One more note about "applying today's standards to the past"... well... I think it is acceptable at least as an educational excercise. Because I am able to apply today's standards to the past, I can figure out that for example slavery is wrong, racial purity programmes and subsequent systematic eliminations of a part of a population are wrong, lobbing napalm at people who live in tightly packed wooden houses is wrong... sensibilities might have been different then, but because they are different now, I know that I don't want to go back to that time and will do a lot to prevent any of that ever taking place again.
Atomic Weapons usage in WW2
- Thread starter Hunter
- Start date
- Status
joespaniel
Unescorted Settler
Little Boy was the first nuclear weapon used in warfare. It exploded approximately 1,800 feet over Hiroshima, Japan, on the morning of August 6, 1945, with a force equal to 13,000 tons of TNT. Immediate deaths were between 70,000 to 130,000.
Little Boy was dropped from a B-29 bomber piloted by U.S. Army Air Force Col. Paul W. Tibbets. Tibbets had named the plane Enola Gay after his mother the night before the atomic attack.
Fat Man was the second nuclear weapon used in warfare. Dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, on August 9, 1945, Fat Man devastated more than two square miles of the city and caused approximately 45,000 immediate deaths.
Major Charles W. Sweeney piloted the B-29, #77 that dropped Fat Man. After the nuclear mission, #77 was christened Bockscar after its regular Command Pilot, Fred Bock.
While Little Boy was a uranium gun-type device, Fat Man was a more complicated and powerful plutonium implosion weapon that exploded with a force equal to 20 kilotons of TNT.
The atom bomb was (and still is) a barbaric weapon designed to kill innocent civilian populations en masse. It's use can never be justified.
However, I do also understand that during WW2 there was a real fear of the Pacific campaign dragging on for many more years with many more american soldiers being killed and maimed. This could partly justify the use of such a horrific weapon.
But was it not true that the Japanese were willing to negotiate peace before the bomb was dropped?
However, I do also understand that during WW2 there was a real fear of the Pacific campaign dragging on for many more years with many more american soldiers being killed and maimed. This could partly justify the use of such a horrific weapon.
But was it not true that the Japanese were willing to negotiate peace before the bomb was dropped?
TrailblazingScot
I was kittenOFchaos
It is a weapon designed to kill people like every other weapon.
There is no moral difference between shooting a person, gassing a person or nuking them, the result is you've killed that person and in war that isn't by due judicial process.
Modern War doesn't happen without the support or at least collusion (be it mere inaction) of a populace and soldiers are merely armed civilians, so this idea of 'innocent' civilians is a bit silly really.
Killing people is really bad, yes, but sometimes there is little choice and the means by which you kill people is very often a mute point.
TrailblazingScot
I was kittenOFchaos
The offer the Americans were putting out was 'unconditional surrender', there wasn't room for negociation. The point being that war would be conducted until Japan gave in and the United States could dictate the terms.
Question the morality of THAT, not the morality of death by incendiery bomb or by nuke.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Jollyolly, read the thread.
Kitten, no moral problem at all. Because the alternative was dickering with the Japanese for "terms," terms that would have included rewarding the Japanese for initiating a bloody war of aggression, and terms that would have allowed the Japanese elite to preserve some or all of their ability to do it all over again.
Given that Japan wasn't exactly offering sweetheart terms in 1936, or '39, or '42, and the Japanese public was cheering it all the way, and given that even after the first bomb they were still resisting, clearly there was a NEED for the decisive clarity that unconditional surrender entailed.
R.III
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
In an excellent book on alternative histories I read, the US government's own estimates of casualties in invading just the southernmost Island of Japan were as follows:
Japanese Army Dead: 250,000
Japanese Civilian Dead: 380,000
American forces Casualties: Between 140,000 and 500,000*
It was also assumed that the fire-bombing of Japan would continue, expanding to other cities, this caused in tokyo more deaths than both atom bombs combined. Bombing of rail facilities was also likely, something that would starve the population due to the nature of Japan's food supplies. Russia it was assumed would leap onto Japan's northern Island and maybe further, forcing the split of the country aka Germany.
About the Japanese surrender: From what I have read, 8 people held real power in Japan, the 6 cabinet members, the Emporer and the keeper of the privy seal (Emporer's closest advisor). Documents show that on August 9th, this group was still split, the big six of the cabinet split into 3 for ending the war, but with the imperial system remaining, the remaining 3 added three further conditions:
Right to repatirate armed forces
War crimes conducted by Japan, not the allies
No allied occupation.
The nature of the system I believe meant only on a majority could action be taken, so none was. Prior to the bombs the big six (and the remaining two largely took their lead) assumed that the casualties they could inflict on the allies in any invasion (ie above stats) would persuade the allies to sue for peace.
So put simply, the A-bombs were the course of least casualties, and also the quickest way strangely of rebuilding Japan.
* Japanese figures based around the example of Okinawa and do not include wounded. American figures vary depending on whether you take the pacific (higher figure) or european (lower) for the sample to base the casualties on. It's to be noted both figures were based on a 90 day campaign, during which it's unlikely any more than 1/2 of the southern Island would fall.
Japanese Army Dead: 250,000
Japanese Civilian Dead: 380,000
American forces Casualties: Between 140,000 and 500,000*
It was also assumed that the fire-bombing of Japan would continue, expanding to other cities, this caused in tokyo more deaths than both atom bombs combined. Bombing of rail facilities was also likely, something that would starve the population due to the nature of Japan's food supplies. Russia it was assumed would leap onto Japan's northern Island and maybe further, forcing the split of the country aka Germany.
About the Japanese surrender: From what I have read, 8 people held real power in Japan, the 6 cabinet members, the Emporer and the keeper of the privy seal (Emporer's closest advisor). Documents show that on August 9th, this group was still split, the big six of the cabinet split into 3 for ending the war, but with the imperial system remaining, the remaining 3 added three further conditions:
Right to repatirate armed forces
War crimes conducted by Japan, not the allies
No allied occupation.
The nature of the system I believe meant only on a majority could action be taken, so none was. Prior to the bombs the big six (and the remaining two largely took their lead) assumed that the casualties they could inflict on the allies in any invasion (ie above stats) would persuade the allies to sue for peace.
So put simply, the A-bombs were the course of least casualties, and also the quickest way strangely of rebuilding Japan.
* Japanese figures based around the example of Okinawa and do not include wounded. American figures vary depending on whether you take the pacific (higher figure) or european (lower) for the sample to base the casualties on. It's to be noted both figures were based on a 90 day campaign, during which it's unlikely any more than 1/2 of the southern Island would fall.
joespaniel
Unescorted Settler
That is not true. Japan was fully preparing to resist until the bloody, bitter end. After the second atomic bombing, the Emperor himself finally over-ruled his government and told them to make peace, out of fear that all of Japan's cities would be destroyed.
They didn't know the US was fresh out of nukes.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
The hardliners were willing to negotiate peace, Joe. Just on their terms; e.g. Korea, preservation of the regime, preservation of some of the island conquests, no accountability for war criminals...
joespaniel
Unescorted Settler
Yep, and this was not acceptable "peace" to the conquered peoples.
Do you real believe that in war there is no such thing as an innocent civilian?
What about civilians who can't choose whether to support a war or not, such as children. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the children of Hiroshima in some way 'colluded' with the expansionist and militaristic Japanese rulers?
By your logic the governments of any nation at war would be justified in commiting genocide against the civilian populace of their enemy.
Cactus_Jack
Lefty Nutter
Basicly this is a exsample of what ever the Americans do they do with godly benign intentions 
I mean do you know that the Japanese where willing to surender before any atomic bomb was droped on the condiction that the emperor would be kept around after the war. Japan wasnt refusing to surender it was refusing conditional surender. The usa wanted to show the Russian and the world who was boss so they murdered inocent civilians. This is a crime against humanity whatever way you look at it. Also if the invasion of Nazi Germany didnt kill 4 million americans, i doubt the invasion of japan would of taken that many lifes, but the point as moot as the invasion or the droping of the bomb didnt need to take place. Also the Americans provoked the Japanese by refusing to suply them with oil if the roles where reversed and Japan was withhold oil from the USA you know they would of attacked first.
I mean do you know that the Japanese where willing to surender before any atomic bomb was droped on the condiction that the emperor would be kept around after the war. Japan wasnt refusing to surender it was refusing conditional surender. The usa wanted to show the Russian and the world who was boss so they murdered inocent civilians. This is a crime against humanity whatever way you look at it. Also if the invasion of Nazi Germany didnt kill 4 million americans, i doubt the invasion of japan would of taken that many lifes, but the point as moot as the invasion or the droping of the bomb didnt need to take place. Also the Americans provoked the Japanese by refusing to suply them with oil if the roles where reversed and Japan was withhold oil from the USA you know they would of attacked first.
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
You do understand the theory that fighting the Japanese and the Germans are two totally different matters I assume? 
The figures I mentioned came direct from a Joint Chiefs planning paper, which studied casualties during the Pacific campaigns in terms of numbers lost per day per thousand troops committed. Once these were known, and the projected plan of numbers of troops was known it is a simple task to determine the number of casualties for a 90 day campaign. This campaign would (it was predicted by the paper) see the fall of only 1/2 of the southern island of Japan.
A similar study was done of the casualties in the protracted European campaign, the figures of losses per day were drastically lower, the troops involved higher. One comparison was for every 1000 troops committed in the battle, in europe 0.36 people would die every day, in the pacific 1.78 every day. Many in the allied camp were totally against an invasion having seen this and similar studies (King and Nimitz being two examples)
Can you prove that? Most of what I read and others seem to have read suggests more conditions were attached. Conditions that would have left a still semi powerful and belligerent Japan to deal with in the future.
Agreed, but look at the overall reasons. Firstly Japan was seeking oil from a colony of beaten Holland, and threatening said country. Secondly the Japanese were provoking a conflict in the far east already by their actions in China and war crimes there. Looked at overall I think it's hard to claim Japan was the hard done by power here.
Though through this:
You show that your present view of the states clouds your opinion of what they did during a global war against an enemy that you can bet your bottom dollar would have had no qualms whatsoever of doing the same and more to the states given half a chance. These things happen in war, it will always happen in war. Whilst it's easy to sit there and claim the Japanese were surrendering, what pray would happen should Stalin have occupied the Northern Islands whilst the peace process was played out? A divided Japan? A Russian occupied Japan? History tends to be a little more complicated than a quick glance....
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Originally posted by Cactus_Jack
Basicly this is a exsample of what ever the Americans do they do with godly benign intentions
The Japanese provoked the Americans into a non-violent oil embargo by (1) invading Manchuria without provocation, (2) invading China, and (3) expanding their empire into French Indochina to help close the deal on #2.
Did you read anything in the thread? It wasn't refusing unconditional surrender; they were willing to negotiate, in the same way Hitler was willing to negotiate in 1940 - e.g. I get to keep some of what I stole, with people still in it.
Do you believe we should have been cutting deals with Hitler in 1940? [EDITED because I was talking like a lunatic here]. And learn a little history before you decide you're such an expert on it. For starters, invading Germany didn't kill 4 million Americans, but no one said it would; the worst casualties were projected for civilians, who's lives were saved by a more rapid end to the war. And while invading Germany didn't kill 4 million Americans, it certainly did kill close to half a million allied troops, not far off from the estimates above. And how nice of you to ignore the civilians suffering under Japanese occupation. And to be so considerate of the needs of an Emperor who had endorsed a massive war of aggression in his own name. AND READ THE FRICKIN' THREAD.
R.III
TrailblazingScot
I was kittenOFchaos
The same applies to the military...not all support a war, are in favour, but they are a part of the machine.
The same is true with the civilians, they produce the guns and the butter, provide the sons and moral support for the military and tolerate the leadership of their lands.
In a war, a SERIOUS war (e.g not like Iraq, Kosovo etc where "we" had such a superiority of force that it was barely a contest) you cut to the chase and do what you think is best to eliminate enemy resistance and if that does include targetting civilians, then it is. It doesn't mean it is moral, justified etc but is a way of letting your country win and acceptance of the fact that the populace of a country has to take responsibility for what is done in their name.
As for the innocent children point...again, there is no justification except for the realisation that they are suffering for the sins of their fathers and you'd hope they'd have thought better than opting for war. In the case of Japan, those kids were in the firing line only because of their own families, countrymen and leaders and any suffering was entirely their fault.
But even that is nonsensical in a way. War happens for economic, political and social reasons and if you are engaged in it your priority first and fore-most is to win. Morality is something you add on if you can afford to and it is very often the best policy as what goes around comes around. Quite simply if you set a standard in war of killing all prisoners, don't expect your boys to not receive the same treatment.
Lets try some structure:
1. There is "innocent civilians" but it is very much over-used and mainly applies only to children who are the product and pride of the older, responsible generations.
2. Civilians are part of a society. Modern wars are contests between societies, to win you may have to elminate much of the society. Ideally you can do it by decapitation, but when that isn't feasible you target what you can to win.
3. In a serious war it is may be reasonable to be brutal especially if your enemy has conducted them in that fashion and remorse has no place. The Japanese were atrocious in their conduct of war against civilians, as a society they got what was coming to them and it was in "our" interest in terms of lives to be brutal against them to conclude the war.
Genocide I suppose could be justified if the continued existence of your enemy would mean you would be putting your own head (as a Nation/People) on the block and the genocide would work as a means to an end. It would not be moral or ethical, but it might be sensible in extreme circumstances.
Hardly a stunning arguement, but it is a complex issue and it comes down to a central justification for your actions in war...you do what you can to make your side gain the best possible victory and that is justification for any actions because inherently it includes enlightened self-interest e.g don't bomb civilians if you don't want to have your civilians treated the same way.
joespaniel
Unescorted Settler
Originally posted by Cactus_Jack
Basicly this is a exsample of what ever the Americans do they do with godly benign intentions
Also the Americans provoked the Japanese by refusing to suply them with oil if the roles where reversed and Japan was withhold oil from the USA you know they would of attacked first.
Read this.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59413
Cactus_Jack
Lefty Nutter
To reply to your other thread. The United States are trying to make a world order themselfs, based out of fear killing and backing petty third world thugs. So the Japanese are no more evil in that regard. Also the usa tolorated Japans murderous attacks on china up untill the point they realised the Japanese no longer gave a damn US interests.
They didnt want a inderpendant rival empire developing. No war has ever been undertaken for moral reason i will laugh at anyone who clams so.
I wont deny the Japanese Goverment was evil and did evil things.f, but that excuse any crime commited against a civilian population. I stand by my statement Japan was ready to surrender, and the USA knew it. its just a other fact of history that been suppressed by the victors.
The fact is the USA has bombed civilian populations in the past and in the present. The things they have done in Vietnam rival the crime of the atomic bomb blasts. It will do so again, there can neve be a good reason to do so.
They didnt want a inderpendant rival empire developing. No war has ever been undertaken for moral reason i will laugh at anyone who clams so.
I wont deny the Japanese Goverment was evil and did evil things.f, but that excuse any crime commited against a civilian population. I stand by my statement Japan was ready to surrender, and the USA knew it. its just a other fact of history that been suppressed by the victors.
The fact is the USA has bombed civilian populations in the past and in the present. The things they have done in Vietnam rival the crime of the atomic bomb blasts. It will do so again, there can neve be a good reason to do so.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
"Suppressed," my ass, your ahistorical view is the view of the ignorant majority.
Your avatar shouldn't read "lefty;" that's an insult to lefties. It should read "closed-minded bigot," and for location, "a place where I don't have to look at each event based on facts or merits."
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back this claim or is this simply based on your rather biased view of global politics and the USA overall?
Oh my, how evil, and there was me thinking the Germans bombed London for target practice. Do you consider the British 1000 bomber raids any less of a crime considering their dubious worth to the war effort? Being a civilian in a country under bombing raids is all part of the **** happens law that is in effect during war.
Agreed, but this doesn't necessarily mean the A-bombs are automatically for similar dubious reasons as the attacks on Vietnam.
You might not like the fact, but total war means "total". If you're country enters into a war of agression against a powerful enemy, then tough ****. Sure not everyone in Japan agreed, and sure the children had no option, but that is part of the responsibility of the adults. If anything some blame for the a-bombs rests with the adult population of Japan who were so stubborn about refusing to see the end of their fighting abilities that the impression on the allies would have been a need to invade.
The Japanese government and possibly even the people knew full well what kind of war they entered into at the begining, they then had consequences as part of their actions.
- Status
Similar threads
