticking point to japan's surrender was what would happen to the emperor. Remember that that in Japanesse (especially at that time) the emperor was seen as a god on Earth by the Japanesse people who were honor-bound to defend him at all costs.

Actually, the main sticking points were twofold: first, a majority of the Japanese cabinet wanted to continue to fight even after the first bomb, and 50% of it did even after the second bomb. It was only the second bomb that convinced the Emporer to break constitutional protocol and break the cabinet tie in favor of peace.

The response of the losers? To try to organize a military coup to hold the Emporer in custody and prevent him from delivering his surrender speech. Happily, they failed. If they hadn't, the invasion would have had to go ahead even after two bombs, which sort of puts the lie to your little historical fantasy.

The second sticking point: the reason they wanted to fight was because they wanted to bargain a surrender so they could preserve as much of the military regime as possible, and retain several conquests. The allied position - clearly articulated in messages recieved through various channels by the Japanese - was that unconditional surrender did not mean the destruction of Japanese society, but merely the unconditional surrender of its ability to resist. The Japanese were quite aware of their ability to bargain preservation of the emporer. But they didn't give a **** until they got atom-bombed not once, but twice.

Originally posted by Titan2018
Many Americans wanted to put the emperor on trial for war crimes and this the Japanesse people could not allow.

"Many Allies wanted to put the Fuhrer on trial for war crimes and this the German people could not allow."

In other words, I'm not clear on why the desire to hold a war criminal accountable is a problem. Hirohito was allowed - mistakenly, in my view - to avoid any responsibility for acts of aggression taken in his name, with his knowledge, for the sole reason that it was easier to occupy Japan if they did so.

Frankly, the wishes of the Japanese people to retain their "god-emporer" in 1945 are irrelevant to me, just as the desire of the Germans to retain the "supreme Fuhrer" in 1945 are equally irrelevant.

R.III

 

[Vrylakas]

Adding to RIII's comments, a few points:

1. Not only did the Japanese cabinet refuse to surrender after the first bomb but counter to CivZombie's assertions they had ample time to communicate that fact to the Americans, and we know this because they did. Communications between Washington and Tokyo, such as they were in wartime, took place through radio broadcasts that both sides knew the other was monitoring. This is how the refusal to surrender, and later the actual initial surrender were communicated back and forth. The American decision to drop the 2nd bomb was a direct result of the Japanese government communication (through the radio broadcast) signifying their refusal to surrender.

2. A critical sticking factor in the Japanese decision was whether or not the Americans actually had an atomic bomb, or were just dropping conventional bombs and claiming a single nuclear one had been dropped. According to a published account by one of the former cabinet members, scientists were dispatched to Hiroshima to determine whether the destruction was caused by conventional or atomic bombs. Remember that the Japanese had their own atomic bomb program that had fizzled, and they were not convinced it was possible yet. The initial reports were inconclusive, which allowed the more bellicose cabinet members to stand their ground and refuse to surrender. There was as well, even among those who believed an atomic bomb had been dropped, the belief as AllHailIndia mentioned that even if the Americans had developed The Bomb, they probably only had one and would take a year or more to build another anyway. The 2nd bomb on Nagasaki drove the point home and scientific reports came back certifying that this was indeed The Bomb. As RIII stated, most members of the cabinet still wanted to fight it out to the end, and indeed the Japanese Army began distributing sharpened bamboo sticks to the civilian population and training them in their use. These were received enthusiastically by the population, and every indication is that the Americans would have faced fanaticized bamboo-wielding children and little old ladies on top of Army machine guns and etc.

The critical moment came when the Emperor decided to act and force the issue of surrender. Remember that he was taken hostage at one point by diehard Army fanatics the night before his famous public radio speech declaring the surrender. The Emperor saved Japan from further atomic bombs.

3. A major sticking point for the Japanese , even those already resigned to surrender, was whether the Emperor could stay, as Titan2018 mentioned. The U.S. return broadcast after Nagasaki allayed this fear by softening its "unconditional surrender" stance by suggesting that the emperor's status would be decided later, and was not necessarily going to mean a war crimes trial for him. It promised nothing, but said his deposement wasn't inevitable. This is important because quite frankly Hirohito should have been put on trial for war crimes; he was not happy with the coup of 1932 but he participated in and sanctioned the rising militarism of the 1930s, was fully aware of the crimes being committed in his name in China and elsewhere, was fully aware of the Korean slave-prostitution racket and the medical experiments on Allied prisoners of war. He only caved in the end because Japan itself faced annihiliation, and for the Japanese he could feel compassion. His reputation was considerably rehabilitated in later years but it should not be forgotten that he was very much party to the events of the 1930s and 40s.

4. Another oft-ignored aspect of this problem is that the full impact (no pun intended) of the atomic bomb was really not yet understood. Harry Truman was on his way on a ship to Europe for the Potsdam conference when the bombs were dropped. What he did was give permission for the military to start using the Bomb, then turned it all over to the military. This means that the first bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a civilian political decision, while the 2nd was a military bureaucratic decision; the atomic bomb was treated just like any other weapons system, and indeed 1945 saw many new American military weapons systems introduced. Truman was notified that the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki had been dropped only as an after-thought, a "by-the-way-we-dropped-another-of-those-new-bombs" message. Only later when he saw pictures of the carnage did Truman take back control of the atomic bombs from the military; no one had any idea just how destructive these things could be. Tests in the New Mexico desert do not equal dropping one on a major population center. It was assumed that with concrete buildings, twisting streets, uneven ground, obstacles, etc. the damage effect would be somewhat restrained and limited from what they saw in the open desert. It was fully understood of course that there was going to be a big bang and lots of destruction but remember that from the military perspective, conventional bombing had inflicted greater damage on Tokyo. The atomic bomb for the military was just an economical way of delivering destruction (1 bomb can do the work of 20-40 conventional B-29 bombers). The initial reports back based on fly-overs afterwards were believed to be exaggerated, and not confirmed in their fullest horror until American troops occupied Japan.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Originally posted by omichyron
The firebombing of Hamburg was much more questionable than dropping the atomic bomb. if I had to guess I'd say it probably killed more people as well. True, there was the issue of radiation but that wasn't really understood at the time. and even with that, starving out the islands would have also resulted in slow, painful deaths of many civilians.

For ****s sake don't guess!

You are online, you can research the topic.


The incendiary bombing of Hamburg didn't kill as much as one, let alone both of the atomic bomb attacks. The firestorm in Hamburgh killed around 40,000 Germans, whilst the estimate for the total number of people killed as a result of the two atomic bombs is around 200,000 (about 140,000 in the year of the attack, 60,000 later on).

As for morality and questionability...the bombing of German cities was directed at killing those who help support the running of the German war machine, at hitting German moral, destroying infrastructure, getting revenge and ultimately trying to bring an end to the conflict. Albert Speer felt that 6 more attacks such as that on Hamburgh in quick succession would have brought Germany to her knees....he is probably wrong in thinking that, but it gives an indication as to the positive effect the attacks had on undermining German resistance.

What is there to question when your nation is fighting all out to defeat that nation and in less than a year would have to risk hundreds of thousands of men in a risky invasion of occupied France. Why should it be considered questionable to hit the German people by whatever means possible to bring them to heel and/or to weaken their resistance.

The atomic bombs were different only that the level of shock they could deliever was even greater than the firebombing raids of the RAF. Whilst the RAF needed good conditions, luck and around 1000 bombers, the USAF needed only one bomber armed with an atomic bomb to wipe out a city. The purpose was the same as the British attacks...to bring an enemy to heel, to weaken resolve and ultimately to bring the war to a swifter conclusion saving lives.

 

[onejayhawk]

I want to echo many of the things that have been stated, but particularly V's 4th point. Even the US did not really understand what it had. We had arial photography of the damaged, but one bombed building looks much like another, and since these were air blasts by very small bombs, there was no circle of total destruction, just lots of rubble.

It was not til after the war had been over for some time and the size of the weapons was increased dramatically that we came to understand the potential devestation involved. In a sense it was much like the Chinese and gunpowder. Since it was used principly for fireworks, the reality of what could be done with it did not ever sink in.

One other note. There is an old saying in boxing, "Never let a stunned opponent catch his breath. Go for the knockout." This was the biggest, toughest fight that the world, and more specifically the US had seen in living memory. That was, and should have been, no thought of pulling punches. They had two bombs and they used them. At the time it was the only decision. Everything else

Originally by Civzombie
is a political rewriting of history by the american Universities.

J

 

[Terrapin]

These arguments are interesting, but mostly miss the point. You have to see the situation through Truman's eyes. Could he have gone to the American people after the war and said, "Well, we had this new super-weapon which might have ended the war without invading Japan, but I decided that it might be immoral to use a super-weapon on the people responsible for Pearl Harbor, the Phillipines (pt. 1), Wake Island, Coral Sea, Guadalcanal, Leyete Gulf, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. So I decided to send (insert any number, however small) of American soldiers to their deaths invading Japan. They died so that I could be remembered as a nice guy." The truth is that there was way too much bad blood after four years of war. All this hair splitting and revisionism about whether US was justified seems wide of the mark when you consider the psychology of a people who were forced into four years of total war by the agression of a nation which had pretended to be negotiating for a lasting peace right up to the moment they attacked.

 

[Richard III]

Sort of sounded like one of our interesting arguments.

I should add my usual point, namely that several million people remained under Japanese occupation, and hundreds of thousands were prisoners, in addition to hundreds of thousands in active contact with Japanese units; all of whom were at risk of life and limb for every single day that the revisionists wanted Truman to have patiently waited...

R.III