Good morning, Gen. MacArthur, here's your decision for today...

[Che Guava]

Ok folks, to settle an argument that grew out of a totally unrelated thread, we have a new poll and thread to thresh it out....

So here is the set up...


You are the commander of U.S. forces in the pacific theatre during the last days of the second world war. You have just been informed that you have at your disposal 3 atomic bombs, each capable of taking out a mid-sized city. As the war with Japan has been continually difficult and bloody, you ahve been charged by the american government to end the war as quickly and neatly as possible with the bombs you have at your disposal. Your intelligence officers and strategists offer you 4 possible solutions:

(1) Send Japan an ultimatum to surrender, citing your possession of atomic weapons. You would never actually use them however, because you feel that would be irresponsible...

(2) Pick a small island or unihabited area in the Japanese archipelago and drop your first atomic bomb there. Let the Japanese survey the damage, then issue an ultimatum of surreder to them, or else face bombing of a major city by the same weapons....

(3) Pick out a middle-size city and bomb it immediately. Send an ultimatum, and prepare to bomb another city should the Japanese military not comply.

(4) Send the Japanese an ultimatum to surrender immediately, or face total distruction. If they do not comply, bomb Tokyo and give them a chance to respond again. If they are still uncompliant, bomb the next largest city, and so forth...

Or if you have a bright idea of your own, lay it out now!

Poll to come

Spoiler :

and no making fun of my complete and utter ignorance of military terms, structure and strategy

 

[Yoda Power]

Does any of those four options correspond to what actually happened?

 

[Che Guava]

Option 3 is supposed to represent what actually happened...

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I wouldn't drop any bombs on Japan. Just negociate for peace. I wouldn't murder hundereds of thousands of people to get total victory.

 

[emzie]

Given the hindsight of today, I'd pick number two. Put in the same situation in 1945, I have to say I trust MacArthur's judgement.

 

[skadistic]

Fanatics understand only overwhelming force. Much like todays islamists the jap would have seen the reluctance to use force as the weakness it is. War is about killing. Those who are to soft will be crushed, those who kill better, win.

 

[Nylan]

I agree with history because the loss of lives and infrastructure, both civilian and military, would have been infinitely greater, as demonstrated by the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa (there are still shells and holes in the walls everywhere you walk in Okinawa)

 

[JonnyB]

I'd select a military target with as few civilians as possible. Deliver an ultimatum and then consider targets with a higher civilian population if they don't comply.

 

[warpus]

This doesn't correspond to reality due to your omission of the Soviet variable.

One of the main reasons contributing to the eventual dropping of the bombs was the need to scare the Soviets. You did not mention this in your OP, so your scenario doesn't really correspond to reality.

 

[Gilder]

I believe Truman is credited much more with dropping the bomb than MacArthur is.

 

[Che Guava]

Given the hindsight of today, I'd pick number two. Put in the same situation in 1945, I have to say I trust MacArthur's judgement.

And yet you voted for #3? C'mon, you can look at this with a bit of revisionism


Side note: I put down MacArthur in the OP mostly as a joke, but I assume it was president Truman who gave the actual order, no? And wasn't MacArthur the one who was campaigning to nuke beijing because they were supporting the N koreans?

 

[skadistic]

I wouldn't drop any bombs on Japan. Just negociate for peace. I wouldn't murder hundereds of thousands of people to get total victory.

There was no negotiating with Japan. Something people don't seem to understand. Just like there is no negotiating with AQ. They will see it as week and take that oppertunity to kill you. It took two bombs before the japs surrendered. If one didn't work why in the world do people think none at all would have worked?

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I agree with history because the loss of lives and infrastructure, both civilian and military, would have been infinitely greater, as demonstrated by the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa (there are still shells and holes in the walls everywhere you walk in Okinawa)

Just so you know a battle wasn't neccassary. The only thing the war was about was if Japan was allowed to keep its emperor or not. You gave in on this point later so it was a total useless waste of 500 000 peoples lives.

 

[Che Guava]

This doesn't correspond to reality due to your omission of the Soviet variable.

One of the main reasons contributing to the eventual dropping of the bombs was the need to scare the Soviets. You did not mention this in your OP, so your scenario doesn't really correspond to reality.

Well, laaaaaa-di-FREAKIN'-da! I'm not grounded in 'reality'

There's still room within the questions asked in the OP to consider other possible pros/cons not explicitely mentioned. If you choose a choice that's listed, or one that's not, justify it with whatever you like, whether it be scaring the soviets, intimidating the chinese, or impressing martians

EDIT: POINT OF ORDER I'm the last one who wants to play P.C. police, but I was always brought up to put the term 'jap' in the same catagory as kyke, wop, ***** and a few other choice ones that the auto-censor might not let me get away with. I don't take any personal offense, as I'm not of asian ancestry, but I just wanted to put that out there as a possible point of friction...

EDIT2: well would you look at that...! The autocensor doesn't like a shortened version of 'chinese'...

 

[Elrohir]

With hindsight, I'd choose number 2. (And if they wouldn't accept the terms they accepted in real life after the atomic bombings, then I'd take out a midsize city - and another, and another if necessary, until they accepted reasonable terms) Bombing an uninhabited area first would be best, so that you can say that you demonstrated your power and game them a chance to surrender before attacking their cities.

But this is all in hindsight, and hindsight is 20/20. Given the knowledge they had at the time, I think MacArthur and the President made the right call with the information they had at the time.

 

[Nylan]

Just so you know a battle wasn't neccassary. The only thing the war was about was if Japan was allowed to keep its emperor or not. You gave in on this point later so it was a total useless waste of 500 000 peoples lives.

What are you talking about?

 

[emzie]

And yet you voted for #3? C'mon, you can look at this with a bit of revisionism

Well honestly I care more about MacArthur’s legacy then I do about saving hypothetical civilians. Call me heartless if you wish.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

There was no negotiating with Japan. Something people don't seem to understand. Just like there is no negotiating with AQ. They will see it as week and take that oppertunity to kill you. It took two bombs before the japs surrendered. If one didn't work why in the world do people think none at all would have worked?

It is rare to end a war with total victory. It has only happend a few times in history. You seem to think it is a standard deal. The points negociated for at that time weren't even costly for the US. They were just measures used to humiliate the japanese. Considering what the US did before WWII the US should be very ashamed of itself.

 

[emzie]

It is rare to end a war with total victory. It has only happend a few times in history. You seem to think it is a standard deal. The points negociated for at that time weren't even costly for the US. They were just measures used to humiliate the japanese. Considering what the US did before WWII the US should be very ashamed of itself.

Yes, I am so ashamed of cutting off oil to an army raping China. Do accept my apologies.

 

[History_Buff]

Today, because of the Soviet issue, I can say number 2, or even that the bombs need not be dropped at all, unless to stall the Soviet advance.

I don't blame Truman or MacArthur for their call either though, though I'm a little surprised they risked dropping a prototype on enemy soil that they weren't sure it would work.