Were the atomic bombs necessary

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Orm

So far this debate has been interesting. But all seem to avoid the point made by the Russian in the article in post #1.

What, the complete non-sequitur of the last sentence?

I am sorry that I was unable to make myself understood in my quoted post. [:(]

[Orm]

So the "Russians" have clean hands as well?

I do not understand the relevance of this. [:(]

[Hotschi]

Whether the bombs were "necessary " or not, is a purely academic question. They were dropped, period.

Call me a cynic, but what's the difference between wiping out a city with a single nuclear bomb (read further please) or doing the same with thousands of explosives or incendiaries? In both cases, people are crushed, suffocated, or burnt to death.

For the people involved on the U.S. side, using a nuke was just another way to destroy a city and thus force the enemy to surrender - the long-term effects of radiation were not known at that time. (source Richard B. Frank)

Regarding the Emperor of Japan, at that time a "god-like" creature, he couldn't care less about his "subjects" (more properly called "population") as he was more concerned in keeping the kokutai, i.e. his own status as Emperor (source Herbert B. Bix). The bombs finally gave that man a "face-saving" reason to end the war, and in a way to hypocritically "act in a benevolent way" to end the dying, as he is or - ever was - the "good guy". If Hirohito had actually cared for the Japanese, his fellow countrymen, he should have surrendered way sooner than he did. Even better, he should not have started a war which was impossible to win.

Invading the Japanese home islands, or blockading infinitely, would have cost way more lives on both sides than using the two only nuclear bombs which were available at that time. This may be cynic, yes, but you don't win a war by being "nice". And after all, the Japanese Emperor started the whole damn thing.

[tocaff]

You are all missing the point here. You can't judge what happened in a different era using today's standards. You can't judge a different culture based on the one that you know.

Ask a person who served in the Pacific and I'm sure that they were in favor of using whatever was available to end the war.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Hotschi

Whether the bombs were "necessary " or not, is a purely academic question. They were dropped, period.

Call me a cynic, but what's the difference between wiping out a city with a single nuclear bomb (read further please) or doing the same with thousands of explosives or incendiaries? In both cases, people are crushed, suffocated, or burnt to death.

For the people involved on the U.S. side, using a nuke was just another way to destroy a city and thus force the enemy to surrender - the long-term effects of radiation were not known at that time. (source Richard B. Frank)

Regarding the Emperor of Japan, at that time a "god-like" creature, he couldn't care less about his "subjects" (more properly called "population") as he was more concerned in keeping the kokutai, i.e. his own status as Emperor (source Herbert B. Bix). The bombs finally gave that man a "face-saving" reason to end the war, and in a way to hypocritically "act in a benevolent way" to end the dying, as he is or - ever was - the "good guy". If Hirohito had actually cared for the Japanese, his fellow countrymen, he should have surrendered way sooner than he did. Even better, he should not have started a war which was impossible to win.

Invading the Japanese home islands, or blockading infinitely, would have cost way more lives on both sides than using the two only nuclear bombs which were available at that time. This may be cynic, yes, but you don't win a war by being "nice". And after all, the Japanese Emperor started the whole damn thing.

You seem to overestimate the power that came with the Emperor's position.

The Emperor was traditionally apolitical and served to rubber-stamp the decisions of his government.

Hirohito merely allowed himself to be swept along with the tide of war in order to preserve his position.

Yes, Hirohito could have opposed the war, and did all in his power to end it, but he would have ended up like his father - kept isolated from the circles of power and unable to cause the government any embarassment.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

You are all missing the point here. You can't judge what happened in a different era using today's standards. You can't judge a different culture based on the one that you know.

Ask a person who served in the Pacific and I'm sure that they were in favor of using whatever was available to end the war.

warspite1

You are all missing the point here.

Not really - I think the points, from both sides of the argument, have been laid out.

You can't judge what happened in a different era using today's standards.

Well we are only talking 70 odd years ago. Some things are wrong now and were wrong then - like the Rape of Nanking, the Holocaust etc

You can't judge a different culture based on the one that you know.

Are you saying the West has no right to judge the Rape of Nanking on the basis we have a different culture?

Ask a person who served in the Pacific and I'm sure that they were in favor of using whatever was available to end the war.

Or indeed anyone who had been fighting the Second World War - some for almost six years...or indeed anyone who just wanted this most destructive of wars finished as quickly as possible.

[AW1Steve]

I think those of us trying to defend the decisions of the USA should acknowledge that to some people on this forum the following thoughts rein supreme:

1) nothing the USA ever does is ever justified. The USA is always wrong , always evil.
2) Japan fought the most honorable war , the allies the most despicable one.
3) The USA can do nothing by apologize. The USA is wrong. That's it. See comment 1.


Fortunately only electrons died for this ridiculous exercise in banality. No trees died for it.

Frankly I believe some people are born bullies. They like to hurt people and take their stuff. Sometimes those people become leaders of nations and expand their abilities to hurt and steal exponentially. I've found that the only way for people of good will to stop such people is to hurt them , and break their stuff. Then there are people who have neither the guts , nor the ability to be other , but enjoy watching people debate the "white is black" (and get run over at Zebra crossings.. apologies to Douglas Adams) and get people worked up by posing unanswerable questions and saying "why?" "Why?" over and over and over again like some recalcitrant five year old who can't get his desert till after dinner. We call such people "trolls" (and a lot of other names not suitable for a family suitable thread) and waste much time and many electrons. These people hope to grow up to be bullies , but lack the guts to be one. [:(]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I think those of us trying to defend the decisions of the USA should acknowledge that to some people on this forum the following thoughts rein supreme:

1) nothing the USA ever does is ever justified. The USA is always wrong , always evil.
2) Japan fought the most honorable war , the allies the most despicable one.
3) The USA can do nothing by apologize. The USA is wrong. That's it. See comment 1.


Fortunately only electrons died for this ridiculous exercise in banality. No trees died for it.

Frankly I believe some people are born bullies. They like to hurt people and take their stuff. Sometimes those people become leaders of nations and expand their abilities to hurt and steal exponentially. I've found that the only way for people of good will to stop such people is to hurt them , and break their stuff. Then there are people who have neither the guts , nor the ability to be other , but enjoy watching people debate the "white is black" (and get run over at Zebra crossings.. apologies to Douglas Adams) and get people worked up by posing unanswerable questions and saying "why?" "Why?" over and over and over again like some recalcitrant five year old who can't get his desert till after dinner. We call such people "trolls" (and a lot of other names not suitable for a family suitable thread) and waste much time and many electrons. These people hope to grow up to be bullies , but lack the guts to be one. [:(]

warspite1

Well I can't see any troll behaviour here. I very much disagree with the views of 3-4 posters, but they have neither been trolling or abusive, but have stated their case - just as those of us that support the actions of the Truman administration have done.

I think overall its been a sensible, well conducted debate about one of the really big episodes of the last 100 years.

As to the thoughts re the USA and the fact they can never do right in some peoples eyes etc etc - yes, we British get that a lot [;)]

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I think those of us trying to defend the decisions of the USA should acknowledge that to some people on this forum the following thoughts rein supreme:

1) nothing the USA ever does is ever justified. The USA is always wrong , always evil.
2) Japan fought the most honorable war , the allies the most despicable one.
3) The USA can do nothing by apologize. The USA is wrong. That's it. See comment 1.


Fortunately only electrons died for this ridiculous exercise in banality. No trees died for it.


Frankly I believe some people are born bullies. They like to hurt people and take their stuff. Sometimes those people become leaders of nations and expand their abilities to hurt and steal exponentially. I've found that the only way for people of good will to stop such people is to hurt them , and break their stuff. Then there are people who have neither the guts , nor the ability to be other , but enjoy watching people debate the "white is black" (and get run over at Zebra crossings.. apologies to Douglas Adams) and get people worked up by posing unanswerable questions and saying "why?" "Why?" over and over and over again like some recalcitrant five year old who can't get his desert till after dinner. We call such people "trolls" (and a lot of other names not suitable for a family suitable thread) and waste much time and many electrons. These people hope to grow up to be bullies , but lack the guts to be one.

So we should all see the US as the embodiment of all that is good and just in the world and view it's actions as beyond reproach? If we don't do so, we're "trolls"?

Is there to be no debate on the merits of the various options the US was presented with? Or will you just stick your fingers in your ears and shout accusations of bias against the US?

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I think those of us trying to defend the decisions of the USA should acknowledge that to some people on this forum the following thoughts rein supreme:

1) nothing the USA ever does is ever justified. The USA is always wrong , always evil.
2) Japan fought the most honorable war , the allies the most despicable one.
3) The USA can do nothing by apologize. The USA is wrong. That's it. See comment 1.


Fortunately only electrons died for this ridiculous exercise in banality. No trees died for it.

Frankly I believe some people are born bullies. They like to hurt people and take their stuff. Sometimes those people become leaders of nations and expand their abilities to hurt and steal exponentially. I've found that the only way for people of good will to stop such people is to hurt them , and break their stuff. Then there are people who have neither the guts , nor the ability to be other , but enjoy watching people debate the "white is black" (and get run over at Zebra crossings.. apologies to Douglas Adams) and get people worked up by posing unanswerable questions and saying "why?" "Why?" over and over and over again like some recalcitrant five year old who can't get his desert till after dinner. We call such people "trolls" (and a lot of other names not suitable for a family suitable thread) and waste much time and many electrons. These people hope to grow up to be bullies , but lack the guts to be one. [:(]

warspite1

Well I can't see any troll behaviour here. I very much disagree with the views of 3-4 posters, but they have neither been trolling or abusive, but have stated their case - just as those of us that support the actions of the Truman administration have done.

I think overall its been a sensible, well conducted debate about one of the really big episodes of the last 100 years.

As to the thoughts re the USA and the fact they can never do right in some peoples eyes etc etc - yes, we British get that a lot [;)]

We agree at last.

Someone holding views that are the opposite to your own is not trolling.

[KenchiSulla]

All we need is a nice fireplace and a couple of bottles of brandy.. All this typing...

While going through quotes on war, found a nice one...

"The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one."

Albert Einstein

[Hotschi]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Hotschi

Whether the bombs were "necessary " or not, is a purely academic question. They were dropped, period.

Call me a cynic, but what's the difference between wiping out a city with a single nuclear bomb (read further please) or doing the same with thousands of explosives or incendiaries? In both cases, people are crushed, suffocated, or burnt to death.

For the people involved on the U.S. side, using a nuke was just another way to destroy a city and thus force the enemy to surrender - the long-term effects of radiation were not known at that time. (source Richard B. Frank)

Regarding the Emperor of Japan, at that time a "god-like" creature, he couldn't care less about his "subjects" (more properly called "population") as he was more concerned in keeping the kokutai, i.e. his own status as Emperor (source Herbert B. Bix). The bombs finally gave that man a "face-saving" reason to end the war, and in a way to hypocritically "act in a benevolent way" to end the dying, as he is or - ever was - the "good guy". If Hirohito had actually cared for the Japanese, his fellow countrymen, he should have surrendered way sooner than he did. Even better, he should not have started a war which was impossible to win.

Invading the Japanese home islands, or blockading infinitely, would have cost way more lives on both sides than using the two only nuclear bombs which were available at that time. This may be cynic, yes, but you don't win a war by being "nice". And after all, the Japanese Emperor started the whole damn thing.

You seem to overestimate the power that came with the Emperor's position.

The Emperor was traditionally apolitical and served to rubber-stamp the decisions of his government.

Hirohito merely allowed himself to be swept along with the tide of war in order to preserve his position.

Yes, Hirohito could have opposed the war, and did all in his power to end it, but he would have ended up like his father - kept isolated from the circles of power and unable to cause the government any embarassment.

No I don't overestimate Hirohito's power or position. I recommend Herbert P. Bix, Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan on this subject. Hirohito actually made the decisions, unlike his father - who was kept from public view because of his mental state, btw. He was ill throughout his life.

[nate25]

I've tried to stay out of a lot of these the last year or so, both on the General Forum and here. But this one hit close to home.

Both my grandfathers served in the PTO, one on a 90mm anti-aircraft gun in the Aluetians and the other in an Ordnance unit (Small Arms) in the Phillipines.

One had a unit disbanded to provide infantry replacements for the coming invasion, and the other was culled out of his unit for the same reason.

To both of them Olympic was a very real threat to their existence. At least to these two men who were preparing for it, the bombs were a welcome development.

I doubt they were alone in feeling that way.

Cheers,
Nate

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Orm

So far this debate has been interesting. But all seem to avoid the point made by the Russian in the article in post #1.

What, the complete non-sequitur of the last sentence?

I am sorry that I was unable to make myself understood in my quoted post. [:(]

I meant the non-sequitur of the Russian in the linked article.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Orm

So the "Russians" have clean hands as well?

I do not understand the relevance of this. [:(]

The article posted originally was headed:
Speaker of the Russian State Duma Sergei Naryshkin says the United States should be investigated for the atomic bombings against two Japanese cities during World War II.

I was suggesting that the Russians/USSR had better tidy its own house before slinging mud.

[BattleMoose]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I think those of us trying to defend the decisions of the USA should acknowledge that to some people on this forum the following thoughts rein supreme:

1) nothing the USA ever does is ever justified. The USA is always wrong , always evil.
2) Japan fought the most honorable war , the allies the most despicable one.
3) The USA can do nothing by apologize. The USA is wrong. That's it. See comment 1.

I had pretty much walked away from this discussion, satisfied that I had made my point, people mostly disagreed with it and that's fine and I heard theirs and that was fine and there was an exchange of idea, which is the fundamental purpose of a forum.

The above shows a complete disregard and respect for the point(s) I was making. At the risk or rather, with the hope, that some moderation might step in.

For completeness I will elucidate my position once again, which certainly doesn't fit into either 1, 2 or 3.

Killing civilians, destroying their cities (by nuclear weapons or conventional its irrelevant) with the goal of killing civilians is morally wrong. Its simply not an okay way for nations to behave.

And lets remember that operation Olympia is a choice. It didn't have to happen. It was fully in the USA's control to choose to do that or to choose not to do that, there is no inevitability. Demanding unconditional surrender is also a choice. There were ways to end this war that didn't involve slaughtering hundreds and thousands of civilians or undertaking Olympia.

And I certainly don't pretend to be able to predict what would have happened had other things been done. I don't have perfect knowledge and neither does anyone else here. And weighing one civilians life (or a city) against some others (civilian population), and then killing them to save others, is completely unacceptable to me.

We are responsible for what we do. And not for what others did or might do.

[zuluhour]

+1 Herr Cannonfodder

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I think those of us trying to defend the decisions of the USA should acknowledge that to some people on this forum the following thoughts rein supreme:

1) nothing the USA ever does is ever justified. The USA is always wrong , always evil.
2) Japan fought the most honorable war , the allies the most despicable one.
3) The USA can do nothing by apologize. The USA is wrong. That's it. See comment 1.

I had pretty much walked away from this discussion, satisfied that I had made my point, people mostly disagreed with it and that's fine and I heard theirs and that was fine and there was an exchange of idea, which is the fundamental purpose of a forum.

The above shows a complete disregard and respect for the point(s) I was making. At the risk or rather, with the hope, that some moderation might step in.

For completeness I will elucidate my position once again, which certainly doesn't fit into either 1, 2 or 3.

Killing civilians, destroying their cities (by nuclear weapons or conventional its irrelevant) with the goal of killing civilians is morally wrong. Its simply not an okay way for nations to behave.

And lets remember that operation Olympia is a choice. It didn't have to happen. It was fully in the USA's control to choose to do that or to choose not to do that, there is no inevitability. Demanding unconditional surrender is also a choice. There were ways to end this war that didn't involve slaughtering hundreds and thousands of civilians or undertaking Olympia.

And I certainly don't pretend to be able to predict what would have happened had other things been done. I don't have perfect knowledge and neither does anyone else here. And weighing one civilians life (or a city) against some others (civilian population), and then killing them to save others, is completely unacceptable to me.

We are responsible for what we do. And not for what others did or might do.

I respect that opinion.

But let me ask you, per my earlier post about Port Blair. You have Japan whose military had no issue with torturing/killing civilians even as their home country was being prepared to be invades/blockaded. So lets say it would take six more months to get them to surrender without the bomb just so we (the Allies) would not have to drop the bomb. How many thousands (millions?) of civilians that Japan would have continued to abuse and kill over that six month period?

And of course that completely ignores what Russia would be doing both in China/Europe (with their own civilian abuse/killing) while we continued to play footise with Japan.

It seems that you are forgetting what stopping the war earlier by using the bomb meant to civilians still in the occupied areas that Japan still held. So you cannot just look and say 'Look what we did to the poor civilians of Japan and how bad it was and we did not have to do it.' without looking at the larger impact to all the civilians across the entire PTO.

[BattleMoose]

We have no idea how much longer Japan would have held out had the bomb not been dropped. We don't know how many civilians were spared as a result of the war ending sooner. We cannot know that. And using that unquantifiable number to justify the bombing of cities is, not particularly strong.

And the USSR only invaded China after the bomb was dropped, because the bomb was dropped. And the USSR certainly didn't stop its shenanigans in Europe because Japan accepted peace, at which time the war was already officially concluded.

The USSR at this time was playing serious shenanigans with Japan and the peace process. She was rapidly transporting troops from the West to the East to occupy as much territory in the far east as possible before the conclusion of the war. And was promising to mediate a negotiated peace between Japan and the Allies. Of course she had no intention of doing so but had a strong interest in keeping Japan in the war for as long as possible so she could take possession in the far east. Going so far as to warn Japan of impending air strikes on Formosa, by the USA.

Japan had hope of a negotiated peace mediated by the USSR. Dropping the bomb made the USSR realise that the war was rapidly drawing to a close, invaded, shattering Japans hope of a negotiated peace.

Was Japan holding out, because it had hope of a negotiated peace? Where there other ways of destroying that hope?

The main point of that was to highlight that there was a lot going on, a lot of moving parts. And while murdering (that is what it was) Japanese civilians might have saved many others elsewhere, the converse might also have been true, even if unlikely. We cannot know. But if we are going to drop a bomb on a civilian population we really ought to know.

So it is a difficult situation, murder some , save some others, probably. But I do hold that murder is wrong. And in the absence of certainty that is what I hold to, that murder is wrong and we should not do it. Not today, not then.

And if one holds, perhaps not entirely unreasonably, that it is a good idea to murder some to save others, then it raises the question. Are you okay with the State murdering you or your loved ones so that their organs can be used to save others?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

We have no idea how much longer Japan would have held out had the bomb not been dropped. We don't know how many civilians were spared as a result of the war ending sooner. We cannot know that. And using that unquantifiable number to justify the bombing of cities is, not particularly strong.

This is quite nonsensical. There is ample reason based upon experience in that very war against that very opponent behind the various very high estimates of Japanese civilian casualties. There is the additional evidence of the preparation of the Japanese population, and it is quite clear that the official position of the Japanese government was for there to be massive sacrifice of civilians.

And the USSR only invaded China after the bomb was dropped, because the bomb was dropped. And the USSR certainly didn't stop its shenanigans in Europe because Japan accepted peace, at which time the war was already officially concluded.

The USSR at this time was playing serious shenanigans with Japan and the peace process. She was rapidly transporting troops from the West to the East to occupy as much territory in the far east as possible before the conclusion of the war. And was promising to mediate a negotiated peace between Japan and the Allies. Of course she had no intention of doing so but had a strong interest in keeping Japan in the war for as long as possible so she could take possession in the far east. Going so far as to warn Japan of impending air strikes on Formosa, by the USA.

The Soviets did have to actually invade to occupy territory. They did not wake up the day the first bomb was dropped and decide that they better invade.

Japan had hope of a negotiated peace mediated by the USSR. Dropping the bomb made the USSR realise that the war was rapidly drawing to a close, invaded, shattering Japans hope of a negotiated peace.

Was Japan holding out, because it had hope of a negotiated peace? Where there other ways of destroying that hope?

The main point of that was to highlight that there was a lot going on, a lot of moving parts. And while murdering (that is what it was) Japanese civilians might have saved many others elsewhere, the converse might also have been true, even if unlikely. We cannot know. But if we are going to drop a bomb on a civilian population we really ought to know.

Your basic point is that without total certainty of the future, a decision can not be taken. But you neglect to apply that same principle to your own criticism of what was done.

So it is a difficult situation, murder some , save some others, probably. But I do hold that murder is wrong. And in the absence of certainty that is what I hold to, that murder is wrong and we should not do it. Not today, not then.

And if one holds, perhaps not entirely unreasonably, that it is a good idea to murder some to save others, then it raises the question. Are you okay with the State murdering you or your loved ones so that their organs can be used to save others?

It is not disease being discussed, it is war. Applying your reasoning means total pacifism. Good luck with that.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Anyways, I find the question of death by atomic fire versus conventional gasoline firebombings versus death by naval gunfire versus death by high explosives entirely irrelevant. You can bet that in 'preparation' for the battlefield, there would have been huge civilian casualties preceding an Allied invasion. To ignore these likely casualties (incalculable or at least not accurately calculated by the Allies) in a conventional invasion is myopic.

Again, this assumption that an invasion would be the event needed to effect a Japanese surrender...

There was no need for the Allies to invade. The Japanese were offering reasonable terms in January of 1945. Granted, the peace offerings were not offically sanctioned, but to say that the entire Japanese leadership was dead-set on a Gotterdammerung would be wrong. The prospect of the civilian population starving in order to feed the military would only have served to encourage a drive for peace.

Again, the people doing the offering at that time were unable to deliver.