We Were Right to Drop the Bomb

[Camp]

I have wondered if balloon bombs had anything to do with the decision. ...

Very, very unlikely. They were almost entirely ineffective and had no bearing on the outcome of the war.

Agreed, but I have never been able to ascertain with reliability of the extent of our knowledge of the bio weapon developments being made in Japan during that time frame. If we knew then what we learned after the war if might have freaked some people out.

 

[JoeB131]

Thoughts?

First, we need to dispense with some of the myths. the first myth is that Japan surrendered because of the atom bombs. They didn't. The Japanese surrendered because the USSR entered the Pacific War, opening up another front they were unable to really defend effectively.

The second one was that Truman vaporized a quarter million people to save millions of American lives. this is nonsense.

The indefensible Hiroshima revisionism that haunts America to this day - Salon.com

Truman did not seriously consult with military commanders who had objections to using the bomb. He did, however, ask a panel of military experts to offer an estimate of how many Americans might be killed if the United States launched the two major invasions of the Japanese home islands scheduled for November 1, 1945 and March 1, 1946. Their figure: 40,000 — far below the half-million he would cite after the war. Even this estimate was based on the dubious assumption that Japan could continue to feed, fuel, and arm its troops with the U.S. in almost complete control of the seas and skies.

Here's the reality. In the heat of the moment, we did something that was pretty horrific. Understandable, the Japanese did a lot of horrible things- Pearl Harbor, the Bataan Death March, Kamikaze attacks - and there just wasn't a lot of sympathy for them. Oh yeah, and they weren't white like the Germans were. While we kept hoping for the "Good German" who would overthrow Hitler and never did, the Japanese were always portrayed as sub-human.

Then after we did it, we realize how terrible it was. The Japanese really weren't bad people, they just had stupid leaders. More to the point, we realized the demon we unleashed on the world.

So we've spent the last 70 years rationalizing it.

One thing Americans are very good at is rationalizing the seedier parts of our history.

 

[JoeB131]

With 20/20 hindsight we know. At the time we didn't. Your other points have merit especially the numbers of Japanese lives that were saved. They would have died in their millions and the ruling elite expected that of them.

Not really. The Japanese elite were already looking for a way to negotiate a peace, and were putting out feelers to the Soviets, Swiss and Swedes to do so.

When the Soviets entered the Pacific War, they knew it was over and surrendered. the A-bombs were unnecessary.

 

[JoeB131]

Some assume the Japanese were like the Nazi or other European nations, when it was clear they could not win they would surrender. That was not true of the Japanese, the Japanese knew, as has been suggested, they could not win the war, but did believe America would tire of the casualties and arrange some type of peace where Japan would end up with territory that had her needed raw materials. With the Japanese philosophy of nation over death she would make every island, every inch of territory so costly in American casualties we would negotiate, and as we neared the mainland of Japan, Japan's resistance stiffened, hence the Iwo's and Okinawa's. We will never know how long Japan would have fought on, or how many more Americans would have died but we were given a choice, and we took it.
Thank you America

The reason the Japanese fought so viciously for Iwo Jima and Okinawa is because they knew possession of those islands would allow the US to bomb their home Islands with impunity. They fought so "stiffly" because they were protecting their loved ones back home.

The point is, the Japanese were not the Germans, who actually did continue to fight until Berlin fell. They were looking for a negotiated peace, particularly after Germany surrendered and they realized they would face the full force of the Allied effort.

We dropped the bombs to intimidate the Soviets, not to get peace with Japan.

 

[JoeB131]

Soooo, we should have what, asked them to surrender and they would have said yes?

Color me suspicious.

here's the thing, they had already offered to surrender, as long as we allowed them to keep Hirohito as Emperor. We held out on that point until after the USSR got into the war, and all of a sudden, we were all cool with Hirohito, who remained emperor until 1989.

 

[gipper]

I tend to agree. It saved hundreds of thousands of lives, including many Americans.

The headline of this column is lifted from a 1981 essay by the late Paul Fussell, the cultural critic and war memoirist. In 1945 Fussell was a 21-year-old second lieutenant in the U.S. Army who had fought his way through Europe only to learn that he would soon be shipped to the Pacific to take part in Operation Downfall, the invasion of the Japanese home islands scheduled to begin in November 1945.

Then the atom bomb intervened. Japan would not surrender after Hiroshima, but it did after Nagasaki.

I brought Fussell’s essay with me on my flight to Hiroshima and was stopped by this: “When we learned to our astonishment that we would not be obliged in a few months to rush up the beaches near Tokyo assault-firing while being machine-gunned, mortared, and shelled, for all the practiced phlegm of our tough facades we broke down and cried with relief and joy. We were going to live.”

In all the cant that will pour forth this week to mark the 70th anniversary of the dropping of the bombs—that the U.S. owes the victims of the bombings an apology; that nuclear weapons ought to be abolished; that Hiroshima is a monument to man’s inhumanity to man; that Japan could have been defeated in a slightly nicer way—I doubt much will be made of Fussell’s fundamental point: Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren’t just terrible war-ending events. They were also lifesaving. The bomb turned the empire of the sun into a nation of peace activists.​

Thank God for the Atom Bomb - WSJ

What are your thoughts?

BS. Been debunked over and over again, but statist brainwashing is difficult to overcome.

 

[martybegan]

Soooo, we should have what, asked them to surrender and they would have said yes?

Color me suspicious.

here's the thing, they had already offered to surrender, as long as we allowed them to keep Hirohito as Emperor. We held out on that point until after the USSR got into the war, and all of a sudden, we were all cool with Hirohito, who remained emperor until 1989.

Actually they wanted to keep Hirohito, not disarm, not have any occupation of Japan, and try war criminals themselves. You have to remember that the Japanese cabinet was controlled by the military, 4/6 members, and most of them thought they could force a negotiation by smashing any beachhead.

Hirohito forced the army to accept defeat, and while the Soviets may have had a part in that, the two bombs, with the promise of more to come, gave him the ammunition to make them accept the surrender terms.

 

[martybegan]

With 20/20 hindsight we know. At the time we didn't. Your other points have merit especially the numbers of Japanese lives that were saved. They would have died in their millions and the ruling elite expected that of them.

Not really. The Japanese elite were already looking for a way to negotiate a peace, and were putting out feelers to the Soviets, Swiss and Swedes to do so.

When the Soviets entered the Pacific War, they knew it was over and surrendered. the A-bombs were unnecessary.

Those peace feelers were dire attempts, and none of them went anywhere. The Emperor forced a political decision to end the war, and without the bombs he wouldn't have had the shock value to get the army to submit to his demand. He even mentions it in the Imperial Rescript that announced the surrender.

 

[gipper]

I tend to agree. My father was one of those preparing to attack the home islands in the summer of 45, so I have no problem dropping the bomb on japan. I would not be here otherwise. Iwo Jima and Taiwan let us know what to expect.

That said, I am of the opinion that doing the reasearch was a total waste. 1/4 of industrial output in 1944-45 was focused on the bomb, I feel we could have won the war sooner if we had focused on convenional means. being ignorent of it longer would have been a lot better. The bomb reqired brainpower to build it, but that brainpower was easily fungible. Stalin knew more about the bomb than Truman, and beause of the spies he got it in short order. No bomb means no spies getting the bomb. and no terror weapons for a substantial time afterwards.

I believe we could have finished of hitler by november of 44 if we had focused our resources better

Murder innocent women and children of a defeated defenseless nation is okay to protect the lives of your soldiers.

How utterly immoral, unethical, and heinous...and all done by a man who claimed to be a devote Christian...I suspect he is burning Hell right now.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Funny how the thought of killing 200000 people (mostly civilians) was once deemed a sound strategy

At least in those cases the wars ended, instead of the slow bleed we see now.

Since there have been no official declarations of war you can say we haven't fought any wars since WWII

you can say it.

it would not be true, of course.

words do not define reality.

if the words fail to accurately describe the reality that exists independently of them, then they are worthless bullshit.

The problem is that every "war" since WWII has been nothing but games of political brinksmanship on the part of our politicians

Our government has sent tens of thousands of our brave men and women to their deaths and has maimed and crippled tens of thousands more for no reason other than political maneuvering

Quite frankly we should be ashamed

 

[JoeB131]

Actually they wanted to keep Hirohito, not disarm, not have any occupation of Japan, and try war criminals themselves. You have to remember that the Japanese cabinet was controlled by the military, 4/6 members, and most of them thought they could force a negotiation by smashing any beachhead.

Hirohito forced the army to accept defeat, and while the Soviets may have had a part in that, the two bombs, with the promise of more to come, gave him the ammunition to make them accept the surrender terms.

Not really. i think Japan knew they were defeated and were just looking for the best deal they could get. They realized that deal would get a LOT worse with the Soviets. The bombs didn't make a difference because they were ALREADY bombing the snot of Japan conventionally.

Those peace feelers were dire attempts, and none of them went anywhere. The Emperor forced a political decision to end the war, and without the bombs he wouldn't have had the shock value to get the army to submit to his demand. He even mentions it in the Imperial Rescript that announced the surrender.

None ofthem went anywhere because the Americans weren't willing to talk peace. That's really not an excuse.

 

[gipper]

A little know fact...well to most Americans that is...

Largest Bombing Raid in History was Perpetrated against Japan AFTER the Atomic Bombings
Posted on August 6, 2015 by Robert Barsocchini
The largest bombing campaign in history, at that point, was perpetrated by the US against Japan after the atomic bombings of civilians on August 6th and 9th, 1945.

Several days later,

In the largest bombing raid of the Pacific War, more than 400 B-29s attacked Japan during daylight on August 14, and more than 300 that night.[103] A total of 1,014 aircraft were used with no losses.

At 2:49 AM on August 14, the US had intercepted a message from Japanese leadership to Japanese foreign embassies, instructing them “to accept the Allied terms of surrender.”

Writer Laurence M. Vance points out that “many timelines of World War II do not even list this event [the post-nuke bombing raids against Japan] as having occurred.”


How does anyone approve of or defend this?

 

[martybegan]

Actually they wanted to keep Hirohito, not disarm, not have any occupation of Japan, and try war criminals themselves. You have to remember that the Japanese cabinet was controlled by the military, 4/6 members, and most of them thought they could force a negotiation by smashing any beachhead.

Hirohito forced the army to accept defeat, and while the Soviets may have had a part in that, the two bombs, with the promise of more to come, gave him the ammunition to make them accept the surrender terms.

Not really. i think Japan knew they were defeated and were just looking for the best deal they could get. They realized that deal would get a LOT worse with the Soviets. The bombs didn't make a difference because they were ALREADY bombing the snot of Japan conventionally.

Those peace feelers were dire attempts, and none of them went anywhere. The Emperor forced a political decision to end the war, and without the bombs he wouldn't have had the shock value to get the army to submit to his demand. He even mentions it in the Imperial Rescript that announced the surrender.

None ofthem went anywhere because the Americans weren't willing to talk peace. That's really not an excuse.

There is a difference between a 300 bomber raid and one bomber, one bomb, boom. The Japanese Army still wanted to fight, the Navy knew they were doomed but was worried about an Army Coup, same as the civilian cabinet members.

The 3 conditions above and beyond keeping the Emperor were not acceptable.

 

[martybegan]

A little know fact...well to most Americans that is...

Largest Bombing Raid in History was Perpetrated against Japan AFTER the Atomic Bombings
Posted on August 6, 2015 by Robert Barsocchini
The largest bombing campaign in history, at that point, was perpetrated by the US against Japan after the atomic bombings of civilians on August 6th and 9th, 1945.

Several days later,

In the largest bombing raid of the Pacific War, more than 400 B-29s attacked Japan during daylight on August 14, and more than 300 that night.[103] A total of 1,014 aircraft were used with no losses.

At 2:49 AM on August 14, the US had intercepted a message from Japanese leadership to Japanese foreign embassies, instructing them “to accept the Allied terms of surrender.”

Writer Laurence M. Vance points out that “many timelines of World War II do not even list this event [the post-nuke bombing raids against Japan] as having occurred.”


How does anyone approve of or defend this?

War is hell.

 

[JoeB131]

There is a difference between a 300 bomber raid and one bomber, one bomb, boom. The Japanese Army still wanted to fight, the Navy knew they were doomed but was worried about an Army Coup, same as the civilian cabinet members.

The 3 conditions above and beyond keeping the Emperor were not acceptable.

sure they were. We let a whole bunch of Axis Criminals off the hook after the war. We had some show trials for the top guys, but most of them went on to have happy lives in the New Japan.

We used an indefensible weapon to try to intimidate our allies in the post-war world.

There was no excuse for it.

 

[gipper]

A little know fact...well to most Americans that is...

Largest Bombing Raid in History was Perpetrated against Japan AFTER the Atomic Bombings
Posted on August 6, 2015 by Robert Barsocchini
The largest bombing campaign in history, at that point, was perpetrated by the US against Japan after the atomic bombings of civilians on August 6th and 9th, 1945.

Several days later,

In the largest bombing raid of the Pacific War, more than 400 B-29s attacked Japan during daylight on August 14, and more than 300 that night.[103] A total of 1,014 aircraft were used with no losses.

At 2:49 AM on August 14, the US had intercepted a message from Japanese leadership to Japanese foreign embassies, instructing them “to accept the Allied terms of surrender.”

Writer Laurence M. Vance points out that “many timelines of World War II do not even list this event [the post-nuke bombing raids against Japan] as having occurred.”


How does anyone approve of or defend this?

War is hell.

No. Murdering innocent civilians is hell.

 

[martybegan]

There is a difference between a 300 bomber raid and one bomber, one bomb, boom. The Japanese Army still wanted to fight, the Navy knew they were doomed but was worried about an Army Coup, same as the civilian cabinet members.

The 3 conditions above and beyond keeping the Emperor were not acceptable.

sure they were. We let a whole bunch of Axis Criminals off the hook after the war. We had some show trials for the top guys, but most of them went on to have happy lives in the New Japan.

We used an indefensible weapon to try to intimidate our allies in the post-war world.

There was no excuse for it.

It was a weapon, the war wasn't over, and no one really knew what the impact was going to be. We were already bombing the everloving shit out of Japanese cities for almost a year.

The bomb gave the Emperor the ability to force the army to quit, saving American lives and Japanese lives. It also had the impact of letting us see how truly awful these bombs were, without which someone may have tried to pop one off a few years later, and how do you think THAT would have gone?

 

[martybegan]

A little know fact...well to most Americans that is...

Largest Bombing Raid in History was Perpetrated against Japan AFTER the Atomic Bombings
Posted on August 6, 2015 by Robert Barsocchini
The largest bombing campaign in history, at that point, was perpetrated by the US against Japan after the atomic bombings of civilians on August 6th and 9th, 1945.

Several days later,

In the largest bombing raid of the Pacific War, more than 400 B-29s attacked Japan during daylight on August 14, and more than 300 that night.[103] A total of 1,014 aircraft were used with no losses.

At 2:49 AM on August 14, the US had intercepted a message from Japanese leadership to Japanese foreign embassies, instructing them “to accept the Allied terms of surrender.”

Writer Laurence M. Vance points out that “many timelines of World War II do not even list this event [the post-nuke bombing raids against Japan] as having occurred.”


How does anyone approve of or defend this?

War is hell.

No. Murdering innocent civilians is hell.

It wasn't murder, it was war, and both sides did Strategic bombing if they had the aircraft to do it.

 

[Correll]

To ease the conscience, believing the nice story may be preferable.

No. I have no problems with the decision to use nukes. None.

Funny how the thought of killing 200000 people (mostly civilians) was once deemed a sound strategy

At least in those cases the wars ended, instead of the slow bleed we see now.

Since there have been no official declarations of war you can say we haven't fought any wars since WWII

you can say it.

it would not be true, of course.

words do not define reality.

if the words fail to accurately describe the reality that exists independently of them, then they are worthless bullshit.

The problem is that every "war" since WWII has been nothing but games of political brinksmanship on the part of our politicians

Our government has sent tens of thousands of our brave men and women to their deaths and has maimed and crippled tens of thousands more for no reason other than political maneuvering

Quite frankly we should be ashamed

MAD prevented Total War.

 

[there4eyeM]

Nuclear war is like suicide; a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

That the US and the USSR were ready to burn down the earth over a difference in economics was indeed mad, not to mention genocidal.

When people who have no qualms about using nukes get decision making power over them, things will turn grim indeed.