Full Version: WWII:The Atomic Bombs
This is all hypothetical, though. We don't know what might have happened. However it may have turned out, what did happen was beyond horrible, it was disgusting.
Trying to estimate the number of possible casualties if we hadn't dropped the bombs is pointless. How about estimating the number of casualties there would have been if we had accepted Jewish refugees in 1940? How many lives would have been saved if we had refused to trade with Hitler in the late 30s? If we hadn't firebombed Dresden?
This is a game no one can win. What happened, happened. Dropping the atomic bombs was a dark moment in human history. Everything else is alternate-universe fantasy.
Trying to estimate the number of possible casualties if we hadn't dropped the bombs is pointless. How about estimating the number of casualties there would have been if we had accepted Jewish refugees in 1940? How many lives would have been saved if we had refused to trade with Hitler in the late 30s? If we hadn't firebombed Dresden?
This is a game no one can win. What happened, happened. Dropping the atomic bombs was a dark moment in human history. Everything else is alternate-universe fantasy.
For every American soldier who justified the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by saying, "Well, it was good because I could have died," there would be cries from the ashes and graves of a young man, women or child, civilians answering, "It happened to me," without being given the dignity to even try to defend themselves. This was not "civilized" warfare. It was wrong.
God help us if and when another country decides it is expedient to use atomics on us. We established the precedent.
(Edited)
God help us if and when another country decides it is expedient to use atomics on us. We established the precedent.
(Edited)
QUOTE
For every American soldier who justified the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by saying, "Well, it was good because I could have died," there would be cries from the ashes and graves of young men, women and children, civilians answering, "It happened to me," without being given the dignity to even try to defend themselves. This was not civilized warfare.
And you could say the same things to the Soldiers at Pearl Harbor and to their families. I hate to sound cliche', but it was us or them. It's unfortunate that it happened, but I would rather it have ended abruptly than for the war to be dragged out and COUNTLESS more of our boys been killed.
It wasn't us or them, not at that point. We had decided we were going to do it, and that was that, no excuses.
At the end of the war, the Japanese were nowhere near being a threat to anyone but those who were fighting them directly. Their fuel reserves were depleted, and their government had made overtures to surrender already. Our government knew all of this.
Someone in power obviously wanted to trump their emperor god. Bully for him. Too bad for the innocents. I can draw some parallels here, but I won't.
At the end of the war, the Japanese were nowhere near being a threat to anyone but those who were fighting them directly. Their fuel reserves were depleted, and their government had made overtures to surrender already. Our government knew all of this.
Someone in power obviously wanted to trump their emperor god. Bully for him. Too bad for the innocents. I can draw some parallels here, but I won't.
Here is an excerpt from the Truman's speach 16 hours after the 1st bomb was dropped on August 6, 1945
11 days past between the ultimatum and the 1st bomb.
Obviously the war WASN'T over. And the Japasese war machine wasn't broken yet.
http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hiroshim/truman1.htm
QUOTE
It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth.
11 days past between the ultimatum and the 1st bomb.
QUOTE
We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war.
Obviously the war WASN'T over. And the Japasese war machine wasn't broken yet.
QUOTE
The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid many fold. And the end is not yet.
http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hiroshim/truman1.htm
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hiatomicbomb/h...imadecision.htm
It's been said that hindsight is 20/20. I'm not so sure about that. But I wanted to add this into the mix of thinking on whether using the bomb in WWII was "justified."
One hundred fifty-five Manhattan Project scientists petitioned the President not to use the atomic bomb on Japan. Japan had approached the Russians officially to surrender. We didn't want them to surrender through Russia. That is ultimately why we used the bombs. Hundreds of thousands of people died unnecessarily. In my book, that was wrong.
(Edited to say: No, this was not the entire link by far. I edited it extensively by leaving out a lot of entries.)
It's been said that hindsight is 20/20. I'm not so sure about that. But I wanted to add this into the mix of thinking on whether using the bomb in WWII was "justified."
QUOTE
1945
March 25
At the urging of Leo Szilard, Albert Einstein signs a letter of introduction of Szilard to President Roosevelt. Szilard wishes to warn Roosevelt of the post-war dangers of a nuclear arms race if the atomic bomb is used against Japan. The letter states: “The terms of secrecy under which Dr. Szilard is working at present do not permit him to give me information about his work; however, I understand that he now is greatly concerned about the lack of adequate contact between scientists who are doing this work and those members of your Cabinet who are responsible for formulating policy.” In the memorandum accompanying the letter, Szilard wrote: “our ‘demonstration’ of atomic bombs will precipitate a race in the production of these devices between the United States and Russia and that if we continue to pursue the present course, our initial advantage may be lost very quickly in such a race.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 18
Admiral Leahy makes diary entry noting, “It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provision for America’s defense against future trans-Pacific aggression.” He also notes that General Marshall believes that an invasion of Kyushu, the southern-most Japanese island, “will not cost us in casualties more than 63,000 of the 190,000 combatant troops estimated as necessary for the operation.” This may be compared to later estimates, after the atomic bombings, of 500,000 to 1,000,000 American lives saved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 13
Farrington Daniels, Director of the Met Lab at the University of Chicago, reported to James Compton that 72 percent of the scientists favored a military demonstration of the bomb in Japan or in the U.S. with Japanese representatives present before using the weapon on civilians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 17
Leo Szilard, unaware of Trinity test, prepares final draft of Petition to the President of the United States, calling on the President to “exercise your power as Commander-in-Chief to rule that the United States shall not resort to the use of atomic bombs in this war unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan have been made public in detail and Japan knowing these terms has refused to surrender; second, that in such an event the question whether or not to use atomic bombs be decided by you in the light of the considerations presented in this petition as well as all other moral responsibilities which are involved.” The petition was signed by 155 Manhattan Project scientists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 3
President Truman aboard Augusta receives new report that Japan is seeking peace. Walter Brown, special assistant to Secretary of State Byrnes, writes in his diary, “Aboard Augusta – President, Leahy, JFB agreed Japs looking for peace. (Leahy had another report from Pacific.) President afraid they will sue for peace through Russia instead of some country like Sweden.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 6
The world's second atomic bomb, Little Boy, a gun-type uranium bomb, is detonated 1,900 feet above Hiroshima, Japan. It has a yield of approximately 15 kilotons TNT. Some 90,000 to 100,000 persons are killed immediately; about 145,000 persons will perish from the bombing by the end of 1945. Statement from President Truman | Responses to Dropping the Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 6
Upon hearing the news of the atomic bombing of Japan on his way home from Potsdam, President Truman remarked that this was “the greatest day in history.”
Leo Szilard, the atomic scientist who had worked so hard to prevent the use of the bomb, writes to a friend, “Using atomic bombs against Japan is one of the greatest blunders of history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 7
Decision is made to drop warning pamphlets on Japanese cities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 8
Soviet Union informs Japan that it is entering the war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 9
President Truman speaks to the American people via radio broadcast He states, “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in the first instance to avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians.” [The official Bombing Survey Report stated: “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population.” More than 95 percent of those killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilians.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 9
Atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 10
US drops warning leaflets on Nagasaki on the day after the bombing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1946
July 1
United States Strategic Bombing Survey states: “The Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the lord privy seal, the prime minister, the foreign minister and the navy minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms.” The Survey also states: “On 10 July [1945] the Emperor again urged haste in the moves to mediate through Russia, but Potsdam intervened. While the government still awaited a Russian answer, the Hiroshima bomb was dropped on 6 August.” The Survey concluded: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”
March 25
At the urging of Leo Szilard, Albert Einstein signs a letter of introduction of Szilard to President Roosevelt. Szilard wishes to warn Roosevelt of the post-war dangers of a nuclear arms race if the atomic bomb is used against Japan. The letter states: “The terms of secrecy under which Dr. Szilard is working at present do not permit him to give me information about his work; however, I understand that he now is greatly concerned about the lack of adequate contact between scientists who are doing this work and those members of your Cabinet who are responsible for formulating policy.” In the memorandum accompanying the letter, Szilard wrote: “our ‘demonstration’ of atomic bombs will precipitate a race in the production of these devices between the United States and Russia and that if we continue to pursue the present course, our initial advantage may be lost very quickly in such a race.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 18
Admiral Leahy makes diary entry noting, “It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provision for America’s defense against future trans-Pacific aggression.” He also notes that General Marshall believes that an invasion of Kyushu, the southern-most Japanese island, “will not cost us in casualties more than 63,000 of the 190,000 combatant troops estimated as necessary for the operation.” This may be compared to later estimates, after the atomic bombings, of 500,000 to 1,000,000 American lives saved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 13
Farrington Daniels, Director of the Met Lab at the University of Chicago, reported to James Compton that 72 percent of the scientists favored a military demonstration of the bomb in Japan or in the U.S. with Japanese representatives present before using the weapon on civilians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 17
Leo Szilard, unaware of Trinity test, prepares final draft of Petition to the President of the United States, calling on the President to “exercise your power as Commander-in-Chief to rule that the United States shall not resort to the use of atomic bombs in this war unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan have been made public in detail and Japan knowing these terms has refused to surrender; second, that in such an event the question whether or not to use atomic bombs be decided by you in the light of the considerations presented in this petition as well as all other moral responsibilities which are involved.” The petition was signed by 155 Manhattan Project scientists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 3
President Truman aboard Augusta receives new report that Japan is seeking peace. Walter Brown, special assistant to Secretary of State Byrnes, writes in his diary, “Aboard Augusta – President, Leahy, JFB agreed Japs looking for peace. (Leahy had another report from Pacific.) President afraid they will sue for peace through Russia instead of some country like Sweden.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 6
The world's second atomic bomb, Little Boy, a gun-type uranium bomb, is detonated 1,900 feet above Hiroshima, Japan. It has a yield of approximately 15 kilotons TNT. Some 90,000 to 100,000 persons are killed immediately; about 145,000 persons will perish from the bombing by the end of 1945. Statement from President Truman | Responses to Dropping the Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 6
Upon hearing the news of the atomic bombing of Japan on his way home from Potsdam, President Truman remarked that this was “the greatest day in history.”
Leo Szilard, the atomic scientist who had worked so hard to prevent the use of the bomb, writes to a friend, “Using atomic bombs against Japan is one of the greatest blunders of history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 7
Decision is made to drop warning pamphlets on Japanese cities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 8
Soviet Union informs Japan that it is entering the war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 9
President Truman speaks to the American people via radio broadcast He states, “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in the first instance to avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians.” [The official Bombing Survey Report stated: “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population.” More than 95 percent of those killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilians.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 9
Atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 10
US drops warning leaflets on Nagasaki on the day after the bombing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1946
July 1
United States Strategic Bombing Survey states: “The Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the lord privy seal, the prime minister, the foreign minister and the navy minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms.” The Survey also states: “On 10 July [1945] the Emperor again urged haste in the moves to mediate through Russia, but Potsdam intervened. While the government still awaited a Russian answer, the Hiroshima bomb was dropped on 6 August.” The Survey concluded: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”
One hundred fifty-five Manhattan Project scientists petitioned the President not to use the atomic bomb on Japan. Japan had approached the Russians officially to surrender. We didn't want them to surrender through Russia. That is ultimately why we used the bombs. Hundreds of thousands of people died unnecessarily. In my book, that was wrong.
(Edited to say: No, this was not the entire link by far. I edited it extensively by leaving out a lot of entries.)
Spin, spin, spin....
Japan's "surrender attempts" were merely explorations at that stage. The military, who controlled the government, voted against the surrender even after both Bombs and the Soviet entry. Only the prestige of the Emperor (who, by the way, had signed on to the Ketsu-Go plan designed to bring about a Versailles like surrender in June) swung the day, and that was a close call.
The matter of Japanese explorations of surrender is important for a number of reasons, most of which escape y'all. Internally, the only surrender element both Japanese factions could agree on was that the Emperor had to stay. Second, for some strange reason, the US skeptical of the notion of negotiating with a country that had already pulled a diplomatic flim-flam on it even as they were steaming across the Pacific to conduct a surprise attack. (
I can't imagine why...) Third, history had already made it crystal clear to Truman that he did not want a repeat of the Versailles treaty.
Japan had its chance to surrender. The fact that they didn't like the terms is morally irrelavent, because they started the war. Their failure to come to the table with something that Truman could at least have a shot of selling back home is on their heads, not Truman & Cos.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not "dark moments" in human history, nor were they shining ones. They were tragic, in the Greek and Shakespearian sense.
Some suggested background reading:
The Final Months of the War With Japan: Signal Intelligence, U.S. Invasion Planning and the A-Bomb Decision
Japan's "surrender attempts" were merely explorations at that stage. The military, who controlled the government, voted against the surrender even after both Bombs and the Soviet entry. Only the prestige of the Emperor (who, by the way, had signed on to the Ketsu-Go plan designed to bring about a Versailles like surrender in June) swung the day, and that was a close call.
QUOTE
More than 95 percent of those killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilians.
43,000 at Hiroshima were military personnel, which means for this figure to be true, almost 900,000 people would have to have been killed by the Bombs....QUOTE
He also notes that General Marshall believes that an invasion of Kyushu, the southern-most Japanese island, “will not cost us in casualties more than 63,000 of the 190,000 combatant troops estimated as necessary for the operation.” This may be compared to later estimates, after the atomic bombings, of 500,000 to 1,000,000 American lives saved.
The invasion of Kyushu, code named Operation Olympic, was the first of two planned invasions, intended to provide the staging area for the forces that would invade the Kanto Plain (where Tokyo is located) later. The 500,000 - 1,000,000 figure is for both invasions, not just Kyushu. Also, you'll note if you read my post that the casualty estimate Marshall provided was based on Japanese strength levels that were barely a third of the actual strength they had achieved on Kyushu by August.QUOTE
Farrington Daniels, Director of the Met Lab at the University of Chicago, reported to James Compton that 72 percent of the scientists favored a military demonstration of the bomb in Japan or in the U.S. with Japanese representatives present before using the weapon on civilians.
There's a reason why scientists don't run wars.... because they would lose.QUOTE
This is all hypothetical, though. We don't know what might have happened. However it may have turned out, what did happen was beyond horrible, it was disgusting.
The question is, was it disgusting or horrible in a moral sense. To make that determination, it must be compared to the alternatives. If you're merely making a visceral observation, then yes, it was disgusting and horrible. Otherwise, no, because it was a better alternative to those available at the time to the decision makers.The matter of Japanese explorations of surrender is important for a number of reasons, most of which escape y'all. Internally, the only surrender element both Japanese factions could agree on was that the Emperor had to stay. Second, for some strange reason, the US skeptical of the notion of negotiating with a country that had already pulled a diplomatic flim-flam on it even as they were steaming across the Pacific to conduct a surprise attack. (
I can't imagine why...) Third, history had already made it crystal clear to Truman that he did not want a repeat of the Versailles treaty.Japan had its chance to surrender. The fact that they didn't like the terms is morally irrelavent, because they started the war. Their failure to come to the table with something that Truman could at least have a shot of selling back home is on their heads, not Truman & Cos.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not "dark moments" in human history, nor were they shining ones. They were tragic, in the Greek and Shakespearian sense.
Some suggested background reading:
The Final Months of the War With Japan: Signal Intelligence, U.S. Invasion Planning and the A-Bomb Decision
It would be interesting to see just how many of those who hold that it was justified to kill so many civilians have actually cared for more than one desperately ill or dying person themselves (especially those dying from cancer or serious burns). In the nursing profession I have seen some incredible suffering. I personally could not countenance so many suffering who were non-combatants. If that is spin, so be it.
But what if it were your child, or your parent? What if it were your entire family?
But what if it were your child, or your parent? What if it were your entire family?
Gee, since those who consider the use of the Bomb to be one of the most monstrous acts of the 20th Century have trotted forth a bevy of American leaders in support of their position, and have argued that Japan was about to surrender based on the overtures made by the "peace party" in Japan, lets take a look at what the peace party folks in Japan said about the Bomb....
While American scholarship has undercut the US moral position, Japanese historical research has bolstered it. The Japanese scholarship, by historians such as Sadao Asada of Doshisha University in Kyoto, notes that Japanese wartime leaders who favoured surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized on the bombing as a new argument to force surrender.
"The atomic bomb was a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war," Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief cabinet secretary in 1945, said later.
"We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavour to end the war," Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest aides, said later.
Why the Nuclear Attack on Japan Was Right
While American scholarship has undercut the US moral position, Japanese historical research has bolstered it. The Japanese scholarship, by historians such as Sadao Asada of Doshisha University in Kyoto, notes that Japanese wartime leaders who favoured surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized on the bombing as a new argument to force surrender.
"The atomic bomb was a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war," Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief cabinet secretary in 1945, said later.
"We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavour to end the war," Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest aides, said later.
Why the Nuclear Attack on Japan Was Right
Just thought I'd mention that today in 1945, the Enola Gay dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Aug 1 2003, 09:40 PM)
It would be interesting to see just how many of those who hold that it was justified to kill so many civilians have actually cared for more than one desperately ill or dying person themselves (especially those dying from cancer or serious burns). In the nursing profession I have seen some incredible suffering. I personally could not countenance so many suffering who were non-combatants. If that is spin, so be it.
But what if it were your child, or your parent? What if it were your entire family?
But what if it were your child, or your parent? What if it were your entire family?
That appeal to emotion would carry some weight, if it was not for the fact an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have caused many more civilian casualties.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.