Were the atomic bombs necessary

[adek670]

Warspite

I guess that's essentially it -- but how does this play out in witp-ae??

I'm playing the AI in the standard GC and am in late 44 -- do many people that get to 45 consider the bombs as aiding victory ? Or isn't that really a factor given that the political dimension is not modelled beyond pp

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

The bombs were not militarily necessary. As far as that goes, neither was an invasion of the home islands necessary. The Japanese had already been bombed into the dark ages. The Allies merely needed to maintain a blockade and air bombardment...the later on a much reduced scale, and the country would have shrivelled up and died a slow death. The terrible irony in all of this is that by hastening the surrender the bombs saved many more Japanese lives than Allied lives.

warspite1

Why is that a terrible irony? Surely the saving of those Japanese lives (mostly civilian) and ending the war quickly is a good thing? Apologies if I have read you wrong but you seem to be saying it would preferable to slowly starve the population (with the possibility that, like on so many islands, they refuse to give up) than drop the bombs and hopefully end it quickly. The former is unthinkable surely?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Reaper

Warspite

I guess that's essentially it -- but how does this play out in witp-ae??

I'm playing the AI in the standard GC and am in late 44 -- do many people that get to 45 consider the bombs as aiding victory ? Or isn't that really a factor given that the political dimension is not modelled beyond pp

Warspite1

Having only played Coral Sea (and tried and failed at Guadalcanal) I'll let someone qualified answer that!!

[mind_messing]

RE: US against Russia issue - both countries are as bad as each other. One just has better a better public relations team.


Regarding the atomic bombs - both were completely unnecessary.

Japan was on the verge of mass starvation thanks to the USN's submarine fleet, it's military was completely shattered and the majority of major cities were smouldering heaps of ash.

The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was the knockout blow to the Japanese will to fight.

[geofflambert]

If the only alternative to invading the home islands were a-bombs, then they saved soldiers lives (on both sides, same for civilians). I don't think blockading Japan was considered. If it had been done, that would've saved lives because the Korean peninsula would have been united under communism, so no Korean War. I don't believe a blockade would have caused their surrender for ten years or more, even if the population was starving. In any case, the a-bomb attacks were merely an extension of the fire bombing attacks we'd already been doing for some time, without result. A blockade would have been quite expensive and I believe, not politically viable.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

The bombs were not militarily necessary. As far as that goes, neither was an invasion of the home islands necessary. The Japanese had already been bombed into the dark ages. The Allies merely needed to maintain a blockade and air bombardment...the later on a much reduced scale, and the country would have shrivelled up and died a slow death. The terrible irony in all of this is that by hastening the surrender the bombs saved many more Japanese lives than Allied lives.

warspite1

Why is that a terrible irony? Surely the saving of those Japanese lives (mostly civilian) and ending the war quickly is a good thing? Apologies if I have read you wrong but you seem to be saying it would preferable to slowly starve the population (with the possibility that, like on so many islands, they refuse to give up) than drop the bombs and hopefully end it quickly. The former is unthinkable surely?

Examples please?

I can't seem to recall any other island nations in history that endured complete military defeat, an iron-clad blockade and starvation amongst large sections of the population.

Britain during the World Wars wasn't even close to the Japanese experiance of blockade.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

If the only alternative to invading the home islands were a-bombs, then they saved soldiers lives (on both sides, same for civilians). I don't think blockading Japan was considered. If it had been done, that would've saved lives because the Korean peninsula would have been united under communism, so no Korean War. I don't believe a blockade would have caused their surrender for ten years or more, even if the population was starving. In any case, the a-bomb attacks were merely an extension of the fire bombing attacks we'd already been doing for some time, without result. A blockade would have been quite expensive and I believe, not politically viable.

That is simply laughable.

If you think that the Japanese population would be quite happy to sit for ten years and starve while any food that is grown goes straight to the army, then I think you under-estimate the lengths people will go to when their families are hungry.

The Japanese Emperor would be far from the first Asian ruler to be overthrown by a population subject to starvation. It is hard to keep your armed forces loyal when the rank-and-file can see their families and neighbours starve.

Also, I find the notion that a blockade would be deemed "too expensive" when the US spent millions on developing the atomic bombs.

[adek670]

I think In fact that the answer maybe whether you accept that Japan was ready to surrender

I found a useful article which suggests surrender terms were discussed in jan 45

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/129964

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

RE: US against Russia issue - both countries are as bad as each other. One just has better a better public relations team.


Regarding the atomic bombs - both were completely unnecessary.

Japan was on the verge of mass starvation thanks to the USN's submarine fleet, it's military was completely shattered and the majority of major cities were smouldering heaps of ash.

The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was the knockout blow to the Japanese will to fight.

I'd like to see a citation on that. The Soviets would not have been able to do amphibious landings on Japan, their will to fight I believe was undiminished as far as that goes. Surrendering the Home Islands was a great humiliation that would not have been done without brute force being applied to the Home Islands, which only the US could do. I wouldn't have liked to be Harry Truman on this issue, but it bothered him not a whit.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Reaper

I mean that the statement - dropping them saved lives is a logical fallacy --they didn't actually save any lives per se -- logical fallacies are often used as the basis for arguments but they are still flawed -- that's what I mean

Dropping them probably saved lives. I don't see the fallacy you cite. Please enlighten us.

The alternatives to *not* dropping the bombs to end the war would-by all credible estimates-have caused greater loss of life than the two bombings. What's so hard to understand about that?

There were bonafide plans to invade the home islands. There were bonafide plans to defend the home islands. There were alternative strategies to starve an entire people into submission, likely killing large percentages of the entire nation.

I agree with AW1Steve. This 'wonder weapon' was a way out for the Japanese to save face and not die of starvation.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Reaper

I think In fact that the answer maybe whether you accept that Japan was ready to surrender

I found a useful article which suggests surrender terms were discussed in jan 45

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/129964

Factions, including the emperor, were willing to think the unthinkable, but the real power in Japan was quite resistant. The a-bomb attacks may have given the emperor what he needed to end the thing. As a counterpoint remember what happened in Germany which only surrendered after total collapse, and even then grudgingly.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

RE: US against Russia issue - both countries are as bad as each other. One just has better a better public relations team.


Regarding the atomic bombs - both were completely unnecessary.

Japan was on the verge of mass starvation thanks to the USN's submarine fleet, it's military was completely shattered and the majority of major cities were smouldering heaps of ash.

The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was the knockout blow to the Japanese will to fight.

I'd like to see a citation on that.

Toland's "The Rising Sun" or Hastings "Nemesis". Can't remember which for the life of me, but it was one of those two. I'm leaning towards "Nemesis", but I'll check and post back.

Basically, it was the event that sowed some doubt into the value of the Japanese leaderships stance of "all-out" resistance.

The Soviets would not have been able to do amphibious landings on Japan, their will to fight I believe was undiminished as far as that goes. Surrendering the Home Islands was a great humiliation that would not have been done without brute force being applied to the Home Islands, which only the US could do. I wouldn't have liked to be Harry Truman on this issue, but it bothered him not a whit.

The Soviet's lack of amphib capability had no relevance to the Japanese leadership. What mattered was that with Soviet intervention, the last remanants of the Japanese empire (Manchuria & Korea) would be lost.

With nothing left to try to save and the options being to open talks or starve...

[adek670]

Dropping the bombs didn't save lives

Estimates of casualties on the basis of conventional war fighting were fairly reasonable -- also we often merge casualties and KIA together - saying that the bombs saved lives as a justification for the argument is simply false

Also see link above -- I wonder why the surrender was never accepted in early 45

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

The bombs were not militarily necessary. As far as that goes, neither was an invasion of the home islands necessary. The Japanese had already been bombed into the dark ages. The Allies merely needed to maintain a blockade and air bombardment...the later on a much reduced scale, and the country would have shrivelled up and died a slow death. The terrible irony in all of this is that by hastening the surrender the bombs saved many more Japanese lives than Allied lives.

warspite1

Why is that a terrible irony? Surely the saving of those Japanese lives (mostly civilian) and ending the war quickly is a good thing? Apologies if I have read you wrong but you seem to be saying it would preferable to slowly starve the population (with the possibility that, like on so many islands, they refuse to give up) than drop the bombs and hopefully end it quickly. The former is unthinkable surely?

Examples please?

I can't seem to recall any other island nations in history that endured complete military defeat, an iron-clad blockade and starvation amongst large sections of the population.

Britain during the World Wars wasn't even close to the Japanese experiance of blockade.

Warspite1

Hello mind_messing. We seem to find ourselves on opposite sides of a debate for a change [;)]

I was not talking about islands in that way - and certainly not the UK.

I was talking about the numerous examples of the Japanese refusal to surrender on the various Pacific Islands - including some cases involving Japapese civilians who would rather die than surrender.

I do no know whether, in the absence of the atomic bombs, the Japanese would have refused to surrender - and if so - for how long. Based purely upon the conduct of their (mostly military but also some civilian) actions during the war, I would not have been surprised to see them hold out for sometime - with all the death that that would entail.

[sandlance]

Considering my father was an infantryman in the 25th Div. I have a rather biased and personal opinion about this. Had the he land on Kyushu was the rest of the "Olympic" forces, I wouldn't be here. I beleive there would not have been enough Japanese left after the war to make a 9man team for baseball, and they would have earned their extinction.

S.Nelson FTG1(SS) ret.

[adek670]

Useful article.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for- ... 10001.html

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Reaper

Warspite

I guess that's essentially it -- but how does this play out in witp-ae??

I'm playing the AI in the standard GC and am in late 44 -- do many people that get to 45 consider the bombs as aiding victory ? Or isn't that really a factor given that the political dimension is not modelled beyond pp

The atomic bombs' modelling in the game has been a point of contention.

There is a 'political' cost to using >2 atomic bombs in the game, per the manual. Please read that aspect under victory conditions. It's not PP per se-it's a shift in the victory conditions. Does this model the 'political cost' for which you seek?

From limited numbers of games getting to late 1945, there has been limited information on game usage of this weapon. I think consensus is that the bombs are decidedly 'underpowered' regarding their effect on military units in the hex, LI/HI destroyed (and damaged), factories and so forth.

As an exclusively Japanese player, I'd be gobsmacked (good word for the lexicon, thanks my English friends) if my Allied opponent didn't use them (at least the two 'freebies').

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Reaper
Dropping the bombs didn't save lives

If you're interested in a discussion of that-pro or con-you'll provide the numbers that you are using to base this statement. Otherwise, this conclusion flies in the face of everything I've read about expected casualties (KIA and otherwise) from an invasion of Kyushu.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Why is that a terrible irony? Surely the saving of those Japanese lives (mostly civilian) and ending the war quickly is a good thing? Apologies if I have read you wrong but you seem to be saying it would preferable to slowly starve the population (with the possibility that, like on so many islands, they refuse to give up) than drop the bombs and hopefully end it quickly. The former is unthinkable surely?

Examples please?

I can't seem to recall any other island nations in history that endured complete military defeat, an iron-clad blockade and starvation amongst large sections of the population.

Britain during the World Wars wasn't even close to the Japanese experiance of blockade.

Warspite1

Hello mind_messing. We seem to find ourselves on opposite sides of a debate for a change [;)]

Perhaps my resolution for the new year should be to try to agree with you

I was talking about the numerous examples of the Japanese refusal to surrender on the various Pacific Islands - including some cases involving Japapese civilians who would rather die than surrender.

The scale is quite different. Trying to translate the circumstances of Saipan and Okinawa (where the enemy were right outside your cave) to the Home Islands (where the enemy flew overhead and dropped some bombs) is difficult.

I really think some people of this board over-estimate the WW2 Japanese population. They were not superhuman. They did not have endless reserves of resilance. They were like any other human in that they would do what was needed in order to feed themselves and their families.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Reaper
Dropping the bombs didn't save lives

If you're interested in a discussion of that-pro or con-you'll provide the numbers that you are using to base this statement. Otherwise, this conclusion flies in the face of everything I've read about expected casualties (KIA and otherwise) from an invasion of Kyushu.

ORIGINAL: sandlance

Considering my father was an infantryman in the 25th Div. I have a rather biased and personal opinion about this. Had the he land on Kyushu was the rest of the "Olympic" forces, I wouldn't be here. I beleive there would not have been enough Japanese left after the war to make a 9man team for baseball, and they would have earned their extinction.

S.Nelson FTG1(SS) ret.

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