US bombing of Japan in WW2

O'Leprosy

brianthebard wrote:

You what? Japan attacked America. It took over half the pacific. They were the conquering army during WWII. Jesus how do you come up with this ****?

Pearl Harbour was a war crime, the rape of Nanking was a war crime, the abuse and deaths of thousands of Allied soldiers in capitivity by the Japanese was a war crime, etc. When I point out an injustice, do I have to qualify it by pointing out the injustice carried out by the other side everytime ?

brianthebard

That would be great, thanks. :rolleyes:

burnedfaceman

good thread, i dont think this has been mentioned here but there is a book which covers this topic in depth i would recommend it to all interested on topic, the decison to drop the atomic bomb by gar alperovitz

OS119

O'Leprosy wrote:

The Americans could have dropped it on an offshore island to demonstrate to the Japanese they had it and the power of it. As fanatical as the Japanese government was, they would have capitulated to the US, and hence the terrible loss of 200,000 innocent lives could have been avoided.

had the US dropped the weapon on an offshore island in a highly visable warning, as had been considered, the US believed the Japanese would of taken such a decision as proof that the US hadn't the will to invade the mainlands, and as such wouldn't of demonstrated anything but weakness. to drop yet another weapon in the same circumstances would of proved even greater weakness.

this seems bizaare to people who understand how far and hard the US had fought across the Pacific theatre to get to Japan, but there were some seriously deluded people in the Japanese government.

given the casualties on Okinowa - 200,000 dead Japanese alone - including one third of the civilian population, its not surprising that the US extrapolated that data, overlayed it on to Japan 'proper' and said 'fcuk that'.

given that the US was going to utterly destroy Japan, utterly dominate it, as the most fundamental of its war aims, using the two weapons on real targets in quick sucession - with the publicly declared intention to just keep up with the bombing until Japan either surrendered unconditionally or ceased to exist - certainly killed far fewer Japanese civilians than the inevitable invasion and land battles on the Japanese mainland.

10 atomic bombs each killing 90,000 would still of - as believed by the US after their experience on Okinowa - killed less than an invasion.

hard, nasty, but still true.

liamdubh

brianthebard wrote:

Yes but they only had two more.

They were unable to build any more bombs ever? And you're wrong, they had more and the capability to build more.

And given the tenacity of the Japanese forces that far into the war there was a strong fear that Japan would not surrender after the first or even second bomb then America would have no answer, save a full on invasion.

Can you be any more vague? "Strong fear", "feeling", "expectation"....who, what, when where?

The fact is the Japanese were at the point of surrendering at that time, possibly only days from doing so. They were almost defenseless against mass bombing raids which had been going on for months by the time the Americans had dropped the atomic bomb. There was a fanatical fight-to-the-last-man wing to the Japanese establishment but there were other factions and a lot of pragmatists in the Japanese government. The Americans knew this. The real "fear" was Japan would surrender before they could drop the bomb. The fact is, the purpose of the bomb was not to bring the war to an end (it was over bar the surrender) but to demonstrate American power to the world before the war was over. As pure an example of mass terrorism as you're ever likely to get.

The plan to invade existed alright, as did casualty estimates of millions dying, but atomic bomb or no atomic bomb Japan was going to surrender and no invasion would have been necessary. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

liamdubh

PHB wrote:

For the same reason Germany had to. Their entire society had to be reformed, and it was. It's why Germany and Japan are now leading democracies in the world. It's because of their forced un-conditional surrender.

Ultimately, more were killed in most single bombing raids than were killed by the atomic bomb, and it was war. I wouldn't have asked them to stop their bombing campaigns anymore than I would have asked them not to use the nuke.

The only reason Japan "had to" surrender unconditionally is because it was a condition imposed by the Allies. That's the only reason. Anything else is a subjective moral judgement. I actually agree in Germany's case that it was necessary.

brianthebard

liamdubh wrote:

The only reason Japan "had to" surrender unconditionally is because it was a condition imposed by the Allies. That's the only reason. Anything else is a subjective moral judgement. I actually agree in Germany's case that it was necessary.

Why do you agree in terms of Germany's surrender but not Japan's? if anything the Japanese people were even more dedicated to their Emperor and the war than the German people.

PHB

The only reason Japan "had to" surrender unconditionally is because it was a condition imposed by the Allies. That's the only reason. Anything else is a subjective moral judgement. I actually agree in Germany's case that it was necessary.

Well everything is subjective. But my point is that unconditional surrender was required in order for the US tot take over Japan for the next 15-20 years.

Shutuplaura

O'Leprosy wrote:

I have no intelligent response to that statement, so therefore I will insult you [Edited by PHB ]



Exactly.


Jayus, your a real blood n' guts Rambo aren't you. For a country like this that suffered so much from imperial thuggery and mass murder, I would have thought an Irish person would instinctively question the injustice of conquering armies and feel some sympathy for the victims.

Yeah, I'm a real blood and guts rambo.

I figure its more realistic to blame the Japanese government of the time for forcing the americans hands on the matter. As for the bomb not working - It makes sense to me - a detonation from the air hadn't been attempted before and it has never been tried in combat. It was also only the second nuclear detonation ever wasn't it. If it hadn't worked perfectly - The americans would have been left looking stupid, and their claims to have a secret weapon left looking a lot like the Germans with their V weapons. Also, telling the japanese they are going to drop it on an offshore island. We will be sending one plane accross to bomb an offshore island on X date at y time. Please don't shoot it down as its carrying something important to show you. Come on! Maybe they could have asked the Japanese government to suggest a suitably barren island to ensure no innocent goats got nuked.

War is bloody murder and don't think I'm some sort of old glory waving twat just becasue I say its not all black and white. How was nuking japan worse than targeting its population by sending almost their entire merchant fllet to the bottom. Given that the Japanese were a net importer of food it was a pretty rough thing to do. How were the Yanks going to win the war without restricting the Japanese merchant fleets ability to supply its armies. How would this lengthing of the war have helped Javanese slave labourers being worked to death all over the greater east asia co prosperity sphere. It surprises me that you don't have more sympathy for poor suffering starving peoples in asia given the Irish spud famine's terrible effect on the irish people. Actually - an island race, sea empire, monarchy, great naval tradition, drink a lot of tea... hey now that you mention it the japanese look a lot like another country not a million miles away that you seem to love having a hammer at.

The war had closed down international trade around the most densly populated areas of the world. Hardly the Yanks fault in fairness. People were starving to death at a rate of something like 200,000 a month by the summer of 1945 (according to wikipedia). Thinking about it - ending a war quickly by dropping a nuke - after asking them to surrender to avoid further loos of life was definately the best of a bad lot.

O'Leprosy

Shutuplaura wrote:

Yeah, I'm a real blood and guts rambo.

I figure its more realistic to blame the Japanese government of the time for forcing the americans hands on the matter. As for the bomb not working - It makes sense to me - a detonation from the air hadn't been attempted before and it has never been tried in combat. It was also only the second nuclear detonation ever wasn't it. If it hadn't worked perfectly - The americans would have been left looking stupid, and their claims to have a secret weapon left looking a lot like the Germans with their V weapons.

I would have thought that if their was a high risk of it not detonating the US would have tried exploding it on a remote offshore island first, rather than dropping it on an urban area where it could be easily salvaged, and examined, copied by the Japanese if it failed to go off ? Surely it would have been better to " look stupid" by taking the risk of dropping it from a plane on an offshore island and would have been worth the risk at saving the lives of 200,000 innocent people ? Other people have posted that they were capabale of producing more atomic bombs in the weeks and months following, surely so many lives could have been spared.

Shutuplaura wrote:

Also, telling the japanese they are going to drop it on an offshore island. We will be sending one plane accross to bomb an offshore island on X date at y time. Please don't shoot it down as its carrying something important to show you. Come on! Maybe they could have asked the Japanese government to suggest a suitably barren island to ensure no innocent goats got nuked.

Where did I state the US should have told the Japanese govt. where they were going to drop it on ?

Shutuplaura wrote:

War is bloody murder and don't think I'm some sort of old glory waving twat just becasue I say its not all black and white. How was nuking japan worse than targeting its population by sending almost their entire merchant fllet to the bottom. Given that the Japanese were a net importer of food it was a pretty rough thing to do. How were the Yanks going to win the war without restricting the Japanese merchant fleets ability to supply its armies. How would this lengthing of the war have helped Javanese slave labourers being worked to death all over the greater east asia co prosperity sphere. It surprises me that you don't have more sympathy for poor suffering starving peoples in asia given the Irish spud famine's terrible effect on the irish people. Actually - an island race, sea empire, monarchy, great naval tradition, drink a lot of tea... hey now that you mention it the japanese look a lot like another country not a million miles away that you seem to love having a hammer at.

The war had closed down international trade around the most densly populated areas of the world. Hardly the Yanks fault in fairness. People were starving to death at a rate of something like 200,000 a month by the summer of 1945 (according to wikipedia). Thinking about it - ending a war quickly by dropping a nuke - after asking them to surrender to avoid further loos of life was definately the best of a bad lot.

Probably the dropping of the atomic bomb to releif the starving millions in Asia would have been the last thing on the mind of the military decision makers. Don't try to make out that it was. " It surprises me that you don't have more sympathy for poor suffering starving peoples in asia ". Don't know how I indicated that I didn't have sympathy for starving people in Asia. You just draw your own conclusions anyway.

brianthebard

O'Leprosy wrote:

I would have thought that if their was a high risk of it not detonating the US would have tried exploding it on a remote offshore island first, rather than dropping it on an urban area where it could be easily salvaged, and examined, copied by the Japanese if it failed to go off ? Surely it would have been better to " look stupid" by taking the risk of dropping it from a plane on an offshore island and would have been worth the risk at saving the lives of 200,000 innocent people ? Other people have posted that they were capabale of producing more atomic bombs in the weeks and months following, surely so many lives could have been spared.

Its a nuke, not a bullet. There's no way they could have copied it within a year, at the very least. Look how long the Nazi's spent fruitlessly trying to build a similar bomb. Someone claimed they were capable of building another one, but I don't believe they were. I'll have to look for an article to back that up, but I think the length of time it took to build them and the fact that they hadn't built, say three, instead of two, is a pretty strong indicator that America did not have the capacity to produce another atom bomb within six months, never mind a month.
Edit: I'll continue to look for an article that properly outlines this event, but for now we know that the Manhattan project, which was dedicated to figuring out how to create atomic weapons, began in 1939 and it was only in 1945 that they had managed to build two bombs. It took the USSR years to build a atom bomb, even after they stole the plans from the US and basically built an exact replica. There is no way that Japan could've recovered an undetonated bomb and build another one in any sort of useful time.

Where did I state the US should have told the Japanese govt. where they were going to drop it on ?

So you just drop a bomb and hope they'll care? How will they know what it was? How will they know that it wasn't just a fancy lights show?

Shutuplaura

O'Leprosy wrote:

I would have thought that if their was a high risk of it not detonating the US would have tried exploding it on a remote offshore island first, rather than dropping it on an urban area where it could be easily salvaged, and examined, copied by the Japanese if it failed to go off ? Surely it would have been better to " look stupid" by taking the risk of dropping it from a plane on an offshore island and would have been worth the risk at saving the lives of 200,000 innocent people ? Other people have posted that they were capabale of producing more atomic bombs in the weeks and months following, surely so many lives could have been spared.

Where did I state the US should have told the Japanese govt. where they were going to drop it on ?

Probably the dropping of the atomic bomb to releif the starving millions in Asia would have been the last thing on the mind of the military decision makers. Don't try to make out that it was. " It surprises me that you don't have more sympathy for poor suffering starving peoples in asia ". Don't know how I indicated that I didn't have sympathy for starving people in Asia. You just draw your own conclusions anyway.

So You really really think that the american government should have picked an uninhabited island off the coast of japan, secretly bombed it and then told the japanese government that if they didn't watch out they would be next? God, what if the Japanese said, "err, no we are too busy with something else to check on some remote far away lump of rock at the moment."? And as for the Japanese cloning the nuke, I am pretty sure that this was beyond them in 1945, even if they knew what this thing that landed on them was.

And as for the americans not wanting to end the war to stop famine in asia, I admit it probably wasn't number 1 on their list but how can you say it wasn't one of a number of considerations?

And about your lack of sympathy - well tbh it was made on the back of your comments about my supposed lack of sympahy for the Japanese killed but it also does seem like you are more interested in bashing the yanks than considering the facts. It is more fun than bashing the Japanese I suppose. Sorry if you think I'm drawing my own conclusions - its something you are very fond of in fairness.

O'Leprosy

brianthebard and Shutuplaura - Yeah, ok.

patto_chan

Book suggestion:
The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes

spooiirt!!

Ive read a japanese book which explained that the entire japanese population would have fought against the invaders - old men, women, wounded etc. In the book the female narrator described the old man next door cutting bamboos which were to be used as weapons against the usa.
they would all have died before they surrendered. After the bombs were dropped the emperor addressed his people by radio that they were not to fight till the death after all, Bbecause he saw that the americans didnt have to bother invading japan, they could just wipe the whole country out with nuclear weapons if japan didnt surrender.
I think it was right to drop the bombs.

O'Leprosy

spooiirt!! wrote:

Ive read a japanese book which explained that the entire japanese population would have fought against the invaders - old men, women, wounded etc. In the book the female narrator described the old man next door cutting bamboos which were to be used as weapons against the usa.
they would all have died before they surrendered. After the bombs were dropped the emperor addressed his people by radio that they were not to fight till the death after all, Bbecause he saw that the americans didnt have to bother invading japan, they could just wipe the whole country out with nuclear weapons if japan didnt surrender.
I think it was right to drop the bombs.

And what about baby eating as well, you forgot that one :rolleyes:

Erin Go Brath

spooiirt!! wrote:

Ive read a japanese book which explained that the entire japanese population would have fought against the invaders - old men, women, wounded etc. In the book the female narrator described the old man next door cutting bamboos which were to be used as weapons against the usa.
they would all have died before they surrendered. After the bombs were dropped the emperor addressed his people by radio that they were not to fight till the death after all, Bbecause he saw that the americans didnt have to bother invading japan, they could just wipe the whole country out with nuclear weapons if japan didnt surrender.
I think it was right to drop the bombs.

You can't surely be condoning the dropping of A-bombs in an urban area killing tens of thousands of people?? Does life not mean anything anymore?? The Americans, along with the British are one of the most despised nations in the world because of their disgraceful history of mass killing acts.

spooiirt!!

Whereas fighting the japanese population till they die because they cant bear the idea of the great japanese empire surrendering is sooo much more humane eh?

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

The Americans, along with the British are one of the most despised nations in the world because of their disgraceful history of mass killing acts.

any excuse :rolleyes:

Victor

O'Leprosy wrote:

Pearl Harbour was a war crime

Only insofaras it was agression.

PHB

Everything is a war crime these days, what's a war anymore?

McArmalite

Erin Go Brath wrote:

You can't surely be condoning the dropping of A-bombs in an urban area killing tens of thousands of people?? Does life not mean anything anymore?? The Americans, along with the British are one of the most despised nations in the world because of their disgraceful history of mass killing acts.

Fratton Fred wrote:

any excuse :rolleyes:

More rascism against you Fred. Come on Fred, show us some of that british bulldog spirit that won the war and don't take it from them.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote:

More rascism against you Fred. Come on Fred, show us some of that british bulldog spirit that won the war and don't take it from them.

5 posts. 3 of which have been directed at me.

I'm not used to such attention:rolleyes:

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote:

any excuse :rolleyes:

The day you lot stop fighting illegal wars around the world is the day I'll give yihs a break

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

The day you lot stop fighting illegal wars around the world is the day I'll give yihs a break

I'll hold you to that