Hiroshima & Nagasaki - On the 65th Anniversary of Nagasaki

[jbg]

Modern apologetic commentary about Hiroshima neglects the fact that for the Japanese people themselves, the nuclear attacks more than arguably reduced casualties. If the intensity of fighting at Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima is any guide, a conventional invasion would have created an even larger bloodbath, for Allied troops but even more so for Japanese civilians.

Just as importantly, the use of the nuclear weapon in Japan is an exceedingly rare example of a situation where its use would be primarily to take or reclaim territory. Usually, the nuclear weapon would be used as a "tripwire" device triggered by a conventional invasion. As Paul Luttwak pointed out in the July 1982 issue, the level of conventional forces needed to defend the West against a Soviet conventional attack would be staggering. The Maginot and Bar-Lev lines did not hold since they were not, and could not be thick enough to resist enemy attack.

Thus, by disarming, the Western countries are rendering themselves defenseless. Our enemies suffer no such disadvantage from disarmament, even assuming that they would honor so-called "arms control" treaties.

Link to related article, excerpts below:

August 9, 2010 is the 65th anniversary of the attack on Nagasaki, the second and final of two nuclear bombings by the U.S. of Japan. Today’s ceremony commemorating the 65th anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima had something new: the presence of the U.S. ambassador to Japan.

*********************

Mourning the loss of so many lives in the bombing is both understandable and appropriate. But the problem lies in the way Japan remembers World War II. One of the reasons why it would have been appropriate for the United States to avoid its official presence at this ceremony is that the Japanese have never taken full responsibility for their own conduct during the war that the Hiroshima bombing helped end. Indeed, to listen to the Japanese, their involvement in the war sounds limited to the incineration of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the fire bombings of many other urban centers in the country, followed by a humiliating American occupation. The horror of the two nuclear bombs didn’t just wipe out two cities and force Japan’s government to finally bow to the inevitable and surrender. For 65 years it has served as a magic event that has erased from the collective memory of the Japanese people the vicious aggression and countless war crimes committed against not only the Allied powers but also the peoples of Asia who fell under their cruel rule in the 1930s and 1940s. The bombing of Hiroshima was horrible, but it ought not, as it has for all these years, to serve as an excuse for the Japanese people to forget the crimes their government and armed forces committed throughout their empire during the years that preceded the dropping of the first nuclear bomb.

***********************

The other troubling context to this event is the emphasis on banning nuclear weapons as the end all of contemporary foreign policy — a message reinforced by United Nations General-Secretary Ban Ki Moon, who cited President Obama’s support for this cause in his remarks at Hiroshima. The notion that nuclear weapons themselves are a threat to the world and must be banned is the sort of piety we expect to be mouthed at Hiroshima, but it betrays a lack of both historical and contemporary understanding of strategic realities. These weapons may be terrible, but the plain truth is that their existence kept the peace between the rival superpowers during the Cold War. America’s nuclear arsenal ensured the freedom of Western Europe as well as that of Japan after World War II.

******************

[dre]

I personally dont think they atomic bombings of civilian cities was necessary. The Imperial Navy was already destroyed at this point, as was Japans airforce, and they were effectively contained. Japan may not have officially surrendered but they had no pieces on the board to fight back with at that point.

[jbg]

I personally dont think they atomic bombings of civilian cities was necessary. The Imperial Navy was already destroyed at this point, as was Japans airforce, and they were effectively contained. Japan may not have officially surrendered but they had no pieces on the board to fight back with at that point.

Ever try conventionally attacking a thickly settled island nation that would have been fanatically defended? Iwo Jima would have looked like a walk in the park.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Ever try conventionally attacking a thickly settled island nation that would have been fanatically defended? Iwo Jima would have looked like a walk in the park.

Ever hear of a naval blockade? Island nation can't produce enough food to their people. All they have to do is wait.

[ToadBrother]

I personally dont think they atomic bombings of civilian cities was necessary. The Imperial Navy was already destroyed at this point, as was Japans airforce, and they were effectively contained. Japan may not have officially surrendered but they had no pieces on the board to fight back with at that point.

I tend to go with three explanations.

1. As the invasion of Okinawa demonstrated, even when all reasonable hope of military success, the Japanese soldiers, and even civilians fought hard. To the Allied planners this was a clear signal that an invasion of the Japanese main islands would be an enormously bloody affair.

2. Stalin was pushing hard to gain the same sort of Russian involvement in post-war Japan that it had gained in East and Central Europe. The other Allies felt it absolutely necessary to end the War in the Pacific before the Russians could make good on their declaration of war of Japan.

3. This is intertwined with point 2, but even before Victory in Europe, the Brits and Americans knew that some sort of major conflict with the USSR was inevitable once the Axis had been dealt with. As harsh as it sounds, Hiroshima and Nagasaki sent a clear message to the Soviets that any attempt on their part to utilize the stunningly massive number of Soviet troops in Europe would be met with terrifying force. Maybe it's overstated, but in my opinion the bombing of those two cities prevented WWIII.

In the balance of things, there were in fact worse options than the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, lots of civilians died, but it's almost certain that an invasion of the main islands would have lead to far higher casualties. What's more, preventing the USSR from seizing more of Japan than it already ultimately did (the Kuril Islands for instance) ultimately delivered a united Japan which became a staunch Western ally. One can envision the terrors of the heavily industrialized Japan split down the middle like the Koreas.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ever hear of a naval blockade? Island nation can't produce enough food to their people. All they have to do is wait.

Wait for what? How many troops did Canada lose "waiting" for Japan to capitulate?

[ToadBrother]

Ever hear of a naval blockade? Island nation can't produce enough food to their people. All they have to do is wait.

If we hadn't have struck, the Soviets would have invaded. You, like a lot of folks who rule against the bombings, tend to forget the larger looming geopolitical issues of the time. Eastern and parts of Central Europe were already effectively lost. Any delay would have given Stalin time to push on and seek for the same settlement that he had managed to achieve in Europe.

[Bonam]

In the balance of things, there were in fact worse options than the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, lots of civilians died, but it's almost certain that an invasion of the main islands would have lead to far higher casualties. What's more, preventing the USSR from seizing more of Japan than it already ultimately did (the Kuril Islands for instance) ultimately delivered a united Japan which became a staunch Western ally. One can envision the terrors of the heavily industrialized Japan split down the middle like the Koreas.

Yes, "North Japan" and "South Japan", used as another proxy battlefield in the 60s or 70s, woulda been a lot worse for the Japanese on the whole.

[ToadBrother]

Wait for what? How many troops did Canada lose "waiting" for Japan to capitulate?

I'm not even sure how you could hope for any interdiction against a place like Japan. I doubt even with the combined Allied fleets that it would have been possible, and we'd still be left with the massive numbers of civilian deaths, this time not localized to a couple of cities, but throughout the entire islands, and if someone thinks that slow starvation is better than the casualties from an atomic attack, I'd say their moral compass is screwed on very badly.

But as I've pointed out, there were more issues than just getting the Japanese to surrender. Time was of the essence, and the Americans needed something that would force an unconditional surrender quickly.

[dre]

Ever hear of a naval blockade? Island nation can't produce enough food to their people. All they have to do is wait.

Not only that but the allies could fly over Japan virtually unopposed at that point. They could maintained a naval blockade and bombed military facilities at will using conventional weapons until Japan surrendered.

[Shwa]

Ever hear of a naval blockade? Island nation can't produce enough food to their people. All they have to do is wait.

Wait for what? A couple million people to starve to death or rot away from lack of food and medicine? Or to rebuild their bombed out factories and renew the bloodshed? Or would you keep bombing them with conventional weapons until a couple million were dead and millions more living in rubble. Try rebuilding from that. Actually, trying invading that, then rebuilding.

The problem is that the Japanese used the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to mourn themselves and take on the role of victim. The people who suffered in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were victims, for sure, but the rest of Japan wasn't.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not only that but the allies could fly over Japan virtually unopposed at that point. They could maintained a naval blockade and bombed military facilities at will using conventional weapons until Japan surrendered.

DUH! The strategic bombing of Japanese cities with incendiaries killed far more people than Fat Man or Little Boy.

You can read all about this at my new B-29 Museum in Nagasaki!

[Guest TrueMetis]

If we hadn't have struck, the Soviets would have invaded. You, like a lot of folks who rule against the bombings, tend to forget the larger looming geopolitical issues of the time. Eastern and parts of Central Europe were already effectively lost. Any delay would have given Stalin time to push on and seek for the same settlement that he had managed to achieve in Europe.

I'm not against the bombing I was just saying there where other options.

[bush_cheney2004]

....But as I've pointed out, there were more issues than just getting the Japanese to surrender. Time was of the essence, and the Americans needed something that would force an unconditional surrender quickly.

That's right...it was an American decision, made with great forethought and calculation. The reasons are well documented and today's politically correct opinions (out of context) are meaningless. Given the same circumstances, the USA would do it all over again.

[ToadBrother]

DUH! The strategic bombing of Japanese cities with incendiaries killed far more people than Fat Man or Little Boy.

You can read all about this at my new B-29 Museum in Nagasaki!

As they say, NO FSCKING KIDDING!!!!

Man oh man, does anybody read history any more. It's not like WWII is ancient history like the Battle of Hastings or the Punic Wars. General bombing campaigns were horrendously destructive, and took out a helluva lot of unintended targets.

People seem to think WWII bombers could do these highly selective runs, when in fact it was often a lot of hits and misses. They didn't have laser-guided bombs. A high altitude bomber hoped there wasn't too much cloud cover, dropped his load and got the crap out of there before defending aircraft or anti-aircraft artillery blew them out of the sky.

This idea of a naval interdiction is pure idiocy. Even more idiotic is thinking conventional bombing campaigns would have caused less casualties. Most idiotic of all is thinking that the Russians would just sort of kicked up their heels and watched.

[Bonam]

The problem is that the Japanese used the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to mourn themselves and take on the role of victim.

No actually that's precisely what Japan didn't do and one of the reasons why it became so successful in the aftermath. Rather than wallowing in self-pity, the Japanese, and the Germans too, set about rebuilding their respective countries. That is of course in stark contrast to losing parties of some more recent wars...

[ToadBrother]

That's right...it was an American decision, made with great forethought and calculation. The reasons are well documented and today's politically correct opinions (out of context) are meaningless. Given the same circumstances, the USA would do it all over again.

Given the same set of circumstances, any Great Power would. The most significant thing, I my mind, was that there just wasn't enough time. Once the Russians declared war on Japan, they were going to move damned quickly to make that mean more than just clearing up the rats nests in Manchuria. By forcing a fast unconditional surrender, the Americans prevented Stalin seizing some part of Japan and creating yet another Iron Curtain. As much as I do sympathize with the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is there anyone in Japan who seriously thinks having the Soviets occupying all or part of their country was a better alternative?

Edited August 9, 2010 by ToadBrother

[jbg]

Ever hear of a naval blockade? Island nation can't produce enough food to their people. All they have to do is wait.

Would a Japan-wide, Biafra-like famine have produced lower civilian casualties than the nuclear attacks?

[bush_cheney2004]

No actually that's precisely what Japan didn't do and one of the reasons why it became so successful in the aftermath. Rather than wallowing in self-pity, the Japanese, and the Germans too, set about rebuilding their respective countries. That is of course in stark contrast to losing parties of some more recent wars...

Correct...the quicker they accepted total defeat the faster they could begin rebuilding with American aid and Cold War role(s).

[ToadBrother]

No actually that's precisely what Japan didn't do and one of the reasons why it became so successful in the aftermath. Rather than wallowing in self-pity, the Japanese, and the Germans too, set about rebuilding their respective countries. That is of course in stark contrast to losing parties of some more recent wars...

Let's not forget that the US spent a considerable amount of coin in Europe and Japan, and in South Korea (if you view the Korean conflict as an extension of the inevitable race between the Soviets and the West). People tend to forget that the Marshal Plan went a long way towards creating the prosperous and free Western Europe, and that the Occupation of Japan turned a mortal enemy into the West's key Asian ally during the Cold War.

[ToadBrother]

Would a Japan-wide, Biafra-like famine have produced lower civilian casualties than the nuclear attacks?

What's more, what would you have left once it was all done? The quick end to the war meant quick mobilization of Japan's industrial capacity to rebuild the nation. Lots of manpower, a surprisingly successful transition of militaristic Imperial government to peaceful Parliamentary democracy remade Japan within the space of a decade. Making Japan into a twisted, starving skeleton of a nation would have made that job much harder, and I think the resentment that would have naturally (and rightly) grown from it would have driven the Japs into Soviet hands.

Beyond that, I still maintain that a naval blockade was impossible, not even considering what the Soviets would have been doing. What an absurd idea.

[dre]

Would a Japan-wide, Biafra-like famine have produced lower civilian casualties than the nuclear attacks?

Its pure speculation to assume that would have happened if a blockade had been used in conjunction with an aerial bombardment compaign of military targets. There was a whole host of other options on the table.

[ToadBrother]

Its pure speculation to assume that would have happened if a blockade had been used in conjunction with an aerial bombardment compaign of military targets. There was a whole host of other options on the table.

Considering that Stalin was pushing for a voice in Japanese affairs (as it had gained in Central Europe and in the Korean Peninsula), please detail these options for me. I'd love to hear about them.

[DogOnPorch]

Japan had already been under naval blockade since the first US patrol sub started its cruise. The US undersea war vs Japanese shipping was one of the great success stories of WW2.

Edited August 9, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[bush_cheney2004]

Its pure speculation to assume that would have happened if a blockade had been used in conjunction with an aerial bombardment compaign of military targets. There was a whole host of other options on the table.

All rejected as inadequate in bringing the war to a quick ending. Where was Canada's blockade?