Japan=Nukes?

[hithere]

i think that this thread should be locked or at least moved. it clearly no longer has anything to due with the game. the original question has been answered several times. ofcourse that it just my opinion.

[kaleun]

Second!

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

And the Americans were willing to use mustard gas in Europe. The German attack on Bari Italy showed that the US was more than willing.

The US didn't pledge to never use chemical weapons against the Axis. Roosevelt pledged not to use them first. Implicit in that was that we would use them in retaliation. Since Germany had their chemical weapons at hand, we needed to have ours at hand in order to respond. That's all Bari Italy showed. The US kept its pledge.

So Jack Shelak is right. Except of course for the chemical agents the Germans used at their death camps; and except for the biological and chemical weapons used by the Japanese in China (before & after 12/7/41); the US was indeed the only country to use WMD in WW2.[8|]

http://www.marshallnet.com/~manor/ww2/unit731.html

http://www.geocities.com/onemansmind/hr ... nject.html

[Chijohnaok2]

now just say the US was being invaded by the nearly the whole world and there was no hope in winning, i have a strong feeling that the US would use again Nukes just to survive, look at afganistan, they were using daisy cutter which are like miniture nukes, on guys that was using 1950's weopons

General Billy, since you've brought up the subject of using advanced weapons against an enemy equipped with inferior weapons and have made a moral judgement for someone doing that, can you please explain the British's use of biological warfare in the 18th century in not just one but possibly two different wars?

Please review the following information I pulled from the BBC website:

>>>
In the 18th century, the British fought France and its Indian allies for possession of what was to become Canada during the French and Indian Wars (1754-63). At the time of the Pontiac rebellion in 1763, Sir Jeffrey Amherst, the Commander-in-Chief of the British forces in North America, wrote to Colonel Henry Bouquet: 'Could it not be contrived to send smallpox among these disaffected tribes of Indians? We must use every stratagem in our power to reduce them.' The colonel replied: 'I will try to inoculate the [Native American tribe] with some blankets that may fall in their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself.' Smallpox decimated the Native Americans, who had never been exposed to the disease before and had no immunity.
<<<<<

Weren't the Native American's largely armed with tomahawks and bows and arrows. Following your implied logic, it does not sound really sporting for someone armed with muskets and cannons to be fighting against an opponent armed with tomahawks and sticks tipped with little stones......and then to resort to biological weapons to add insult to injury.....

Sounds to me as if the British in this case were seeking the genocide of the Native Americans.

And if that's not enough, there is the following possible incident of use of biological warfare by the British again:

>>>>>>It has been alleged that smallpox was also used as a weapon during the American Revolutionary War (1775-83). During the winter of 1775-76, American forces were attempting to free Quebec from British control. After capturing Montreal, it looked as if they might succeed. But in December 1775, the British fort commander reportedly had civilians immunised against the disease and then deliberately sent out to infect the American troops. A few weeks later a major smallpox epidemic broke out in the American ranks, affecting about half of the 10,000 soldiers. They retreated in chaos after burying their dead in mass graves<<<<<<

You can find both these at http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/coldwar/pox_weapon_01.shtml

PS I won't even touch upon the war the British fought against the Zulu's in the 1870's...repeating rifles against an enemy equipped with spears.....

I do not recall who said it (and may just be paraphrasing here), but a wise person once said "Those who live in glass houses should avoid throwing rocks". [:-][:-][:-][:-]

[myros]

Interesting discussion ... if a little off topic

It seems to me that we really need to keep the past in context with the ideas and politics of the time it occured in. It can be easy for us to sit here with the benefit of hindsight to assess and judge the actions of leaders from WWII but many actions taken then would be considered the worst kind of "evil" now. Just look at the amount of time and money that is spent avoiding or minimising civilian casualties these days, when you look back at WWII there are many cases where the civilian sector was deliberatly targeted (the a-bombs being 2 of those cases among many.) It was modern 'terrorism' in its infancy and IMO all such acts were immoral and criminal ... justifiable? Perhaps. But to me that just stinks of the "end justifies the means" concept which can lead to all kinds of madness. Would 2 bombs dropped in mostly unihabited spots not have been just as an effective warning? Guess we'll never know.

Myros

[Blackhorse]

According to Richard Frank, author of Downfall: The End of the Japanese Empire, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff had a broad range of estimated likely casualties for an invasion of Japan.

The invasion (Operation Downfall) would have been in two parts; a November 1st invasion of Kyushu (Operation Olympic), and a March 1st, 1946 invasion of Honshu, around Tokyo (Operation Coronet).

The plans for Olympic called for 767,000 US soldiers to invade Kyushu, capture the Southern third of the island within 90 days, and build airfields to support the decisive invasion in 1946. US casualties just for the first invasion were projected to be between a low of 149,000 (29,000 Kia) based on protracted campaigns in Europe, and a high of 514,000 (135,000 Kia) based on the casualty rates sustained thusfar in the Pacific amphibious campaigns.

Frank believes that even the high estimate, based on Okinawa and other fights against the Japanese, was understated. The US invasion plans, and casualty estimates, were based on the expectation that the Japanese would have about 350,000 combat troops on Kyushu. But the Japanese High Command had divined the intentions of the Allies, and had at least 680,000 troops on the island, butressed by hundreds of thousands of semi-trained auxillaries.

Frank's 'conservative' estimate of deaths from Operation Olympic alone are:

Allied Army: 135,000
Allied Navy: 7,000 (mostly from kamikazes)
Japan Army: 200,000
Jpn civilian: 380,000
TOTAL 722,000 dead in 90 days of fighting . . .

. . . and then they'd do it all over again in March of 1946. [:(]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: myros

Would 2 bombs dropped in mostly unihabited spots not have been just as an effective warning? Guess we'll never know.

Myros

Anyone who's IQ has three digits can figure it out. If losing the Marianas, Iwo Jima,
and Okinawa; and total control of the skies over their own homeland hadn't been
enough to convince the Japanese war leaders that it was time to quit..., why do fools
think they would have been impressed by the dropping of a couple of bombs in an
uninhabited area? They probably would have used the event as propaganda saying
the Americans were so afraid of Japanese defenses that they purposely dropped their
bombs way off target. By the 8th of August the IJA was already trying to convince
people that white clothing was adequate protection against A-Bombs.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Jack Shelak
What I find interesting is that although Germany had deadly nerve gases (e.g. Sarin) and Japan had biological wepons, only the U.S. used weapons of mass destruction. Just an observation, call off the home guard!!

Relevancy?

The US was also the only country to conduct to conduct a precision bombing campaign, while the Germans were the only ones to conduct a protracted strategic campaign with rockets. The US was the only nation to effectively carry out a submarine/U-boat campaign (the Germans tried, but they were not all that effective). So?

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: general billy
The US took the easy way out, but I think that weopons of mass dustruction should be used only as a last resort if you losing badly in a war, not to be used if you winning. I heard saddam hussian used chemicals weopons because he was outnumbered 5 to 1 when he was fighting Iran and shia rebels in his country that allied with Iran, some would say he done a good job because he saved the sunni minority but we consider him a bad guy. [8|]

Actually it was the British, who having found the bombing of industry to difficult, resort to simply killing civilians, as the goal of Butcher Harris was simply to annihilate the German civilian population. Unfortunately for the Brits, it was so poorly done that for every six German children killed, they were losing a trained crewman. They tried to take the easy way out, but it actually was very costly.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: general billy

By the way, did the US warn the japs that they were going to nuke a few of their cities if they didnt stop the war??

Yes.

We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.
Anyway we "think" we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexico desert was startling - to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused the complete disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high, created a crater 6 feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower 1/2 mile away and knocked men down 10,000 yards away. The explosion was visible for more than 200 miles and audible for 40 miles and more.
This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.

He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful...


Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945




In May 1945, Manhattan Project officials set up a committee to pick the best targets.

The committee examined the range of a fully loaded B-29, identified cities undamaged enough to serve as a measure of the bomb's destruction, examined weather conditions and considered the military value of potential targets.

By late July, the group had a list of four cities:

Kokura, which had one of Japan's largest munitions plants.

Hiroshima, a major staging area for Japan's army and navy and the site of several industrial plants.

Niigata, a major port on the Sea of Japan with an oil refinery, a tanker terminal and an iron works.

Kyoto, the former capital of Japan, a major industrial city with plants producing parts for machinery, aircraft and artillery.

Stimson wanted Kyoto off the list because of its religious and historical significance to Japan.

Gen. Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, wanted Kyoto to remain on the list because he believed it was a legitimate military target, and because its huge size made it a good gauge for the effects of an atomic blast. Stimson overruled Groves, and Nagasaki was added in Kyoto's place.

For the first mission, Hiroshima would be the primary target, Kokura would be the second choice and Nagasaki the third.

On the second mission, Kokura would be the target, and Nagasaki would be the backup. Niigata was too far away to be a practical third choice.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: myros
…Would 2 bombs dropped in mostly unihabited spots not have been just as an effective warning? Guess we'll never know.

Myros

Considering most of the Japanese leadership shrugged off the loss of both Nagasaki and Hiroshima… I think that answer is known.

[Grouchy]

ORIGINAL: general billy

By the way, did the US warn the japs that they were going to nuke a few of their cities if they didnt stop the war??

They didn't know excactly what it was going to do and how effective it would be (That'swhy they didn't choose Tokyo, it was already bombed, much worse then Nagasaki and Hiroshima btw). Secondly since it was the first time it would be used, there was always the possibility that the bomb wouldn't work.
Besides that, it was too late to use it against Japan. Japan was already looking for terms of surrender. Some are saying Truman needed the bomb's to warn the USSR. So they didn't warn Japan.

[swatter555]

I know there were factions looking for some sort of peace. I believe they tried to negiotiate through the USSR, but the Russians were interested in a land grab in Manchuria.

In the end, I believe unconditional surrender without the atomic bombs was unlikely. I also dont buy that the US dropped the bomb to warn the Russians. Maybe it was considered a positive side-effect, but not the reason for dropping the bomb.

[myros]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Anyone who's IQ has three digits can figure it out. If losing the Marianas, Iwo Jima,
and Okinawa; and total control of the skies over their own homeland hadn't been
enough to convince the Japanese war leaders that it was time to quit..., why do fools
think ...

Nice. Guess those 3 digit IQs dont help much with having friendly discussions. Maybe another way to look at it is - only a fool would state as absolute fact that which is nothing more than opinion?

I recently saw a history program where the opinion was put forward that Japan had already set in motion the steps to surrender before the bombs were even dropped. It was an interesting show, how accurate the information was I have no idea, Im no expert ..which is why I like to keep an open mind about things, especialy history. I wasnt there, the person putting forth any particular theory wasnt there. The bombs were dropped, Japan surrendered ...those are facts we can all agree on. The rest I can speculate on because its interesting to do so, I like to consider ideas and opinions that are opposed and I can form my own opinions without degrading others whose opinions differ ..if that makes me a "fool" ... guess I can live with that

Myros

[andytimtim]

another program on the history channel said that the japanease were NOT! going to surrender that is until the russians decleared war on them, the guy said they'd rather have the americans in tokyo than the russians!

im not saying that was the actual reason why they gave up, but surely one of the reasons!

[aspqrz02]

NAh. There was a long article in USNI "Proceedings" about the myth of the million man casualty figure - and its just that, a myth. [:-]

The operational HQs involved planned on around 50k casualties (not dead, but dead and wounded) to, IIRC, D+30. THis was rounded by staffers to "100k" and somehow became 100k *dead* along the way. More rounding by several more layers of staffers and the figure became the mythical 250k/500k/1meg "dead".

As someone else pointed out, the US suffered 250k dead for the whole war, Pacific and European theaters combined.

Note that the 50k figures was based on averages of the island campaigns like Okinawa etc.

Dunno about the estimates of the Japanese losses offhand.

[Caltone]

ORIGINAL: Grouchy

ORIGINAL: general billy

By the way, did the US warn the japs that they were going to nuke a few of their cities if they didnt stop the war??

They didn't know excactly what it was going to do and how effective it would be (That'swhy they didn't choose Tokyo, it was already bombed, much worse then Nagasaki and Hiroshima btw). Secondly since it was the first time it would be used, there was always the possibility that the bomb wouldn't work.
Besides that, it was too late to use it against Japan. Japan was already looking for terms of surrender. Some are saying Truman needed the bomb's to warn the USSR. So they didn't warn Japan.

Hmm, seems everyone didn't get the idea;

Japanese Holdouts

Additionally there seems to be some evidence that members of the general staff were not going to cave. I believe they staged a brief coup near the end and attempted to grab the Emperor's recording before it could be played. Some more on this here:

Final Days

[CynicAl]

"I recently saw a history program where the opinion was put forward that Japan had already set in motion the steps to surrender before the bombs were even dropped... how accurate the information was I have no idea..."

Another poster previously mentioned Richard Frank's excellent Downfall. That book contains an excellent discussion of exactly this issue, spanning two full chapters and a large part of a third, based on surviving Japanese wartime documents and recently declassified communications intercepts from US archives. I believe it is fair to say that Downfall is the authoritative treatment of the subject to date, and I recommend it highly. In short: the various Japanese "peace offers" advanced through European neutrals were insubstantial and contained no concrete proposals for terms of a cease-fire, much less surrender; nor were they given the full backing of the Japanese government in Tokyo. The US government, being privy to the message traffic between Tokyo and the Japanese embassies, concluded that the Japanese were not serious about surrendering - as indeed they were not.

[Rainerle]

Hi,
just a curios question: Were the american nukes equipped with a self-destruct in case the bombs would fail to work ?

[andytimtim]

i think the answer would be...yes


would you want your enemy to own your own WMD?