Full Version: The Atomic Bombing...
This has been argued back and forth by people across the globe (well, namely in the US, Japan, Britain, the Philippines, and Indochina.... but in other locations as well).
However, my question is.... was it really necessary?
Some argue that Japan was ready to surrender far beforehand, others that the A-bombs were simply the final stages of the Manhattan Project. Some believe that Truman's Million Casualty Estimate was justification.
Post your beliefs here.
However, my question is.... was it really necessary?
Some argue that Japan was ready to surrender far beforehand, others that the A-bombs were simply the final stages of the Manhattan Project. Some believe that Truman's Million Casualty Estimate was justification.
Post your beliefs here.
Militarily unnecessary.
But it prevented sharing the control over post war japan with the Soviets.
But it prevented sharing the control over post war japan with the Soviets.
Welcome, Jagmort and Shinwa.
Jagmort, I agree with you. Japan had been sending messages through its ambassador that it wanted to surrender, but it wanted to surrender with some dignity.
The United States leadership had already decided it was going to detonate the bomb. And then, of course, the effects of Little Boy and of Fat Boy, two different versions of the atomic bomb, needed to be compared, and the Japanese, according to the U.S. side, needed to know that yes, we could do an encore performance.
The impending invasion of Japan by Russia cinched it. The U.S. clearly wanted the victory and didn't want Russia to engineer the surrender or occupy Japan.
The deaths of so many civilians were not going to deter our government. The U.S. leadership was convinced that the Japanese would fight to a man (or boy, considering there weren't many military-age males left in Japan), and this was another reason they used to justify the dropping of the Atomic bombs.
I think it was wrong. But it was certainly rationalized. To put it more plainly, no, I do not think the dropping of the bombs was necessary.
Jagmort, I agree with you. Japan had been sending messages through its ambassador that it wanted to surrender, but it wanted to surrender with some dignity.
The United States leadership had already decided it was going to detonate the bomb. And then, of course, the effects of Little Boy and of Fat Boy, two different versions of the atomic bomb, needed to be compared, and the Japanese, according to the U.S. side, needed to know that yes, we could do an encore performance.
The impending invasion of Japan by Russia cinched it. The U.S. clearly wanted the victory and didn't want Russia to engineer the surrender or occupy Japan.
The deaths of so many civilians were not going to deter our government. The U.S. leadership was convinced that the Japanese would fight to a man (or boy, considering there weren't many military-age males left in Japan), and this was another reason they used to justify the dropping of the Atomic bombs.
I think it was wrong. But it was certainly rationalized. To put it more plainly, no, I do not think the dropping of the bombs was necessary.
That's a good point. 18 months after the bombing, Albert Einstein's comment -
"To me, it would seem that this was an attack engineered to prevent the Soviet Union from entering in the Pacific war."
I agree that it was unnecessary. The Meiji state was ready to surrender easily 7 months before the bombing, according to the sources I've read.
(I'll post the URL when I get home; I don't have it bookmarked on the school computers)
"To me, it would seem that this was an attack engineered to prevent the Soviet Union from entering in the Pacific war."
I agree that it was unnecessary. The Meiji state was ready to surrender easily 7 months before the bombing, according to the sources I've read.
(I'll post the URL when I get home; I don't have it bookmarked on the school computers)
The bombing was unnecessary. The US wanted to get back at the Japanese after Pearl Harbor and went about it the wrong way by attacking the innocent civilians. If the US had really wanted the Japanese to surrender, they would have offered better offerings of peace, Japan would've surrendered. They were running out of men, money and supplies, there is no way they could have gone on for much longer. If America had really wanted to leave the innocent Japanese unharmed, they would not have dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki when they hardly gave Japan any time to respond to Hiroshima. The Nagasaki bomb was just an extra kick to Japan for killing Americans, pretty much saying that when you kill Americans, we go against moral codes and kill your unprotected innocent to make sure you understand.
The Japanese code of Bushido that was a near religion of the military hierarchy, would not have compelled the nation to surrender. Hundreds and thousands of soldiers and civilians committed suicide rather than become prisoners of war during our island hopping campaign.
I have not seen any evidence yet that Japan wished to surrender.
I have not seen any evidence yet that Japan wished to surrender.
I think it was necessary to demonstrate the sheer power of destruction these new weapons were capable of. By using them against Japanese cities, America sent a clear message to the world, and especially to the Soviet Union.
I think, from what I've read, that there was a definite feeling that the United States would be dragged into a war with the Soviet Union once Germany and Japan had fallen, a global war for world superiority and the events of the cold war display the open hostility that these two powers felt towards each other. Given the dangers of this 'third world war' scenario, and given the awesome devastation possible if such a war had been waged with nuclear weapons, then I think the naked display of American military fire power, and more importantly, their willingness to use it, was the only thing that kept the Soviet Union in check.
Remember, that for all their bluster and parading across Red Square, the Soviets never once used a nuclear weapon. They had learned the lesson of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that the USA would not hestitate to use its most lethal weapons to defend itself.
In this regard, using the nuclear weapons was not only right, but it was also prudent.
I think, from what I've read, that there was a definite feeling that the United States would be dragged into a war with the Soviet Union once Germany and Japan had fallen, a global war for world superiority and the events of the cold war display the open hostility that these two powers felt towards each other. Given the dangers of this 'third world war' scenario, and given the awesome devastation possible if such a war had been waged with nuclear weapons, then I think the naked display of American military fire power, and more importantly, their willingness to use it, was the only thing that kept the Soviet Union in check.
Remember, that for all their bluster and parading across Red Square, the Soviets never once used a nuclear weapon. They had learned the lesson of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that the USA would not hestitate to use its most lethal weapons to defend itself.
In this regard, using the nuclear weapons was not only right, but it was also prudent.
You raise a good point, moif. I still maintain, however, that it was not necessary to devastate the Japanese civilian population and poison their land, food and water to win the war.
The Soviet Union was in far worse shape than the United States at the end of WWII. They had a lot of rebuilding to do. The United States, on the other hand, had just reached its pinnacle in military superiority.
Before the atomic bombs were detonated, the scientists didn't know if the entire atmosphere was going to be ignited as a consequence. They chose to risk the lives of virtually everyone else on this planet to see what it would do. They did not understand the consequences of radioactivity in the ground, the water and the air.
I know that many would say that it was better that we do it than an enemy of ours, that eventually an atomic bomb was going to be detonated anyway. That is a rationalization. The atomic bomb is a brutal weapon that should never have come into being. And somehow we figured we were the best qualified or the most worthy to unleash it on the world. Now every country wants them in its arsenal.
We are still working on new nukes--as if the old ones have become any less effective at total annihilation. This is money that could be used for health care and education and feeding many in the world who are starving. We are, in a sense, still paying for the decisions to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's like a heroin habit: once introduced, dependency sets in. We feel we can't be secure without new and better nuclear bombs, and we pray that we don't have to use the stockpile, but we will use them if the threat that they will be used on us appears imminent. Isn't that schizoid?
The Soviet Union was in far worse shape than the United States at the end of WWII. They had a lot of rebuilding to do. The United States, on the other hand, had just reached its pinnacle in military superiority.
Before the atomic bombs were detonated, the scientists didn't know if the entire atmosphere was going to be ignited as a consequence. They chose to risk the lives of virtually everyone else on this planet to see what it would do. They did not understand the consequences of radioactivity in the ground, the water and the air.
I know that many would say that it was better that we do it than an enemy of ours, that eventually an atomic bomb was going to be detonated anyway. That is a rationalization. The atomic bomb is a brutal weapon that should never have come into being. And somehow we figured we were the best qualified or the most worthy to unleash it on the world. Now every country wants them in its arsenal.
We are still working on new nukes--as if the old ones have become any less effective at total annihilation. This is money that could be used for health care and education and feeding many in the world who are starving. We are, in a sense, still paying for the decisions to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's like a heroin habit: once introduced, dependency sets in. We feel we can't be secure without new and better nuclear bombs, and we pray that we don't have to use the stockpile, but we will use them if the threat that they will be used on us appears imminent. Isn't that schizoid?
Paladin Elspeth
To win the war?... then you may be right. It was possible to win the war with conventional troops. But this would take time, and would have allowed the Soviet Union to gain a toe hold on Japan.
The United States leadership could not afford that since they knew all to well what was coming next...
They had to use the atomic bombs. Simple detonation testing by itself would not have convinced Stalin that the Americans did not have the stomach to use nuclear weapons against live targets.
Its horrendous to contemplate, but the fact is that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were necessary in order to awe the Soviets and prevent them from simply continuing the war against America.
As it was, the Soviets continued to expand after the war regardless, in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan. Imagine what they might have attempted if the Americans had not held the nuclear sabre...
Yes. In 1946 the Russians had nothing much but man power and a lot of tanks...
But by 1953 they detonated their first hydrogen bomb (only 9 months after the USA) and by 1957 they had the worlds only ICBM.
It took the USA another 15 months to build their first ICBM. My skin cools with the thought of what the Soviets may have done in Europe had they not believed that America would really strike back...
True, but this has very little to do with Japan. The first atomic tests were carried out at Alamagordo in New Mexico, on the 16th of July 1945.
Human beings are brutal animals which always take the easiest path possible, because to do so improves the chance of survival.
And believe me, when I say that the USA was indeed the best qualified nation to first use nuclear weapons...
Perhaps, but was this not inevitable from the moment the first proto human began to use a straw to fish termites from their nest?
Unfortunatly I think this is the flip side to technology, and for as long as we (humans) continue to act like chimapanzee's with machine guns, then I thank my lucky star that the foremost nation on this planet is a democracy ( of sorts
) who's population are at least responisible enough to understand the danger posed by that technology.
Improvements could be made in how the USA operates.. in fact it is in dire need of improving... but for as long as the alternative is as unspeakably hostile as much of the nations of this planet continue to be, then I for one shall rest assured in my faith of the American people.
QUOTE
You raise a good point, moif. I still maintain, however, that it was not necessary to devastate the Japanese civilian population and poison their land, food and water to win the war.
To win the war?... then you may be right. It was possible to win the war with conventional troops. But this would take time, and would have allowed the Soviet Union to gain a toe hold on Japan.
The United States leadership could not afford that since they knew all to well what was coming next...
They had to use the atomic bombs. Simple detonation testing by itself would not have convinced Stalin that the Americans did not have the stomach to use nuclear weapons against live targets.
Its horrendous to contemplate, but the fact is that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were necessary in order to awe the Soviets and prevent them from simply continuing the war against America.
As it was, the Soviets continued to expand after the war regardless, in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan. Imagine what they might have attempted if the Americans had not held the nuclear sabre...
QUOTE
The Soviet Union was in far worse shape than the United States at the end of WWII. They had a lot of rebuilding to do. The United States, on the other hand, had just reached its pinnacle in military superiority.
Yes. In 1946 the Russians had nothing much but man power and a lot of tanks...
But by 1953 they detonated their first hydrogen bomb (only 9 months after the USA) and by 1957 they had the worlds only ICBM.
It took the USA another 15 months to build their first ICBM. My skin cools with the thought of what the Soviets may have done in Europe had they not believed that America would really strike back...
QUOTE
Before the atomic bombs were detonated, the scientists didn't know if the entire atmosphere was going to be ignited as a consequence. They chose to risk the lives of virtually everyone else on this planet to see what it would do. They did not understand the consequences of radioactivity in the ground, the water and the air.
True, but this has very little to do with Japan. The first atomic tests were carried out at Alamagordo in New Mexico, on the 16th of July 1945.
QUOTE
I know that many would say that it was better that we do it than an enemy of ours, that eventually an atomic bomb was going to be detonated anyway. That is a rationalization. The atomic bomb is a brutal weapon that should never have come into being. And somehow we figured we were the best qualified or the most worthy to unleash it on the world. Now every country wants them in its arsenal.
Human beings are brutal animals which always take the easiest path possible, because to do so improves the chance of survival.
And believe me, when I say that the USA was indeed the best qualified nation to first use nuclear weapons...
QUOTE
We are still working on new nukes--as if the old ones have become any less effective at total annihilation. This is money that could be used for health care and education and feeding many in the world who are starving. We are, in a sense, still paying for the decisions to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's like a heroin habit: once introduced, dependency sets in. We feel we can't be secure without new and better nuclear bombs, and we pray that we don't have to use the stockpile, but we will use them if the threat that they will be used on us appears imminent. Isn't that schizoid?
Perhaps, but was this not inevitable from the moment the first proto human began to use a straw to fish termites from their nest?
Unfortunatly I think this is the flip side to technology, and for as long as we (humans) continue to act like chimapanzee's with machine guns, then I thank my lucky star that the foremost nation on this planet is a democracy ( of sorts
) who's population are at least responisible enough to understand the danger posed by that technology.Improvements could be made in how the USA operates.. in fact it is in dire need of improving... but for as long as the alternative is as unspeakably hostile as much of the nations of this planet continue to be, then I for one shall rest assured in my faith of the American people.
QUOTE(Shinwa @ Nov 9 2003, 02:04 AM)
Care to expand on that at all?
Please take a few minutes to familiarize yourself with the AD Survival Guide particularly the section regarding sources:
> Don’t simply post a link and expect everyone to find what it is on that link you wanted us to see. Explain why you are citing it and how it supports your opinion.
Please be sure your posts are constructive
Please take a few minutes to familiarize yourself with the AD Survival Guide particularly the section regarding sources:
> Don’t simply post a link and expect everyone to find what it is on that link you wanted us to see. Explain why you are citing it and how it supports your opinion.
Please be sure your posts are constructive
I believe the atomic bombings were not only necessary, but that they saved both American and Japanese lives in the long run. I also have not seen any credible evidence that Japan was willing to surrender. Even after the first atomic bombing the Supreme War Council was deadlocked in it's decision on whether to surrender. 3 of the members supported a fight to the bitter end, 3 supported surrender. This was clearly a victory for the hawks as a deadlock meant continuation of the war. It was only the unprecedented intervention by Hirohito following the second atomic bombing which broke the deadlock. Even then there was coup attempt by the hawks aimed at killing the "doves," capturing the Emperor, destoying his surrender recording and continuing the war. At one point the rebels even controlled the Imperial Palace. It was only by a twist of fate that the coup failed and the war ended.
It is easy to support the bomb when you only are looking at the numbers of those who died. Hundreds of thousands of people, including thousands of children, were burned alive there. Even more died after the bomb and Japan is still feeling the effects of the bomb after almost 60 years! Why is it okay to kill women and children to stop a war? America should have defeated them on land, there's no way Japan could have continued for much longer. It saved American lives, but what about the Japanese? It certainly didn't help them or the generations after those directly affected. There are better ways to fight a war rather than families.
QUOTE
It is easy to support the bomb when you only are looking at the numbers of those who died. Hundreds of thousands of people, including thousands of children, were burned alive there. Even more died after the bomb and Japan is still feeling the effects of the bomb after almost 60 years! Why is it okay to kill women and children to stop a war? America should have defeated them on land, there's no way Japan could have continued for much longer. It saved American lives, but what about the Japanese? It certainly didn't help them or the generations after those directly affected. There are better ways to fight a war rather than families.
Its even easier to say as you are doing since every one can agree that killing people is bad.
But what is your alternative? Just as many civilians would have died in a ground war, since the Americans would still have had to continue bombing the Japanese city's with conventional carpet bombing to keep Japanese industry from manufacturing more ammunition and weapons.
Consider that over a million Vietnamese are said to have died as a result of that 'ground war'
And why is it okay to kill women and children to stop a war?
Well no one said it was okay, but beyond that, just how would you suggest one stop a war without hurting families? Every soldier is some ones son/ father/ daughter/ mother/ brother/ sister
The sad and regretable fact is, that civilians get killed in war, because essentially, war is not about killing other soldiers, war is about taking something away from another group of people, whether they are a tribe, or a nation and whether your taking their land or their wealth it does not matter. The result is the same. When some one starts a war, then the civilians are going to start dying. There are precious few wars where this was not the case.
If any one is to blame for that, then its who ever started the war, and in the matter of Japan and the USA, then it was Japan which started the war, so any guilt regarding atomic bombs rests solely on the shoulders of the Japanese leadership, because why should the USA expend the life of a single US soldier to spare the life of a Japanese child?
Its not nice, and its not pretty, but thats life.
The problem with your reasoning is that if the case is made that Saddam was the one who "started" the conflict with the United States, then the dropping of atomic bombs on Iraq can also be justified. Killing Iraqi children to save American soldiers, of course...
Either atomic warfare is especially brutal and should not be used, or it isn't. I weigh in on the side that says it shouldn't --ever-- be used.
The quick and easy way to win the war against Japan (atomic bombs) led to incredible grief and pain. People are still suffering and dying from its effects. We're talking about what happened over 58 years ago. Now every Tom, Dick and Harry country has, or is developing, or wants to develop its own bombs. What a legacy. Duck and cover!
We would have won without the bombs; that is certain. Therefore it was not necessary. When are we going to learn that when we choose the "easy" way, we have to live with the consequences?
Either atomic warfare is especially brutal and should not be used, or it isn't. I weigh in on the side that says it shouldn't --ever-- be used.
The quick and easy way to win the war against Japan (atomic bombs) led to incredible grief and pain. People are still suffering and dying from its effects. We're talking about what happened over 58 years ago. Now every Tom, Dick and Harry country has, or is developing, or wants to develop its own bombs. What a legacy. Duck and cover!
We would have won without the bombs; that is certain. Therefore it was not necessary. When are we going to learn that when we choose the "easy" way, we have to live with the consequences?
QUOTE(moif @ Nov 11 2003, 05:34 PM)
Just as many civilians would have died in a ground war, since the Americans would still have had to continue bombing the Japanese city's with conventional carpet bombing to keep Japanese industry from manufacturing more ammunition and weapons.
The Japanese felt the effects of this bomb years and years later after the war ended. It's still causing damage to the generations affected. Not near as many Japanese civilians would have died in a ground war considering that more people died after the war from the bombs effects than during.
The difference between an American soldier is that an American soldier goes into war accepting the fact that they could die. They've experienced more in life than a newborn baby.
The Japanese are to blame for the atomic bomb? The Japanese government was to blame for the war, not the innocent civilians who just happened to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I think an interesting part of the article provided in one of the links was the part that after two atomic bomb blasts the Japanese still were deadlocked as to the surrender issue. I think it is conjecture to assume that the terms of surrender not outlining the conditions of how the emperor would be treated was a major consideration. It is also fact and documented, although I would have to go find the actual source, that there was a coup taking place right before the surrender was to take place. The military stormed the grounds in an effort to silence the emperor.
I think there are a few points that need to be brought up. The first is that I am not certain the atomic blasts were purely to hold the Soviets in check. One only needs to perform research on the allied bombing of the German city of Dresden and those of Tokyo. The firestorms that occurred in these two cities were proof enough that conventional weaponry was devastating to civilian populations and that the allied forces had a long enough arm to hit Soviet controlled areas. It is also well known that sea based aircraft could inflict heavy damage in bombing runs. The British and American fleets were the largest in the world. The Soviets had a lot of tanks and really good ones at that, but their infrastructure was shattered and would not have been able to stand up to the economic might of the allies.
Stalin still understood the importance of building himself up though. I feel his invasion in to China was to also demonstrate that the Soviets were not down and out in the West. But I do not think he would have taken on America in a war. It is my conjecture, but I also feel that most of the surrounding information for the use of the atomic weapons is just that.
The second point is that 100,000 people were killed in the Toyko conventional bombings. Between 35,000 and 135,000 people in Dresden were killed. Dresden did not have any military importance. They were packed with refugees’ fleeing the red army, but allied forces were intent to break the spirit of the German people. Whether right or wrong it was very effective.
I think any argument suggesting the US could have defeated the Japanese with out the atomic weapons while technically correct is flawed. The flaw comes in the economic cost of doing so, and the loss of life on both sides. Civilians always get killed in any war where there are two groups of fighting. This is inevitable. If most military targets are destroyed and yet the opposing nation refuses to surrender, then how does one attain peace? Eventually things have to get so horrible that one of the two sides surrenders. This being a pretty logical statement, conventional bombings of Japan would have continued and moved into the more civilian areas. The firestorms that did ensue and that would have ensued could have proved far more devastating than the atomic blasts. By looking at the aftermath of Germany this logic is aided some credibility, due to all the carpet bombings that took place. Mass starvation and disease caused many more civilians to perish.
I have found that most arguments against the use of atomic weapons center around the disastrous affects to the climate, environment and the people who suffered from radiation poisoning. Death and destruction is a horrible thing in any form, however, if any of you were faced with the choice of a quick end or a long drawn out battle, (The world had been at war since 1939 even if the US was not directly involved at that time) what would you have done?
I think there use was appropriate and they suited the purposes of a quick end and also a show of power. I just feel that the show of power was not the main focal point. The world wanted peace and they wanted it quick.
I think there are a few points that need to be brought up. The first is that I am not certain the atomic blasts were purely to hold the Soviets in check. One only needs to perform research on the allied bombing of the German city of Dresden and those of Tokyo. The firestorms that occurred in these two cities were proof enough that conventional weaponry was devastating to civilian populations and that the allied forces had a long enough arm to hit Soviet controlled areas. It is also well known that sea based aircraft could inflict heavy damage in bombing runs. The British and American fleets were the largest in the world. The Soviets had a lot of tanks and really good ones at that, but their infrastructure was shattered and would not have been able to stand up to the economic might of the allies.
Stalin still understood the importance of building himself up though. I feel his invasion in to China was to also demonstrate that the Soviets were not down and out in the West. But I do not think he would have taken on America in a war. It is my conjecture, but I also feel that most of the surrounding information for the use of the atomic weapons is just that.
The second point is that 100,000 people were killed in the Toyko conventional bombings. Between 35,000 and 135,000 people in Dresden were killed. Dresden did not have any military importance. They were packed with refugees’ fleeing the red army, but allied forces were intent to break the spirit of the German people. Whether right or wrong it was very effective.
I think any argument suggesting the US could have defeated the Japanese with out the atomic weapons while technically correct is flawed. The flaw comes in the economic cost of doing so, and the loss of life on both sides. Civilians always get killed in any war where there are two groups of fighting. This is inevitable. If most military targets are destroyed and yet the opposing nation refuses to surrender, then how does one attain peace? Eventually things have to get so horrible that one of the two sides surrenders. This being a pretty logical statement, conventional bombings of Japan would have continued and moved into the more civilian areas. The firestorms that did ensue and that would have ensued could have proved far more devastating than the atomic blasts. By looking at the aftermath of Germany this logic is aided some credibility, due to all the carpet bombings that took place. Mass starvation and disease caused many more civilians to perish.
I have found that most arguments against the use of atomic weapons center around the disastrous affects to the climate, environment and the people who suffered from radiation poisoning. Death and destruction is a horrible thing in any form, however, if any of you were faced with the choice of a quick end or a long drawn out battle, (The world had been at war since 1939 even if the US was not directly involved at that time) what would you have done?
I think there use was appropriate and they suited the purposes of a quick end and also a show of power. I just feel that the show of power was not the main focal point. The world wanted peace and they wanted it quick.
It is obviously unclear as to which method of ending the war would have induced less casualties, but I would raise an interesting statistic to provide some food for though.
The only land fighting that took place on Japanese soil lasted for thre months and was concentrated only in Okinawa. In that time period 200,000 Japanese were killed - 122,000 supposedly Civilian.
In sum, it would have probably been retracted and bloody had a large scale ground war insued, However If Japan would have surrendered, which is very debatable given their fundamental values it could have been cut short.
America was aware of this which i believe is one of the reason why she dropped the bomb. That and testing out the devices of course, as shown in the fact that they used different detonation techniques and different fissile material.
The only land fighting that took place on Japanese soil lasted for thre months and was concentrated only in Okinawa. In that time period 200,000 Japanese were killed - 122,000 supposedly Civilian.
In sum, it would have probably been retracted and bloody had a large scale ground war insued, However If Japan would have surrendered, which is very debatable given their fundamental values it could have been cut short.
America was aware of this which i believe is one of the reason why she dropped the bomb. That and testing out the devices of course, as shown in the fact that they used different detonation techniques and different fissile material.
The bombing was totally unnecessary. It was a bizarre and ostentatious display of power. For the Americans, it was a fast and easy way out, but Americans could have won conventionally too. Conventional warfare would have killed people, true, but the suffering would have been reduced by a million folds. The number of civilian deaths would have been lesser too. War, in theory, isn't all about killing people, before a war people have the foreknowledge that deaths would occur, but intentionally, knowing fully well the horrific consequences, dropping a bomb and wiping out thousands is very different. To those who believe that it was justified from America's standpoint, would you say that Pearl Harbor or even 9/11 was justified? All three incidents were carried out to scare people and get the upperhand. Killing the civilians in an act of killing is absolutely unjustifiable.
In the end I think the bombs, though horrific, were inevitable and necessary.
I don't think that it is fair to judge the decision makers at the time using the information about the long-term damage done to the country. They simply did not know the bombs would do that. They didn't understand the effects of radiation, have a concept of fallout, or know what the environmental effects would be.
In the '50's our government ran tests in Arizona in which US soldiers charged into the fallout of exploded nuclear warheads, on the assumption that this would be the next method of war. I HOPE they didn't, even then, understand the full effects of radiation...
Also, it is important to note that the firebombing raids run over Tokyo were, according to many military analysts and historians, much more destructive and deadly than the two atomic bombs put together and had LESS purpose.
Description of the attacks in the middle of the page
There is a LOT of information about these fire raids, this happens to be the first thing I grabbed.
If you look at the gruesome nature of the island hopping campaign, the resolve of the Japanese people, and the nature of the Japanese geography it is difficult to conclude anything but the fact it would have been a VERY bloody assault on their mainland. I read estimates of over 3 million dead some years ago...
I think the first bomb needed to be dropped, the second was shameful, but the fire bombing raids were demonic...
I don't think that it is fair to judge the decision makers at the time using the information about the long-term damage done to the country. They simply did not know the bombs would do that. They didn't understand the effects of radiation, have a concept of fallout, or know what the environmental effects would be.
In the '50's our government ran tests in Arizona in which US soldiers charged into the fallout of exploded nuclear warheads, on the assumption that this would be the next method of war. I HOPE they didn't, even then, understand the full effects of radiation...
Also, it is important to note that the firebombing raids run over Tokyo were, according to many military analysts and historians, much more destructive and deadly than the two atomic bombs put together and had LESS purpose.
Description of the attacks in the middle of the page
There is a LOT of information about these fire raids, this happens to be the first thing I grabbed.
If you look at the gruesome nature of the island hopping campaign, the resolve of the Japanese people, and the nature of the Japanese geography it is difficult to conclude anything but the fact it would have been a VERY bloody assault on their mainland. I read estimates of over 3 million dead some years ago...
I think the first bomb needed to be dropped, the second was shameful, but the fire bombing raids were demonic...
I just finished reading "Truman" by David McCullough and it includes some facinating detail about both the bombing and what led to it.
First of all, Truman absolutely wanted Russia to participate in the Pacific War as soon as possible after Europe fell. Stalin actually committed troops to fighting Japan starting in the same month that we dropped the bombs. In fact, when the test bomb was detonated in NM, Truman was meeting with Stalin over what to do about Europe and Japan, although Truman's primary focus for those meetings was to get Russia to commit to starting a Western Front in the Pacific War.
Second, although Japan was trying to negotiate a surrender, we weren't interested in any "terms" they wanted, including that the Emperor would be left in charge. We wanted unconditional surrender. Japan was negotiating with us before they attacked Pearl Harbor as well, so that limited our desire to negotiate the end of the War with them.
Third, the book is clear that Truman authorized the dropping of the first bomb and wanted it dropped on an area that was predominantly a military target. That's why Hiroshima was chosen, because it was a large military area. The book is clear that Truman did not order the second bomb be dropped; seems he was surprised by it, but didn't say anything. That's at least according to this book, but based on a huge amount of research.
Fourth, the decision for Truman came down to the possibility of another million Army men dead or a huge -- if it worked, which wasn't guaranteed -- amount of Japanese dead. For Truman, this was a no-brainer; he wasn't President of Japan.
Yes, I recommend the book
First of all, Truman absolutely wanted Russia to participate in the Pacific War as soon as possible after Europe fell. Stalin actually committed troops to fighting Japan starting in the same month that we dropped the bombs. In fact, when the test bomb was detonated in NM, Truman was meeting with Stalin over what to do about Europe and Japan, although Truman's primary focus for those meetings was to get Russia to commit to starting a Western Front in the Pacific War.
Second, although Japan was trying to negotiate a surrender, we weren't interested in any "terms" they wanted, including that the Emperor would be left in charge. We wanted unconditional surrender. Japan was negotiating with us before they attacked Pearl Harbor as well, so that limited our desire to negotiate the end of the War with them.
Third, the book is clear that Truman authorized the dropping of the first bomb and wanted it dropped on an area that was predominantly a military target. That's why Hiroshima was chosen, because it was a large military area. The book is clear that Truman did not order the second bomb be dropped; seems he was surprised by it, but didn't say anything. That's at least according to this book, but based on a huge amount of research.
Fourth, the decision for Truman came down to the possibility of another million Army men dead or a huge -- if it worked, which wasn't guaranteed -- amount of Japanese dead. For Truman, this was a no-brainer; he wasn't President of Japan.
Yes, I recommend the book
I believe it is very hard to judge yesterday's actions by today's morals. That being said, I think it is impossible to judge the morality of the decision to drop the bomb. However, we can judge the practicality of the decision. In other words, we can ask "was there another way to win the war without dropping the bomb?".
I believe that there was no way to guarantee a war victory without dropping the bomb. Many Japanese civilians died, but they most likely would've died anyway had we chosen to use standard military invasion techniques. I do not believe that the net death count from the bombs was any higher than it would've been had we used air raids and ground troops instead. It just FEELS like more because so many people died at once. Another downside of using traditional war methods was the lack of ability to ensure a victory. Also, Truman faced pressure at home to reduce US casualties. It's sad that the bomb was dropped, but I do not believe we would've won without dropping the bomb.
I believe that there was no way to guarantee a war victory without dropping the bomb. Many Japanese civilians died, but they most likely would've died anyway had we chosen to use standard military invasion techniques. I do not believe that the net death count from the bombs was any higher than it would've been had we used air raids and ground troops instead. It just FEELS like more because so many people died at once. Another downside of using traditional war methods was the lack of ability to ensure a victory. Also, Truman faced pressure at home to reduce US casualties. It's sad that the bomb was dropped, but I do not believe we would've won without dropping the bomb.
Maya
Can you provide any evidence at all to support your claim of a conventional war would have reduced the suffering a million fold? Can you provide credible evidence that the civilian casualties would also have been reduced?
The comparison of Pearl Harbor and 9/11 to the atomic bombings are not possible. There are many reasons, but I would think they are obvious.
A. We had not attacked Japan and were not at war before Pearl Harbor. This attack was militarily unprovoked.
B. After a few years of war with Japan the bombs were dropped to escalate the end of the conflict and reduce further American casualties. It has been proven that this did influence the unconditional surrender of Japan.
C. 9/11 was also militarily unprovoked. We were not at war with any nation and no war on terror was being fought.
D. Terrorists who are not a part of any recognized nation were responsible for unprovoked attacks on civilians. These Civilians were not engaged in supporting a war effort against the terrorists. The Japanese civilians were a part of war efforts to support Japan against the US.
I am sure I could go on and put even more detail into this, but I feel it is really a stretch to jump to the conclusions you have arrived at.
I have also read parts of Truman and I do recall an interesting topic.. It was never a question of if they would use the bomb...it was a question of when and where. I also agree that judging history on the morals or standards of today is unfair.
QUOTE
The bombing was totally unnecessary. It was a bizarre and ostentatious display of power. For the Americans, it was a fast and easy way out, but Americans could have won conventionally too. Conventional warfare would have killed people, true, but the suffering would have been reduced by a million folds. The number of civilian deaths would have been lesser too.
Can you provide any evidence at all to support your claim of a conventional war would have reduced the suffering a million fold? Can you provide credible evidence that the civilian casualties would also have been reduced?
QUOTE
To those who believe that it was justified from America's standpoint, would you say that Pearl Harbor or even 9/11 was justified? All three incidents were carried out to scare people and get the upperhand. Killing the civilians in an act of killing is absolutely unjustifiable.
The comparison of Pearl Harbor and 9/11 to the atomic bombings are not possible. There are many reasons, but I would think they are obvious.
A. We had not attacked Japan and were not at war before Pearl Harbor. This attack was militarily unprovoked.
B. After a few years of war with Japan the bombs were dropped to escalate the end of the conflict and reduce further American casualties. It has been proven that this did influence the unconditional surrender of Japan.
C. 9/11 was also militarily unprovoked. We were not at war with any nation and no war on terror was being fought.
D. Terrorists who are not a part of any recognized nation were responsible for unprovoked attacks on civilians. These Civilians were not engaged in supporting a war effort against the terrorists. The Japanese civilians were a part of war efforts to support Japan against the US.
I am sure I could go on and put even more detail into this, but I feel it is really a stretch to jump to the conclusions you have arrived at.
I have also read parts of Truman and I do recall an interesting topic.. It was never a question of if they would use the bomb...it was a question of when and where. I also agree that judging history on the morals or standards of today is unfair.
QUOTE
I believe that there was no way to guarantee a war victory without dropping the bomb.
For millennia wars were fought without the benefit of a super bomb. The United States was winning. Conscripts among the Japanese were reduced to the very young and very old; they were losing manpower.
Does anybody really think that Truman would have said that using the two atomic bombs had been a mistake even if he thought so? He found his story and stuck to it, despite the fact that many scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project implored the President and the military not to use the bomb.
It's not justification, it's rationalization to say that we had to use the A-bombs on the Japanese populace. Our forces were arrogant in using weapons whose effects were unknown.
As a consequence, the United States is having to decide whether to placate North Korea and other small countries that have managed to develop nuclear weapons.
Using the atomic bombs was the epitome of "It seemed like a good idea at the time." And no amount of rationalization will change the fact that we unleashed on this world something better left alone.
I only have one position on this subject and that is that America handled the brutal Japanese war machine with precise deadly action that allowed us to move in safely and secure the country, thus ending our war with them and bringing safety, freedom and economic prosperity to their lands.
Spot on perfect winning of the war, perfect winning of the peace.
I'm glad that we didn't risk the lives of our young troops needlessly in order to be more humane than the Japanese were to their conquered.
In deciding whether or not we made the right decision I assume that there is the question of morality being raised, as well as the question of necessity. That seems indicative of some of the posts so I think it's necessary to understand who our enemies were. Letting the Japanese surrender with dignity would have been like letting the Nazi's off with an apology if you look at the record of what they did to their enemy's.
First look at the Samurai that the Emporer deposed less than a hundred years earlier. In an attempt to bring the nation under sovereign rule of a secular nature the Japanese Imperial Army killed thousands of innocent lives and Samurai in feats of blood lust and beheading.
Also, there is the lesser known Rape of Nanking, in which over 300,000 innocent Chinese in Manchuria were murdered, starved, raped, beheaded, stuck with bayonettes and some women even had the babies pulled out from their stomaches by the Imperial Army. They would line up 30-40 people in two rows parallel to each other and have contests to see who could decapitate more people in less time, infront of their children.
It's a forgotten tragedy but here's a link.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/nanking.html
http://www.bergen.org/AAST/Projects/ChinaH.../background.htm
I have several sites with horrific pictures more gruesome than the holocaust but I won't post them.
In my decision about whether it was necessary to completely crush our enemy and kick the Emporer out completely rather than let them save face I think that it's necesarry to look at what we might have left behind.
Spot on perfect winning of the war, perfect winning of the peace.
I'm glad that we didn't risk the lives of our young troops needlessly in order to be more humane than the Japanese were to their conquered.
In deciding whether or not we made the right decision I assume that there is the question of morality being raised, as well as the question of necessity. That seems indicative of some of the posts so I think it's necessary to understand who our enemies were. Letting the Japanese surrender with dignity would have been like letting the Nazi's off with an apology if you look at the record of what they did to their enemy's.
First look at the Samurai that the Emporer deposed less than a hundred years earlier. In an attempt to bring the nation under sovereign rule of a secular nature the Japanese Imperial Army killed thousands of innocent lives and Samurai in feats of blood lust and beheading.
Also, there is the lesser known Rape of Nanking, in which over 300,000 innocent Chinese in Manchuria were murdered, starved, raped, beheaded, stuck with bayonettes and some women even had the babies pulled out from their stomaches by the Imperial Army. They would line up 30-40 people in two rows parallel to each other and have contests to see who could decapitate more people in less time, infront of their children.
It's a forgotten tragedy but here's a link.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/nanking.html
http://www.bergen.org/AAST/Projects/ChinaH.../background.htm
I have several sites with horrific pictures more gruesome than the holocaust but I won't post them.
In my decision about whether it was necessary to completely crush our enemy and kick the Emporer out completely rather than let them save face I think that it's necesarry to look at what we might have left behind.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Dec 9 2003, 06:19 PM)
As a consequence, the United States is having to decide whether to placate North Korea and other small countries that have managed to develop nuclear weapons.
Using the atomic bombs was the epitome of "It seemed like a good idea at the time." And no amount of rationalization will change the fact that we unleashed on this world something better left alone.
Using the atomic bombs was the epitome of "It seemed like a good idea at the time." And no amount of rationalization will change the fact that we unleashed on this world something better left alone.
Unfortunately, the world back then was more complicated than this.
For example, we developed the Manhattan project to counter Germany's attempts to develop the same thing. That's why there were so many German scientists on the project. We finished the development only a few months after Germany fell, but had Germany had a little more time or been the first to develop it... ? Hard to say in hindsight even what would have happened, but the world might be a bit different than it is now.
After we deployed it, the USSR spent a lot of resources stealing the information about how to build one, so we had to build a bigger one. And that's how it escalated.
Then the USSR split open, their nuclear scientists went unpaid and wandered off into the waiting hands of countries with available cash. And now anyone with enough cash can have their own nuclear weapon -- or a close facsimile -- for not too much money. Oops. Even back then, the powers-that-were were concerned about this happening, but didn't see a good alternative, since Germany was looking to invent the same thing to help them win WW2.
QUOTE
The only land fighting that took place on Japanese soil lasted for thre months and was concentrated only in Okinawa. In that time period 200,000 Japanese were killed - 122,000 supposedly Civilian.
Good point. Rougly 1/3 of the entire population of Okinawa was killed during the battle. If Japan had defended Honshu and Kyushu with the same tenacity that it had defended Okinawa, could we really expect civilian casualties to be any less? Japanese civilian loss of life in an invasion would have easily far exceeded the amount lost in both atomic bombings.
QUOTE(Paladin @ Dec 16 2003, 08:25 PM)
QUOTE
The only land fighting that took place on Japanese soil lasted for thre months and was concentrated only in Okinawa. In that time period 200,000 Japanese were killed - 122,000 supposedly Civilian.
Good point. Rougly 1/3 of the entire population of Okinawa was killed during the battle. If Japan had defended Honshu and Kyushu with the same tenacity that it had defended Okinawa, could we really expect civilian casualties to be any less? Japanese civilian loss of life in an invasion would have easily far exceeded the amount lost in both atomic bombings.
Operation Downfall.
That is what the military planned to do if not for the A-bombs. The loss of life (both American and Japanese) would have been horrendously high if Japan had been invaded (far more then from the A-bombs).
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm
I have always wondered why people debate this topic so much.
We have the minutes from the Japanese war cabinet meetings, we know exactly what their reaction to the big three events was (2 bombs and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria) and we know that it took all three of these events to force the japanese emperor into a personal intervention to break a STILL deadlocked cabinet over the issue of surrender. lets be clear about that, even after two bombs and the loss of the Japanese forces in manchuria, the cabinet was still deadlocked.
Further, once they did agree upon surrender, there was an attempted coup to put the Emperor in 'protective custory' and continue the war. This coup nearly succeeded and was backed by a significant portion of the army high command.
Japan was not about to surrender, they almost did not surrender even WITH the bombs being dropped and the Soviet invasion. There is no question that the dropping of the two bombs was terrible, unfortunate and regrettable, but it was clearly also necessary to end the war without invasion. I recommend the excellent book: Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire by Richard Frank.
We have the minutes from the Japanese war cabinet meetings, we know exactly what their reaction to the big three events was (2 bombs and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria) and we know that it took all three of these events to force the japanese emperor into a personal intervention to break a STILL deadlocked cabinet over the issue of surrender. lets be clear about that, even after two bombs and the loss of the Japanese forces in manchuria, the cabinet was still deadlocked.
Further, once they did agree upon surrender, there was an attempted coup to put the Emperor in 'protective custory' and continue the war. This coup nearly succeeded and was backed by a significant portion of the army high command.
Japan was not about to surrender, they almost did not surrender even WITH the bombs being dropped and the Soviet invasion. There is no question that the dropping of the two bombs was terrible, unfortunate and regrettable, but it was clearly also necessary to end the war without invasion. I recommend the excellent book: Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire by Richard Frank.
About the bombings in Japan, I personally feel that it was unnecessary, and being the Canadian that I am, I also have my neutral opinion. The japanese were infact about to surrender, and it has been said that the Americans wanted to test their newly found power. The wanted to show the entire world that they were better and that nobody could top the nuclear capabilities that they had (namely Russia). It was because America and Russia were in a power struggle that the second bombing had occured. I think that the reason for it was alos the "Eye for and eye" idea. The japanese killed thousands, so thats exactly what the Americans did.
I was 8 years old when we dropped the Atomic bombs on Japan, one of my mothers brothers died on the Nevada at Pearl Harbor, 4 of his brothers enlisted in the Marine Corp. 5 of my Dads brothers enlisted in the Army, and Marine Corp. 3 of the Nine went to Europe to fight Germany, the 6 fought in the Pacific, none of them died but some were wounded, some were Traumatised to become somewhat disfunctional for many years.
I had a paper route, when a son was killed in the war, a little purple flag hung in the window with a gold braid,, I saw many of them on my paper route, be thankful,
The sentiment in America was ,we should have dropped 20 Atomic bombs and many were not happy that Tokyo was spared.
The Japanese Army was the most Barbaric animals known to mankind of that era, more than 60% of POW were starved ,beheaded, and or worked to death by their Jap captors. Be Thankful , you got much less than you deserved.
The notion that we used the bomb because Russia was going to invade Japan is hog wash, The Russian Army from the far east was the suprise given the Germans when they were pused back from Moscow.
I had a paper route, when a son was killed in the war, a little purple flag hung in the window with a gold braid,, I saw many of them on my paper route, be thankful,
The sentiment in America was ,we should have dropped 20 Atomic bombs and many were not happy that Tokyo was spared.
The Japanese Army was the most Barbaric animals known to mankind of that era, more than 60% of POW were starved ,beheaded, and or worked to death by their Jap captors. Be Thankful , you got much less than you deserved.
The notion that we used the bomb because Russia was going to invade Japan is hog wash, The Russian Army from the far east was the suprise given the Germans when they were pused back from Moscow.
QUOTE(PiedPiper @ Jan 11 2004, 02:51 PM)
The notion that we used the bomb because Russia was going to invade Japan is hog wash, The Russian Army from the far east was the suprise given the Germans when they were pused back from Moscow.
Certainly the bomb was not used because the Russians were about to invade japan, the US had no knowledge of this plan. However, the Russians WERE about to invade Japan, we now have their plans and we know that extensive preparations were underway.
As to the surrender of the Japanese... again I dont understand this issue.
No the Japanese were not about to surrender, this is not open for debate, up to interpretation or in question. The Japanese were not about to surrender, we have the transcripts of their Cabinet meetings, we know what they were discussing and planning down to the last word. I dont know why this keeps coming up. Not only were they not about to surrender, but they almost did NOT surrender even after the two bombs and the destruction of the Kwangtung army by the Soviets.
The Russians were interested in taking the Islands back from Japan they lost in the Russo, Japanese war of 1905 , not Japan in its entirety. They may have thought about it, because we were all at war but it was never a viable plan. The only Russian forces who could have done that were moved to the Western Front to drive the Germans out of Russia.
Its easy to say in hind sight that we should not have dropped the Atomic bombs, it was horrible and innocent people died and there is no doubt we could have defeated Japan without doing so. But it was total warfare and not a war we started or provoked and every man in uniform has a right to expect his governemt to use what ever weapon possible to end a war. Does anyone have the right to suggest we should have sent 15,000 to 25,000 more Americans to their death in an invasion of Japan to spare the people of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
I don't think So. !!!
I also am not nieve enough to believe we did not want to also demonstrate to the world the power in our possession in particular the Russians, who following the defeat of Germany were about to become to only Miltary challenge to the U S.
Its easy to say in hind sight that we should not have dropped the Atomic bombs, it was horrible and innocent people died and there is no doubt we could have defeated Japan without doing so. But it was total warfare and not a war we started or provoked and every man in uniform has a right to expect his governemt to use what ever weapon possible to end a war. Does anyone have the right to suggest we should have sent 15,000 to 25,000 more Americans to their death in an invasion of Japan to spare the people of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
I don't think So. !!!
I also am not nieve enough to believe we did not want to also demonstrate to the world the power in our possession in particular the Russians, who following the defeat of Germany were about to become to only Miltary challenge to the U S.
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
Hiroshima: Who disagreed with the Bombing? This is a good link.
Below are the opinions of two officials who disagreed with the bombing and why. There are several other names to add to this list, names like Leo Szilard, Albert Einstein, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, etc. Also, President Truman was told the bomb was to be dropped on military, not civilian targets.
We were warned that if we used the atomic bomb we would be entering an arms race with Russia whose consequences would be disastrous. While we have not used nuclear bombs on Russia or vice versa, now several nations around the world have this technology and the bombs. As the cliche goes, the genie is out of the bottle.
It would not necessarily have meant the loss of thousands of Allied lives had Japan been given a chance to surrender and still retain their emperor. And as far as the barbarism of Japanese troops went, was it really our "right" to be barbaric in return to innocent people in Japan?
Hiroshima: Who disagreed with the Bombing? This is a good link.
Below are the opinions of two officials who disagreed with the bombing and why. There are several other names to add to this list, names like Leo Szilard, Albert Einstein, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, etc. Also, President Truman was told the bomb was to be dropped on military, not civilian targets.
QUOTE
~~~BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE
(The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)
"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."
Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359.
(The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)
"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."
Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359.
QUOTE
~~~ELLIS ZACHARIAS
(Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence)
Based on a series of intelligence reports received in late 1944, Zacharias, long a student of Japan's people and culture, believed the Japan would soon be ripe for surrender if the proper approach were taken. For him, that approach was not as simple as bludgeoning Japanese cities:
"...while Allied leaders were immediately inclined to support all innovations however bold and novel in the strictly military sphere, they frowned upon similar innovations in the sphere of diplomatic and psychological warfare."
Ellis Zacharias, The A-Bomb Was Not Needed, United Nations World, Aug. 1949, pg. 29.
Zacharias saw that there were diplomatic and religious (the status of the Emperor) elements that blocked the doves in Japan's government from making their move:
"What prevented them from suing for peace or from bringing their plot into the open was their uncertainty on two scores. First, they wanted to know the meaning of unconditional surrender and the fate we planned for Japan after defeat. Second, they tried to obtain from us assurances that the Emperor could remain on the throne after surrender."
Ellis Zacharias, Eighteen Words That Bagged Japan, Saturday Evening Post, 11/17/45, pg. 17.
To resolve these issues, Zacharias developed several plans for secret negotiations with Japanese representatives; all were rejected by the U.S. government. Instead, a series of psychological warfare radio broadcasts by Zacharias was later approved. In the July 21, 1945 broadcast, Zacharias made an offer to Japan that stirred controversy in the U.S.: a surrender based on the Atlantic Charter. On July 25th, the U.S. intercepted a secret transmission from Japan's Foreign Minister (Togo) to their Ambassador to Moscow (Sato), who was trying to set up a meeting with the Soviets to negotiate an end to the war. The message referred to the Zacharias broadcast and stated:
"...special attention should be paid to the fact that at this time the United States referred to the Atlantic Charter. As for Japan, it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter."
U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the United States: Conference of Berlin (Potsdam) 1945, vol. 2, pg. 1260-1261.
But on July 26th, the U.S., Great Britain, and China publicly issued the Potsdam Proclamation demanding "unconditional surrender" from Japan. Zacharias later commented on the favorable Japanese response to his broadcast:
"But though we gained a victory, it was soon to be canceled out by the Potsdam Declaration and the way it was handled.
"Instead of being a diplomatic instrument, transmitted through regular diplomatic channels and giving the Japanese a chance to answer, it was put on the radio as a propaganda instrument pure and simple. The whole maneuver, in fact, completely disregarded all essential psychological factors dealing with Japan."
Zacharias continued, "The Potsdam Declaration, in short, wrecked everything we had been working for to prevent further bloodshed...
"Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.
"Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.
"I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds."
Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.
(Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence)
Based on a series of intelligence reports received in late 1944, Zacharias, long a student of Japan's people and culture, believed the Japan would soon be ripe for surrender if the proper approach were taken. For him, that approach was not as simple as bludgeoning Japanese cities:
"...while Allied leaders were immediately inclined to support all innovations however bold and novel in the strictly military sphere, they frowned upon similar innovations in the sphere of diplomatic and psychological warfare."
Ellis Zacharias, The A-Bomb Was Not Needed, United Nations World, Aug. 1949, pg. 29.
Zacharias saw that there were diplomatic and religious (the status of the Emperor) elements that blocked the doves in Japan's government from making their move:
"What prevented them from suing for peace or from bringing their plot into the open was their uncertainty on two scores. First, they wanted to know the meaning of unconditional surrender and the fate we planned for Japan after defeat. Second, they tried to obtain from us assurances that the Emperor could remain on the throne after surrender."
Ellis Zacharias, Eighteen Words That Bagged Japan, Saturday Evening Post, 11/17/45, pg. 17.
To resolve these issues, Zacharias developed several plans for secret negotiations with Japanese representatives; all were rejected by the U.S. government. Instead, a series of psychological warfare radio broadcasts by Zacharias was later approved. In the July 21, 1945 broadcast, Zacharias made an offer to Japan that stirred controversy in the U.S.: a surrender based on the Atlantic Charter. On July 25th, the U.S. intercepted a secret transmission from Japan's Foreign Minister (Togo) to their Ambassador to Moscow (Sato), who was trying to set up a meeting with the Soviets to negotiate an end to the war. The message referred to the Zacharias broadcast and stated:
"...special attention should be paid to the fact that at this time the United States referred to the Atlantic Charter. As for Japan, it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter."
U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the United States: Conference of Berlin (Potsdam) 1945, vol. 2, pg. 1260-1261.
But on July 26th, the U.S., Great Britain, and China publicly issued the Potsdam Proclamation demanding "unconditional surrender" from Japan. Zacharias later commented on the favorable Japanese response to his broadcast:
"But though we gained a victory, it was soon to be canceled out by the Potsdam Declaration and the way it was handled.
"Instead of being a diplomatic instrument, transmitted through regular diplomatic channels and giving the Japanese a chance to answer, it was put on the radio as a propaganda instrument pure and simple. The whole maneuver, in fact, completely disregarded all essential psychological factors dealing with Japan."
Zacharias continued, "The Potsdam Declaration, in short, wrecked everything we had been working for to prevent further bloodshed...
"Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.
"Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.
"I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds."
Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.
We were warned that if we used the atomic bomb we would be entering an arms race with Russia whose consequences would be disastrous. While we have not used nuclear bombs on Russia or vice versa, now several nations around the world have this technology and the bombs. As the cliche goes, the genie is out of the bottle.
It would not necessarily have meant the loss of thousands of Allied lives had Japan been given a chance to surrender and still retain their emperor. And as far as the barbarism of Japanese troops went, was it really our "right" to be barbaric in return to innocent people in Japan?
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jan 12 2004, 07:59 AM)
We were warned that if we used the atomic bomb we would be entering an arms race with Russia whose consequences would be disastrous. While we have not used nuclear bombs on Russia or vice versa, now several nations around the world have this technology and the bombs. As the cliche goes, the genie is out of the bottle.
But would the genie have stayed "in the bottle" if we hadn't used it?
We weren't the only country with scientists who were working on the A-bomb. Germany was another. And half of Germany -- and its scientists -- were annexed by Russia in the last days of the war in Europe. So what makes you think that Russia wouldn't have gotten there anyway at some point in the near future? It might have taken them longer, but it would still have happened.
QUOTE(PiedPiper @ Jan 12 2004, 11:54 AM)
The Russians were interested in taking the Islands back from Japan they lost in the Russo, Japanese war of 1905 , not Japan in its entirety. They may have thought about it, because we were all at war but it was never a viable plan. The only Russian forces who could have done that were moved to the Western Front to drive the Germans out of Russia.
I am sorry, but you are completely mistaken.
In August 1945 a Massive Soviet Army out of the far East invaded Japanese posessions in Manchuria. That army comprised 41.4% of the total active forces fielded by the Soviets at the time: 654,040 men formed one tank army, four combined-arms armies, one Soviet-Mongolian Cavalry- Mechanized Group, and an air army. More than 49,000 vehicles and 2,400 tanks/SP guns were deployed against the Japanese in an invasion that started just after midnight on August 8th-9th. The classic double envelopment tactic, combined with massive superiority in both number and quality of armour and troops quickly completely overwhelmed the japanese Kwangtung Army, this was one of the three things (the other two being the two atomic weapons) that compelled the Japanese to consider surrender.
Please note, without the Soviet invasion, it is VERY unlikely that the Japanese would have surrendered, even with the two atomic weapons. That is very clear from transcripts of the japanese cabinet discussions.
We now also know that The USSR had plans to deploy its massive Far-eastern army already on site against Japan itself, Hokkaido being the first landing point.
Please read the excellent book "Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire" by Richard Frank for more information.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jan 12 2004, 12:59 PM)
We were warned that if we used the atomic bomb we would be entering an arms race with Russia whose consequences would be disastrous. As the cliche goes, the genie is out of the bottle.
Actually, the genie was already out of the bottle. Both the UK and the USSR had active atomic weapons programs, and the USSR got far more information from highly placed spies inside the manhattan project then they ever did from the German atomic scientists. Germany had been working on a series of completely false principles, and was nowhere near obtaining the bomb when the war ended.
QUOTE
It would not necessarily have meant the loss of thousands of Allied lives had Japan been given a chance to surrender and still retain their emperor. And as far as the barbarism of Japanese troops went, was it really our "right" to be barbaric in return to innocent people in Japan?
Japan was not about to surrender, and their planned negotiating strategy with the USSR demanded a lot more than just the maintenance of the Empire, it also called for no occupation of Japan and the maintenance of japanese posessions in China.
As for the morality of the act, while I agree in principle that one cannot answer barbarism with barbarism, thats somewhat irelevant. Mass bombing was not barbaric at the time, and it had been practiced en masse by every major combattant of the war over the previous 5 years. While NOW such a thing might be considered barbaric, at the time it was simply another tool in the arsenal of warfare.
I am very sceptical about the use of the bomb, why did they use two different kinds? To test them thats why. Saying a country is not going to surrender easily so we better exterminate them on a mass scale is completly wrong, a barbaric in whatever time period. There is a difference between baclnket bombing and using a weapon that effects last for years, and can wipe out the entire world.
QUOTE(Paul Doran @ Jan 12 2004, 03:04 PM)
I am very sceptical about the use of the bomb, why did they use two different kinds? To test them thats why. Saying a country is not going to surrender easily so we better exterminate them on a mass scale is completly wrong, a barbaric in whatever time period. There is a difference between baclnket bombing and using a weapon that effects last for years, and can wipe out the entire world.
Where to begin:
Two diferent kinds of bombs were used because they required different components and different fissile materiel, and thus given the lack of fissile materiel available it was easier to produce two different types rather then two of one type. Further, the US did not really know exactly what the effect of the bomb would be, or even if it would work. They developped two types as failsafes for each other.
In July 1945, the United States had enough fissile material for one uranium and two plutonium weapons. The scientists and engineers felt confident that the gun-type assembly mechanism for "Little Boy" would function properly. Besides, they did not have the material for a test device. They were less confident about the implosion mechanism and felt that a test was necessary.
At the time of the dropping of the atomic bombs, the US only had three bombs ready to be deployed.
Next: I am puzzled by your reference to "exterminating them on a mass scale". The atomic bombings were not a significant change from the existing tactic of firebombing and area bombing, there were fewer casualties in the two atomic bomb blasts then from conventional bombing in Tokyo.
You try to create some kind of difference between mass area bombing and using atomics, but I cannot see your logic:
-"effects last for years" - at the time, the secondary effects of radiation were complettely unknown. Though everyone knew there would be a large radiation burst from the last itself, the concept of fallout and durable iradiated areas was unknown.
-"can wipe out the entire world": I assume thats just hyperbole, as at the time atomic weapons had less of an impact then a mass conventional weapons raid.
The reality is, regardless of current sensibilities, this was militarily the right thing to do at the time, and completely in line with the morality of the time.
From the link I cited previously (some portions I emphasized in red):
There was nothing close to consensus in the decision to drop the bombs. The Manhattan Project scientist petitioned the President not to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (if you want documentation of that I can find it again; we had this thread before in which I quoted a reference with a timeline). Now why would they do that if it wasn't in the country's best interests to pursue nuking the Japanese? Conscience, maybe?
QUOTE
~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
There was nothing close to consensus in the decision to drop the bombs. The Manhattan Project scientist petitioned the President not to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (if you want documentation of that I can find it again; we had this thread before in which I quoted a reference with a timeline). Now why would they do that if it wasn't in the country's best interests to pursue nuking the Japanese? Conscience, maybe?
A small side-point, Paladin Elspeth is correct that the majority of the scientists at Los Alamos were against using atomic weapons on Japan. However, many were not completely against the use of atomic weapons. In Brighter Than A Thousand Suns, Robert Jungk writes of the internal debate among the scientists AFTER the defeat of Germany (and subsequent findings that the German atomic program was well behind that of the allies) regarding the use of the atomic bomb. Most of the scientists felt that there was no point in continuing to work on the bomb once Germany had been defeated . Given the fact that many of these scientists had been forced to flee from the Nazis (or had been taught by folks displaced or killed by the Nazis), this feeling is understandable.
In other words, most of those scientists certainly felt that the use of an a-bomb against Germany was justifiable (some felt the German a-bomb program was justification, others felt the threat of Nazism was enough to justify the bomb). Certainly, physicists like Richard Feynman were consistently against any first use of the bomb, but he was not necessarily in the majority when the target was Germany rather than Japan.
This is not to suggest that the bombing of Japan was proper (nor to suggest that it wasn't), just clarifying that some of the opposition to using the a-bomb was specific to the situation rather than based on general principle.
In other words, most of those scientists certainly felt that the use of an a-bomb against Germany was justifiable (some felt the German a-bomb program was justification, others felt the threat of Nazism was enough to justify the bomb). Certainly, physicists like Richard Feynman were consistently against any first use of the bomb, but he was not necessarily in the majority when the target was Germany rather than Japan.
This is not to suggest that the bombing of Japan was proper (nor to suggest that it wasn't), just clarifying that some of the opposition to using the a-bomb was specific to the situation rather than based on general principle.
I've often wondered why the A-Bombs could not have been dropped outside of Japanese cities to where the Japanese would be able to get a good look at their destructive power and realize that more would've been used against Japan if Japan didn't surrendered. I myself understand the justification for the A-bombs that were used.
You know Fluteplayer, I have to agree with you. I never thought about that. I mean, Japan IS an island nation. They could have droped one off the coast and scared the begeebers out of them and THEN if that didn't work, drop it on them. 
Very interesting point. I too understand why we did it though... 
and honestly, better them, than us.
Very interesting point. I too understand why we did it though... and honestly, better them, than us.
QUOTE(FlutePlayer @ Jan 13 2004, 09:48 PM)
I've often wondered why the A-Bombs could not have been dropped outside of Japanese cities to where the Japanese would be able to get a good look at their destructive power and realize that more would've been used against Japan if Japan didn't surrendered. I myself understand the justification for the A-bombs that were used.
There was some talk of dropping the bomb on non-populated targets, but this was rejected as dangerously impractical.
Firstly, as depressing as it is, you needed to show the destructive potential of the bomb, and the only way to really do that was destroy something, so that the effects could be measurable. A Bomb out to see would produce a big flash and cloud, but thats about all. It could be dismissed and downplayed, even ignored for those who did not witness it forst hand, and without any way of measuring the impact, it is hardly likely the threat would be taken seriously.
Secondly, remember that the US only had three of these devices, so whatever demonstration was planned had to work by the third bomb. Hitting an unpopulated, unmeasurable target seriously lessened the impact of the bomb, and considering the cost of producing them, it wasnecessary to get (sorry) the biggest bang for the buck.
Lastly, remember now we all know what an atomic bomb is, but back then they did not. A big flash and a cloud would not have the psychological impact, as few people would know what it was or its deployability. After the first bomb, the primary Japanese theory was that the allies had seeded the air with millions of strips of magnesium, then ignited them all at once. Its not like the Japanese would have seen the flash and said "my god, they have nukes!" In fact, with distance to the blast unknown, it could even have been mistaken. A munitions ship exploding could equal as much as a kiloton or more, and would produce a mushroom cloud.
No, if it were to be used on Japan at all, it had to be used for maximum impact.
Yeah, you're right. First impressions are really important.
A point that few seem to understand is, the U S did use other means to force the Japaneese to surrender, In one night the U S Air Force dropped 1665 Napalm bombs on Tokyo, burning everything in a 16 mile radius, 100,000 people died. More than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Other cities were bombed in the same manner, it did not bring Japan to its knees and create a desire to surrender.
The Atomic Bombs Did.
Vermillion , you are correct on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.
Paul Doran and others can say it was barbaric to drop those atomic bombs, perhaps so, but we were fighting the most barbaric enemy known to mankind in 1945, they murdered over 60% of the POW's they held, they beheaded them, they starved them, the worked them to death without food and water, they placed men in the hole of ships where temperatures ran over 160 degrees, few even survived to reach a POW camp. Japan wanted total war and they got total war, in such warfare you ask no quarter and you give none, Japan is lucky to even exist today.
The Atomic Bombs Did.
Vermillion , you are correct on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.
Paul Doran and others can say it was barbaric to drop those atomic bombs, perhaps so, but we were fighting the most barbaric enemy known to mankind in 1945, they murdered over 60% of the POW's they held, they beheaded them, they starved them, the worked them to death without food and water, they placed men in the hole of ships where temperatures ran over 160 degrees, few even survived to reach a POW camp. Japan wanted total war and they got total war, in such warfare you ask no quarter and you give none, Japan is lucky to even exist today.
http://www.dannen.com/decision/45-07-17.html
Sixty scientists in the Manhattan Project did not want the atomic bombs dropped on Japan for humanitarian reasons and because it would start an arms race.
http://www.peak.org/~danneng/decision/usnews.html
It was not an either/or situation as it has been presented. It wasn't either we drop the bombs or we will lose many thousands of troops to end the war with Japan.
We chose the expedient route, rather than through negotiations, which has turned around to bite us in the butt lo these many decades.
QUOTE
A PETITION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES [excerpts]
The war has to be brought speedily to a successful conclusion and attacks by atomic bombs may very well be an effective method of warfare. We feel, however, that such attacks on Japan could not be justified, at least not unless the terms which will be imposed after the war on Japan were made public in detail and Japan were given an opportunity to surrender.
If such public announcement gave assurance to the Japanese that they could look forward to a life devoted to peaceful pursuits in their homeland and if Japan still refused to surrender our nation might then, in certain circumstances, find itself forced to resort to the use of atomic bombs. Such a step, however, ought not to be made at any time without seriously considering the moral responsibilities which are involved.
The development of atomic power will provide the nations with new means of destruction. The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the first step in this direction, and there is almost no limit to the destructive power which will become available in the course of their future development. Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale.
If after this war a situation is allowed to develop in the world which permits rival powers to be in uncontrolled possession of these new means of destruction, the cities of the United States as well as the cities of other nations will be in continuous danger of sudden annihilation. All the resources of the United States, moral and material, may have to be mobilized to prevent the advent of such a world situation. Its prevention is at present the solemn responsibility of the United States -- singled out by virtue of her lead in the field of atomic power.
The war has to be brought speedily to a successful conclusion and attacks by atomic bombs may very well be an effective method of warfare. We feel, however, that such attacks on Japan could not be justified, at least not unless the terms which will be imposed after the war on Japan were made public in detail and Japan were given an opportunity to surrender.
If such public announcement gave assurance to the Japanese that they could look forward to a life devoted to peaceful pursuits in their homeland and if Japan still refused to surrender our nation might then, in certain circumstances, find itself forced to resort to the use of atomic bombs. Such a step, however, ought not to be made at any time without seriously considering the moral responsibilities which are involved.
The development of atomic power will provide the nations with new means of destruction. The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the first step in this direction, and there is almost no limit to the destructive power which will become available in the course of their future development. Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale.
If after this war a situation is allowed to develop in the world which permits rival powers to be in uncontrolled possession of these new means of destruction, the cities of the United States as well as the cities of other nations will be in continuous danger of sudden annihilation. All the resources of the United States, moral and material, may have to be mobilized to prevent the advent of such a world situation. Its prevention is at present the solemn responsibility of the United States -- singled out by virtue of her lead in the field of atomic power.
Sixty scientists in the Manhattan Project did not want the atomic bombs dropped on Japan for humanitarian reasons and because it would start an arms race.
http://www.peak.org/~danneng/decision/usnews.html
QUOTE
Leo Szilard, Interview: President Truman Did Not Understand [excerpts]
Q Have your views on this subject changed at all since 1945?
A No, except that I can say much more clearly today what I was thinking at that time than I was able to say it at that time. Today I would put the whole emphasis on the mistake of insisting on unconditional surrender. Today I would say that the confusion arose from considering the fake alternatives of either having to invade Japan or of having to use the bomb against her cities.
<snip>
Q Do you feel that President Truman and those immediately below him gave full and conscientious study to all the alternatives to use of the atomic bomb?
A I do not think they did. They thought only in terms of our having to end the war by military means.
I don't think Japan would have surrendered unconditionally without the use of force. But there was no need to demand the unconditional surrender of Japan. If we had offered Japan the kind of peace treaty which we actually gave her, we could have had a negotiated peace.
Q Have your views on this subject changed at all since 1945?
A No, except that I can say much more clearly today what I was thinking at that time than I was able to say it at that time. Today I would put the whole emphasis on the mistake of insisting on unconditional surrender. Today I would say that the confusion arose from considering the fake alternatives of either having to invade Japan or of having to use the bomb against her cities.
<snip>
Q Do you feel that President Truman and those immediately below him gave full and conscientious study to all the alternatives to use of the atomic bomb?
A I do not think they did. They thought only in terms of our having to end the war by military means.
I don't think Japan would have surrendered unconditionally without the use of force. But there was no need to demand the unconditional surrender of Japan. If we had offered Japan the kind of peace treaty which we actually gave her, we could have had a negotiated peace.
It was not an either/or situation as it has been presented. It wasn't either we drop the bombs or we will lose many thousands of troops to end the war with Japan.
We chose the expedient route, rather than through negotiations, which has turned around to bite us in the butt lo these many decades.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jan 14 2004, 02:59 PM)
Sixty scientists in the Manhattan Project did not want the atomic bombs dropped on Japan for humanitarian reasons and because it would start an arms race.
Firstly, an arms race was inevitable, in fact by the time that petition was signed, it was already underway, so that is somewhat irrelevant.
QUOTE
It was not an either/or situation as it has been presented. It wasn't either we drop the bombs or we will lose many thousands of troops to end the war with Japan.
We chose the expedient route, rather than through negotiations, which has turned around to bite us in the butt lo these many decades.
We chose the expedient route, rather than through negotiations, which has turned around to bite us in the butt lo these many decades.
Actually, it pretty much was an either/or situation. The only other option was to continue the blockade of Japan, keeping US ships within strike and kamikaze range of the Japanese mainland, so the indefinite future. Under this permanent blockade, Japan would never have been able to be truly expansionist again, but she could easily have reindustrialised and improved her defences. Given the reality of the Japanese cabinet and peoples virew on the war, surrender under a blockade would not have happened, at the very least for a very long time.
This was not an option for the US who saw an iron curtain descending across Europe, whose population was tored of war and who would soon be forced to rotate home all her experienced troops.
Everyone accepted that the war had to be ended sooner rather than later, and if that was true, then there were only two options, the atomic bomb or invasion.
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Jan 14 2004, 10:51 AM)
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jan 14 2004, 02:59 PM)
Sixty scientists in the Manhattan Project did not want the atomic bombs dropped on Japan for humanitarian reasons and because it would start an arms race.
Firstly, an arms race was inevitable, in fact by the time that petition was signed, it was already underway, so that is somewhat irrelevant.
QUOTE
It was not an either/or situation as it has been presented. It wasn't either we drop the bombs or we will lose many thousands of troops to end the war with Japan.
We chose the expedient route, rather than through negotiations, which has turned around to bite us in the butt lo these many decades.
We chose the expedient route, rather than through negotiations, which has turned around to bite us in the butt lo these many decades.
Actually, it pretty much was an either/or situation. The only other option was to continue the blockade of Japan, keeping US ships within strike and kamikaze range of the Japanese mainland, so the indefinite future. Under this permanent blockade, Japan would never have been able to be truly expansionist again, but she could easily have reindustrialised and improved her defences. Given the reality of the Japanese cabinet and peoples virew on the war, surrender under a blockade would not have happened, at the very least for a very long time.
This was not an option for the US who saw an iron curtain descending across Europe, whose population was tored of war and who would soon be forced to rotate home all her experienced troops.
Everyone accepted that the war had to be ended sooner rather than later, and if that was true, then there were only two options, the atomic bomb or invasion.
I would like to see your sources stating that an arms races was already underway and that there actually weren't any other options. I have provided mine, and their names are readily recognizable by anyone of that time.
A wall had not been built in Berlin yet (during the Kennedy administration), and
http://campus.northpark.edu/history/Classe.../Churchill.html shows that the Iron Curtain speech was delivered by Winston Churchill at Westminster College (in the USA) in 1946. While there were some efforts being undertaken by the Soviets at the time, it was not literally an "iron curtain." Regardless, I do not see the Iron Curtain being that relevant as to whether Japan could have been talked into surrender by seeing a demonstration of the US's destructive capabilities, and I am unaware, until the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, of the United States threatening the use of atomic power against the USSR, let alone aware of a threat of this nature stopping the Soviet expansionism.
If there is a way to win without resorting to barbarism, why shouldn't it be used? A civilian's life counts as a life regardless of nationality; how much more tens of thousands of lives? Because this new capability was ours did not give us the right to use it from an ethical standpoint in a nation and group of nations (the Allies) pledged to avoid killing civilians.
All those who weren't aware of the atomic bombs expected some kind of conventional end to the war. They would not have been disappointed, therefore, had a negotiated settlement come about after a demonstration had been shown to the Japanese without taking the lives of so many civilians.
QUOTE
I would like to see your sources stating that an arms races was already underway and that there actually weren't any other options. I have provided mine, and their names are readily recognizable by anyone of that time.
How many sources do you need?
Stalin and the Bomb: The Soviet Union and Atomic Energy, 1939-1956
by David Holloway
Russia, America, the Bomb, and the Fall of Western Europe
by Brian May
Origins of the Cold War : The Great Historical Debate (The Cold War, Volume 1)
by Lori Lynn Bogle
The History of the Soviet Atomic Industry
by Arkadii Kruglov
Thats off the top of my head. The Soviet Union had an atomic Bomb program before Hiroshima, largely due to industrial espionage and informatio provided by some of the people who signed that petition. The UK also had its own bomb program, though still naesent. There was an arms race, and the decision to use the atomic bombs may have created more urgency in the part of the USSR, but it was already well underway. I can get you many more sources when I get home and check my library if you like...
QUOTE
Regardless, I do not see the Iron Curtain being that relevant as to whether Japan could have been talked into surrender by seeing a demonstration of the US's destructive capabilities, and I am unaware, until the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, of the United States threatening the use of atomic power against the USSR, let alone aware of a threat of this nature stopping the Soviet expansionism.
The issue of the situation in Europe affacts the willingness of the US to wait for a long-term solution. Even before the end of the war in Europe there was a lot of tension regarding the Soviet 'occupation' of Eastern Europe and Poland, by the end of the Pacific War the US already knew that their next potential challenge would be with the USSR over Europe, the US was not willing to see the war with japan end in 1946 or 1947, which is how long, at the very LEAT it would have taken for a blockade to force the surrender of Japan, if it would have worked at all. Thus, their two options were the bomb or invasion, to obtain a shorter term solution.
QUOTE
If there is a way to win without resorting to barbarism, why shouldn't it be used? A civilian's life counts as a life regardless of nationality; how much more tens of thousands of lives?
How 2003 of you. Look I am not arguing your sentiment here, nor the morality behind it. I am simply trying to remind you that 1945 is not 2003, and these arguments had little place. EResort to barbarism? How is the use of the bombs any different, to the mind of 1945, from the mass bombings and firebombings which had already occurred? To us there is some vast quantum leap between conventional and atomic bombing, due to our experiences with the fear of the cold war, but that did not exist for strategic planners back then. Even your petition does not object to the bomb on military of moral grounds.
QUOTE
Because this new capability was ours did not give us the right to use it from an ethical standpoint in a nation and group of nations (the Allies) pledged to avoid killing civilians.
When exactly did the allies pledge not to kill civilians prior to the dropping of the atomic bomb?
QUOTE
They would not have been disappointed, therefore, had a negotiated settlement come about after a demonstration had been shown to the Japanese without taking the lives of so many civilians.
True enough, but as I have already explained in some detail, there was no option for a negotiated settlement that did not leave Japan intact and unoccupied, which was not acceptable (for good reason) to the Allies. So with that option removd, what is left?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.