Was Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary?

[Shroom Man 777]

http://www.rpgdreamersforum.com/index.p ... 3548&st=75

God, sometimes these people are so fucking dense! I think I need backup. Or at least some pointers. It makes my head hurt.

[CJvR]

On the issue of the morality of carpet bombing cities.
The weapons at that time had very poor accuracy, hitting the right city was about the best that could be expected. There was simply no way to take out military targets in a city without leveling the city itself. Once you get that far then it becomes rather obvious that taking out the city itself is a far more effective method of attack.
The allied balanced rather uncomfortably close to the edge of what could be excused and the Dresden bombing probably should have been prosecuted. The RAF, IIRC sidestepped the questionable targeting of the civilian workforce by claiming to target their houses instead...

[Stormbringer]

On the issue of the morality of carpet bombing cities.
The weapons at that time had very poor accuracy, hitting the right city was about the best that could be expected. There was simply no way to take out military targets in a city without leveling the city itself. Once you get that far then it becomes rather obvious that taking out the city itself is a far more effective method of attack.

Especially considering the decentralized nature of much Japanese industry.

[Patrick Degan]

This is priceless:

It wasn't America's intention to actually invade Japan...the way somebody who supported this action explained to me was that the Americans nuked Japan because they wouldn't surrender and basically wanted to fight till they had nearly no population or military left. However, I think what actually happened back then has been tainted by so many people we won't know what happened. Oh well...I'm still against nuclear bombs, or nuclear stuff in general. Too dangerous.

No no no, of course America never intended to invade Japan. Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet were merely going to be... training manoeuvers.

[phongn]

They need to be bludgeoned with a hardcover copy of R. Frank's Downfall

[Shroom Man 777]

I know. My mind's feeling numb after arguing with them, and I don't think I'm doing a good enough job, since I'm nowhere nearly as good as you guys.

[Petrosjko]

Oh well...I'm still against nuclear bombs, or nuclear stuff in general. Too dangerous.[/i]

Was that hypersonic crack Shep signing on to the board?

Don't forget, how battle-capable is a civilian compared to a trained military soldier? Think USA, too. If a huge army came, and wiped out your military, took all resources, and then planned on invading your country while you stood there with basically nothing to fight back with, what would you do? (besides the fact that lots of americans have guns in their home)

Don't forget, not everyone wants to go to war. If you want it, you join the army. In this case, there was basically no army. Leaving us with the ones who didnt want to.

My brain was turning to pudding as I read it, but that caught my eye. You might want to direct them to this vignette...

Mass deaths/Suicides on Okinawa

The Japanese population of the time had been indoctrinated by constant propaganda that American troops were barbarians who would rape and kill their way through the island. They were gearing up for a last stand, regardless of what these idiots believe, and a lot of those who wouldn't have fought would have killed themselves.

[Typhonis 1]

Ummm no that was Shep aligning his crosshairs and doing a ranging shot....for his Davey Croket.

[Broomstick]

That argument, of course, assumes that the ultra-short delay between the two bombs could not possibly have been extended to give them more time to think about it before killing off a second city.

There were quite a few Japanese unwilling to surrender even after the second nuke... granted, most of those hadn't seen the destruction up close and personal, but even after the effects became known there was still a small core of resisting Japanese.

One obliteratd city is a fluke. Two is the start of an ominous trend...

[Broomstick]

And all of this would have come to pass if they waited just one more week before dropping the second bomb? They were bomb-happy.

Yes, yes they were. Had there not been atomics, the US would have cheerfully continued to burn down Japanese cities with napalm. Read up on the fire-bombing of Tokyo, as an example - sure, it took more bombs, planes and time than a single nuke but the death toll and effects (minus radiation) were much the same.

Do you think a land invasion would have meant no bombs falling?

No atomics would have meant conventional bombs and napalm falling around the clock during an invasion - a pause would mean only that the Marines were ready to crest the nearest hill. It sure would have been different but I'm not sure if it would have been better or worse.

[Broomstick]

The argument that the first bomb was inadequate presumes that the Japanese failure to quickly adjust its thinking to this new situation indicates that it would never have done so. What evidence is there to back this up besides this "they were all insane" implication? The fact that some in the government opposed it? Of course; that is normal for any change in policy. But it does not prove that the change would never have happened.

From Flyboys by James Bradley:

The military sent a delegation of seven to survey the damage at Hiroshima. As they landed in the atomic wasteland, an officer ran up to their plane. He had a harlequin face - one half was scorched, oozing red pus. The other half, unexposed to the bomb's rays, was normal. He proved himself to be a true-blue Spirit guy when he pointed ot his face and exclaimed "Everything which is exposed gets burned, but anything which icovered even only slightly can escape burns. Therefore, it cannot be said that there are no countermeasures"

Now, that's chutspah - riding out an atomic blast and having the cujones to propose "countermeasures". Which is why the next time Japan and the US are in a full-out war together I want both of us on the same side. It does, however, illustrate that even a nuke will not kill everyone's fighting spirit. It's also the reason I make statements like if North Korea nukes Japan the Japanese will beat the Americans to Pongyang even if they have to swim the Sea of Japan stark naked. These folks are scary when they go to war.

It should be noted, by the way, that between Hiroshima and Nagasaki the US continued to drop napalm on Japansese cities: Yawata and Fukuyama both on August 8th.

After the Nagasaki bombing:

General Korechika Anami ticked off Japan's remaining strengths. He reminded the cabinet that all Japanese men from fifteen to sixty and all women from seventeen to forty were now in the fight. Japan had 32 million warriors out there practicing with really sharp bamboo spears. Why give up before the real fight began?

"With luck, we will repulse the invaders before they land" - General Yoshijiro Umezu after the Nagasaki bombing.

Why not give them an ultimatum for dropping the second bomb two weeks after the first? They would probably evacuate the targeted city, thus greatly reducing the loss of life, but your demonstration of your willingness to use these things would still be conducted

Wong, I understand your point that the Japanese command might have eventually changed their minds but how long would that have taken? The March 10, 1945 firebombing of Tokyo killed more Japanese than the atomic bomb at Nagasaki - how many Japanese cities would the US have needed to burn to the ground before their surrender? Tens of thousands of Japanese were dying every day during the first week of August, 1945 - how many weeks and how many thousands should we have waited? 50,000 a day (and that would be only half the total for March 10) for two weeks would be 700,000 - that's twice the total killed between Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings including the Fukuyama and Yawata bombings and burnings. Not including the continuing slaughter in the Pacific.

Refraining from dropping an atom bomb did not stop the killing - the killing went on regardless. Hence, the decision to attempt such a hammerblow that the Japanese would be brought to their knees quickly. When you realize that every day you wait for word from the high command 50,000-100,000 more people die it gives you a different perspective. (And that was the Japanese totals - add in Americans, Russians, Koreans....)

I doubt they would blow off the next ultimatum which would not bother naming a city.

The Japanese never bothered to evacuate anything else under threat, I'm not sure they would have done so for a threatened bombing. ALL their cities were under threat or being bombed. So what? It was the duty of every Japanese to die for Japan and the Emporer if necessary.

[Broomstick]

The only thing that I can see being a "negative" of the bombing was that it didnt give the Japanese the option to fight and defend themselves honorably in fair combat. It was like a smack in the face in that regard and they probably thought it cowardly of the americans to resort to using such things instead of facing them man to man in combat where, even though they would have still lost, they could have atleast had the freedom of choice to either defend their lives or to surrender.

Yes, well, we Americans are real pissers that way - we're quite happy to bomb from on high and dispense with the mano a mano stuff and don't care if the losers call us cowards for doing so - something the Taliban in Afganistan also found very annoying about us.

But hey, cultural differences, right? That's what many enemies of the US don't get - when it comes to actual war we don't give a flying fuck about "honorable" hand-to-hand combat, or the pride of our enemies - we want to win and we aren't always too fussy about HOW we win. Sure, we'll charge a machine gun nest if we have to but we will also happily hide behind a rock and lob rockets and mortars at said machine gun nest as an alternative if we can arrange it. As one of our generals said, the object of war is not to die for your country, it's to make the other guy die for his country.

[acesand8s]

The stupidity on that site is truly mindboggling, things like this gem.

What casualties are you refering to? Oh the ones you forcefully invoke by invading their country just because they don't see eye to eye with you?
Yeah thats what America does today with every other country.
You want to force them to surrender, yet you sacrifice their civilians in order to prevent causualties in the invasion that you yourself forcefully caused. Yeah that sounds justifiable.

Yes, it's unfortunate we didn't see eye to eye with the Japanese, you know, surrendering all of southeast Asia and China to them.

One point I like to bring up is the deaths that were occurring in the rest of the Pacific that were stopped by ending the war with the nukes. Something like 100,000 Chinese were dying each month. Furthermore, Allied and Japanese soldiers were still fighting in the Philippines and other islands (a pair of Australian brigades narrowly escaped annihilation on Bouganville from several thousand Japanese soldiers by the dropping of the two bombs).

[MKSheppard]

LeMay didn't like the Atomic bomb in 1945. He claimed that he could have won the war on his own without the Bomb if only his B-29s were allowed to
go on and keep deleting cities off the map of Japan in mass firebomb raids

[Enforcer Talen]

Im mildly surprised we're talking about morality during war - I mean, its all about killing as many of them as you can until they give up.

that said, ideally, you want to finish it as quickly as possible, so less bodies rack up.

following that premise, the nukes were a-ok, presuming they were necessary to force the japanese surrender. as hemlock had pointed out, they almost didnt surrender even after we sent them the bomb.

we have to remember that everyone knew japan was going to fall - but death was their goal. they had no honorable option of surrender until the abombs.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The only thing that I can see being a "negative" of the bombing was that it didnt give the Japanese the option to fight and defend themselves honorably in fair combat. It was like a smack in the face in that regard and they probably thought it cowardly of the americans to resort to using such things instead of facing them man to man in combat where, even though they would have still lost, they could have atleast had the freedom of choice to either defend their lives or to surrender.

Yes, well, we Americans are real pissers that way - we're quite happy to bomb from on high and dispense with the mano a mano stuff and don't care if the losers call us cowards for doing so - something the Taliban in Afganistan also found very annoying about us.

I remember I saw some comedian talking about how America goes to war, with its jets and missiles. He said how its always great when the Dictator we're fighting gets on TV and says "Come down here and fight!" and we just say "No... catch this!"

[Beowulf]

And all of this would have come to pass if they waited just one more week before dropping the second bomb? They were bomb-happy.

Yes, yes they were. Had there not been atomics, the US would have cheerfully continued to burn down Japanese cities with napalm. Read up on the fire-bombing of Tokyo, as an example - sure, it took more bombs, planes and time than a single nuke but the death toll and effects (minus radiation) were much the same.

Do you think a land invasion would have meant no bombs falling?

No atomics would have meant conventional bombs and napalm falling around the clock during an invasion - a pause would mean only that the Marines were ready to crest the nearest hill. It sure would have been different but I'm not sure if it would have been better or worse.

Let's not forget how the targets were chosen. What had the US not firebombed? That was one of the primary criteria.

[The Dark]

Incidentally, the US Navy wanted to push for an invasion. They estimated over a MILLION American servicemen would become statistics during an invasion of Japan, and the best estimates placed the number of Japanese dead at around 16 million.

Eh? I recall reading Nimitz refused to back Olympic/Coronet when he found out how bad the intel data for those operations was. That was why they switched to the atomics, because the Navy went from backing the Army's invasion plan to backing the Army Air Force's bombing plan, and Truman was convinced the casualties would be higher than estimated.

Oh, just for future reference: the best number I can find (as in, best-researched and most consistent with known data) for casualties (dead and wounded) from the bombs is 199,000. 135,000 were at Hiroshima, and 64,000 at Nagasaki. This was out of a combined pre-raid population of 450,000. The bombs thus had a casualty rate of 44%. Kill rate was 23%, wounded rate was 21%. Burns caused the greatest number of deaths, followed by mechanical impact (falling debris and such), with gamma radiation a distant third (60/30/10 in Hiroshima, 77/16/7 in Nagasaki). The Tokyo fire raid alone caused 180,000 casualties, or greater than 90% the amount of both atomic bombs combined.

[Sea Skimmer]

Eh? I recall reading Nimitz refused to back Olympic/Coronet when he found out how bad the intel data for those operations was.

He didn't refuse to support it. But it is wildly believed that he, and several other commanders, would have withdrawn support some time before Olympic was launched, and if that occurred the operations would almost certainly be canacled. Or more likely postponed indefinitely.

However postponement doesn't mean we might not still invade later. A plan already existed to use at least six nuclear weapons on the invasion beaches for Coronet. Japan, if nuclear weapons did not fall on its cites, might well have ended up with no invasion to fight in 1945, leaving it to starve with millions or even tens of millions of dead through the winter of 1945-46. Only the invasion would come, and bring a whole bunch of nukes with it. And since Japanese plans called for the widespread use of gas, a US reply with poison gas is almost a certainty, ensuring even more massive Japanese casualties. Espically among the huge hoards of militia they fielded late in the war, almost none of whom had a gas mask.

[CJvR]

In 1946 the US might well have access to the Nazi nervegasses making most of the IJA's protective gear obsolete. Streetfighting with chemical weapons, that would be hard on the civilians.

[CJvR]

Not to mention strategic bombing with chemical weapons...

[phongn]

In 1946 the US might well have access to the Nazi nervegasses making most of the IJA's protective gear obsolete. Streetfighting with chemical weapons, that would be hard on the civilians.

I doubt we'd be able to really make use of German nerve agents but what we had were bad enough.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I doubt we'd be able to really make use of German nerve agents but what we had were bad enough.

Porton Down was finishing off VX. In anycase, we had V-agents to hand from prior German research, so it's not like we didn't have something more potent than mustard or chlorine.

[Rogue 9]

By the way, keep this thread in mind the next time one of you says that "the end justifies the means" is an unethical philosophy in some SLAM thread.

If you're looking for a way to do this that isn't the atomic bomb and yet doesn't end more lives than said atomic bomb, then there is no truthful answer beyond "it can't be done."

The only ends that America would accept were the unconditional surrender of Japan. There were only a few means available to do this.

Means 1: Atomic bomb. Less than 200,000 dead, surrender within a few days.

Means 2: Continued firebombing. We burn cities off the map every day until Japan surrenders. Casualties far in excess of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be inevitable, since there is less shock value in a bombing that takes all day than in an instant sunrise that does that day's work in a few seconds. Casualties in the millions likely.

Means 3: Invasion. Over a million American servicemen dead, tens of millions of Japanese dead, and Soviet control over northern Japan.

Means 4: Blockade and cutting railroads. Tens of millions of Japanese starve to death.

As much as I would love to be able to say that there were means through which we could obtain Japanese surrender without these factors, it could not be done. I share your doubts about the necessity of Nagasaki, at least so quickly after Hiroshima, but the atomic bomb was the least bloody means available with which to obtain surrender. The alternatives were deaths in the millions or allowing Japan to just walk to fight again another day. The second was politically impossible as well as short-sighted, and the first is far more morally reprehensible in absolute terms than the other available means. In light of the existence and availability of the A-bombs, an argument could be constructed that to deliberately kill millions simply to forgo their use, which would be less destructive and cause far less bloodshed, would have been immoral. If an invasion had been ordered instead, would you now be demanding to know why the atomic bombs were not used to avert the resulting bloodbath?

[Durandal]

That argument, of course, assumes that the ultra-short delay between the two bombs could not possibly have been extended to give them more time to think about it before killing off a second city.

There were quite a few Japanese unwilling to surrender even after the second nuke... granted, most of those hadn't seen the destruction up close and personal, but even after the effects became known there was still a small core of resisting Japanese.

One obliteratd city is a fluke. Two is the start of an ominous trend...

If memory serves, it's possible that the Japanese government simply didn't know the extent of the damage done by the first bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Their lines of communication were disrupted, so they simply may not have had all the information by the time we dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki. Had we waited longer, they might very well have surrendered.