Hiroshima & Nagasaki - On the 65th Anniversary of Nagasaki

[dre]

And how would either of those options prevented a large number of deaths, and more to the point prevented a Soviet invasion?

By forcing a surrender.

[bush_cheney2004]

....My position on this from a moral standpoint is more absolute, and more in tune with the world today and all the treaties signed since ww2. And that basically says that there IS no justification for targetting civilians, and even if you can find an argument from utility (which you always can if you look hard enough) its still wrong.

Your "moral" position is irrelevant...even today. The threat of annihilation for millions of civilians has actually kept the nuclear peace since the Cold War. Your argument rings hollow because it still advocates for the death of civilains by many other means, including "starvation".

[dre]

Your "moral" position is irrelevant...even today. The threat of annihilation for millions of civilians has actually kept the nuclear peace since the Cold War. Your argument rings hollow because it still advocates for the death of civilains by many other means, including "starvation".

Your argument rings hollow because it still advocates for the death of civilains by many other means, including "starvation".

Nice job Trevor... thats gotta be strawman 10 or 12 between you, Cory, and Randy?

[DogOnPorch]

By forcing a surrender.

Like by say...dropping some sort of uber weapon?

[bush_cheney2004]

Nice job Trevor... thats gotta be strawman 10 or 12 between you, Cory, and Randy?

I don't mind being Trevor or Cory.....sure beats being a PUTZ !

[dre]

Like by say...dropping some sort of uber weapon?

Yes thats exactly what I said.

[DogOnPorch]

I don't mind being Trevor or Cory.....sure beats being a PUTZ !

Randy.

[DogOnPorch]

Yes thats exactly what I said.

Then finally you see things the way the Americans did in light of the reality on the ground in 1945. Well done.

[dre]

Then finally you see things the way the Americans did in light of the reality on the ground in 1945. Well done.

Youre having a really hard time following here arent you Trevor? I never once said that Atomic weapons shouldnt have been used... not once... not anywhere.

[Bonam]

The laws of morality are abrogated in all out war. The objective is to defeat the enemy and come home alive. Any means, any weapon, capable of bringing about that objective, is fair game. WWII was such a war.

The greater evil by far would have been to allow the genocidal regimes of Japan and Germany to survive any longer than they did. Do not forget that a large contingent of the Japanese army remained in China, where they were perpetrating some of the most disgusting atrocities of the war.

[DogOnPorch]

Youre having a really hard time following here arent you Trevor? I never once said that Atomic weapons shouldnt have been used... not once... not anywhere.

You haven't said much of anything other than being a Helen Lovejoy.

http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Helen_Lovejoy

The ideal way to have avoided Americans causing civilian casualties would have been to let the Empire of Japan get away with its invasion of numerous countries/islands not to mention Pearl Harbor. Voila. Peace in our time.

[DogOnPorch]

...and it was more like so-called civilians as Japan was engaged in Total War as per Germany. Pretty much everyone of military age including many women were involved in Japan's war effort.

[dre]

You haven't said much of anything other than being a Helen Lovejoy.

http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Helen_Lovejoy

The ideal way to have avoided Americans causing civilian casualties would have been to let the Empire of Japan get away with its invasion of numerous countries/islands not to mention Pearl Harbor. Voila. Peace in our time.

You havent read a single post in this thread, Trevor.

[Peter F]

The facts were:

1. The Reds had declared war on Japan and were going to cross the Sea of Japan.

2. Even without the pressure of having the Soviets seize more Japanese soil than they already had (ever heard of the Kurils, my moralizing friend?), a full-blown naval blockade would have been enormously difficult, enormously expensive, wouldn't have accomplished the job, and if it did, would have seen millions starve.

3. A land invasion would have cost tens of thousands of Allied (read: American) casualties, hundreds of thousands if not millions of Japanese lives (the extraordinarily spirited defense of Okinawa proved that one), would have taken months, would have lead to far greater devastation.

If you have some other option, then put it on the table.

Your facts are supposition:

1. After the Yalta conference the far east had already been divvied up. USSR gets Manchuria, Allies get the rest. Where you get the idea that Stalin is going to rush on to conquer Japan when the worlds greatest fleet has complete and utter control of the waves around Japan, beats the hell out of me. Regarding Stalin's perfidity with the Kuriles: He wasnt. Point 3 of the "Agreement Regarding Japan" Yalta Agreement specifically agrees that the Ruski's get the Kuriles.

Yet, the Americans must have 'action this day' to forestall a Russian invasion and takeover of Japan? Absolute Bunk.

The facts are that Russia was not going to invade Japan...for the simple and obvious reason that the Americans would not let them. No Nukes required to make that a reality. There was no way in hell for the Russians to invade Japan without American fleets letting them.

Wasn't going to happen even if Stalin threw the agreement out the window.

2. a full-blown naval blockade was indeed enormously difficult and enormously expensive. And was indeed accomplishing the job. The Japanese were already seeking terms beyond 'no terms'. and their terms were falling away pretty goddam quick to. They supposed they had a negotiating point with the existance of the Manchurian army. But the Russians exposed that for the fantasy it was when they demolished it in quick time after declaring war. By the time the bombs fell the only sticking point the Japanese were trying to come to terms with was the sanctity of the Emporer.

The Japanese were done like dinner and they knew it! Yes, a naval blockade alone would perhaps have required months before the Japanese accepted unconditional surrender. But the bombs were dropped; the Emporer acted and unconditional surrender accepted. I wonder what would have happened without the bombs being dropped and a conditional surrender offered: You get to keep the emporer? They gave them that condition anyways!

I don't beleive it would have been months but mere days for surrender if that condition had been offered after the Russian invasion.

3. The main islands of Japan are not Iwo Jima. Iwo Jima is a little tiny place where an attacker has very few options and is almost completely exposed - all the time - dominated by one mountain. Thus the bloodiness of the campaign. The claim that the same would happen in Japan is to ignore the completely different geographic conditions. It became a talking point to justify the bombs but was not reality.

The Ruski's cruised through Manchuria against the very same Japanese. Why were'nt they bogged down in inumerable bloody campaigns?

Because they weren't fighting on Iwo Jima thats why. The point is moot anyways since no invasion was required.

But the bombs were used. I think BC explained why very succintly. And in a war where 20 plus millions died a couple of hundred thousand is a drop in the bucket. WWII showed - again, as if we needed showing - that war is hell.

Thats all from my armchair, as if you are pronouncing from somewhere on high!

[Bonam]

Your facts are supposition:

1. After the Yalta conference the far east had already been divvied up. USSR gets Manchuria, Allies get the rest. Where you get the idea that Stalin is going to rush on to conquer Japan when the worlds greatest fleet has complete and utter control of the waves around Japan, beats the hell out of me. Regarding Stalin's perfidity with the Kuriles: He wasnt. Point 3 of the "Agreement Regarding Japan" Yalta Agreement specifically agrees that the Ruski's get the Kuriles.

Yet, the Americans must have 'action this day' to forestall a Russian invasion and takeover of Japan? Absolute Bunk.

The facts are that Russia was not going to invade Japan...for the simple and obvious reason that the Americans would not let them. No Nukes required to make that a reality. There was no way in hell for the Russians to invade Japan without American fleets letting them.

Wasn't going to happen even if Stalin threw the agreement out the window.Thats all from my armchair, as if you are pronouncing from somewhere on high!

Bollocks. If Japan had not yet surrendered, and a Russian invasion fleet was on its way, there is no way in hell that the Americans would have impeded or, even more unthinkably, actually opened fire on the Russian ships. You think America was looking for more war (with the USSR) in 1945? They would have made a quick calculation and decided that they might as well let Stalin bleed the Russian army in Japan, thus saving themselves the need to expend as much on any American invasion of Japan.

2. a full-blown naval blockade was indeed enormously difficult and enormously expensive. And was indeed accomplishing the job. The Japanese were already seeking terms beyond 'no terms'. and their terms were falling away pretty goddam quick to. They supposed they had a negotiating point with the existance of the Manchurian army. But the Russians exposed that for the fantasy it was when they demolished it in quick time after declaring war. By the time the bombs fell the only sticking point the Japanese were trying to come to terms with was the sanctity of the Emporer.

The Russians may have defeated the army in Manchuria but it was far from destroyed. Chinese people continued to be killed in twisted medical experiments for every day that the war lasted longer.

The Japanese were done like dinner and they knew it! Yes, a naval blockade alone would perhaps have required months before the Japanese accepted unconditional surrender. But the bombs were dropped; the Emporer acted and unconditional surrender accepted. I wonder what would have happened without the bombs being dropped and a conditional surrender offered: You get to keep the emporer? They gave them that condition anyways!

I don't beleive it would have been months but mere days for surrender if that condition had been offered after the Russian invasion.

After the Russian invasion? Then they woulda surrendered to the Russians, at least part of the country.

3. The main islands of Japan are not Iwo Jima. Iwo Jima is a little tiny place where an attacker has very few options and is almost completely exposed - all the time - dominated by one mountain. Thus the bloodiness of the campaign. The claim that the same would happen in Japan is to ignore the completely different geographic conditions. It became a talking point to justify the bombs but was not reality.

Umm, Iwo Jima is a "tiny little place", and Japan is the homeland of the Japanese people, with a vast population, much of it willing to die for their emperor. You are kidding yourself if you think they wouldn't have put up a hell of a fight.

The Ruski's cruised through Manchuria against the very same Japanese. Why were'nt they bogged down in inumerable bloody campaigns?

Because they weren't fighting on Iwo Jima thats why. The point is moot anyways since no invasion was required.

Manchuria was an occupied territory, where the native population had nothing but loathing for the Japanese occupier, and moreover Japan's attention was now at home and no longer on foreign conquest, so of course it the Russians could "cruise" through it. Japan would be much different.

But the bombs were used. I think BC explained why very succintly. And in a war where 20 plus millions died a couple of hundred thousand is a drop in the bucket. WWII showed - again, as if we needed showing - that war is hell.

Agreed.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Bonam

[Peter F]

Bollocks. If Japan had not yet surrendered, and a Russian invasion fleet was on its way, there is no way in hell that the Americans would have impeded or, even more unthinkably, actually opened fire on the Russian ships. You think America was looking for more war (with the USSR) in 1945? They would have made a quick calculation and decided that they might as well let Stalin bleed the Russian army in Japan, thus saving themselves the need to expend as much on any American invasion of Japan.

IF Japan had not yet surrendered AND a russian invasion fleet was on its way....

There was no Russian Invasion Fleet. There is absolutely zero evidence - I say again: ZERO - evidence that the Russians were going to invade Japan!

None! This Russian invasion of Japan crap is pure fantasy. And the supposition that America would actually let the russians invade is also dreamland. That the Americans are going to allow the stinkin commies have an effing inch of what was thier prize so that they wouldnt have to invade Japan. Do you have access to some secret documents I don't know about? Something from the files of the KGB regarding Russian invasion plans?

I thought not.

The Russians may have defeated the army in Manchuria but it was far from destroyed. Chinese people continued to be killed in twisted medical experiments for every day that the war lasted longer.

Oh yes. and the folks seeking peace back in Yedo would still consider twisted medical experiments and a destroyed - yes destroyed - army as a negotiating point? You wish!

After the Russian invasion? Then they woulda surrendered to the Russians, at least part of the country.

I was referring to the Russian Manchurian invasion and yes they did surrender to the Russians.

Umm, Iwo Jima is a "tiny little place", and Japan is the homeland of the Japanese people, with a vast population, much of it willing to die for their emperor. You are kidding yourself if you think they wouldn't have put up a hell of a fight.

Manchuria was an occupied territory, where the native population had nothing but loathing for the Japanese occupier, and moreover Japan's attention was now at home and no longer on foreign conquest, so of course it the Russians could "cruise" through it. Japan would be much different.

Of course they'd put up a fight. Who says they wouldn't? They put up a fight against the ruski's too - innefectual, but they did die in droves.

But, again, the point is moot. Since I am claiming no invasion was necessary.

[TimG]

I was doing some general reading on the history of these events and found this interesting tidbit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima

Strategic importance

Pratt did not know, or else could not disclose, the need to take Iwo Jima for delivery of the atomic bomb. Iwo Jima was designated a crucial emergency landing point for the B-29s carrying the atomic bombs destined for Japan in late 1944, at least four months after the European D-Day (6 June 1944); The 509th Composite Group practiced mock emergency landings on Iwo Jima at its Utah base opened in December 1944.[31] B-29s were not entirely reliable, and engine failure was common. Due to the scarcity of materials and engineering complexity, replacement of the bombs could take many months or even years. Thus planners feared that the loss of the bombs into the Pacific would have delayed the end of the war and potentially forced a full scale invasion of the Japanese mainland. Due to the extreme secrecy surrounding the Manhattan Project, the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) could not disclose or even hint at the critical need to take Iwo Jima.[32]

Can any of the history buffs here confirm this? It seems amazing that the US sacrificed 20,000 soldiers in order to make sure they could get the a-bombs to Japan. That is pretty compelling evidence that Americans truely believed that dropping the bomb was a strategic necessity. Edited August 11, 2010 by TimG

[Peter F]

The greater evil by far would have been to allow the genocidal regimes of Japan and Germany to survive any longer than they did. Do not forget that a large contingent of the Japanese army remained in China, where they were perpetrating some of the most disgusting atrocities of the war.

I don't know about that. Dropping nukes on civilians is one of the most disgusting atrocities of the war. Good thing the Emporer got real cause if he

hadn't of stepped up to the plate there would have been quite a few more nuked towns for the japanese to feel like victims (shame on them!) over.

There was going to be no invasion. For fear of Their brave soldiers lives. Instead there would be a continual rain of nukes for as long as it took for the Japanese to accept unconditional surrender.

The Allies were quite willing to carry out some of the most disgusting atrocities of the war over and over and over again. And somehow this is considered Humane. A lesser Evil.

Bunk.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Peter F

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't know about that. Dropping nukes on civilians is one of the most disgusting atrocities of the war.

Yes...frying them with incendiaries is so much more humane! LOL!

There was going to be no invasion. For fear of Their brave soldiers lives. Instead there would be a continual rain of nukes for as long as it took for the Japanese to accept unconditional surrender.

This is an insult to many dead Marines, Soldiers, Airman, and Sailors. How many Canadians died taking Japan?

[Peter F]

This is an insult to many dead Marines, Soldiers, Airman, and Sailors.

You mean the transporting of Nukes to Iwo Jima was a mere empty threat? Canadians only died to keep Hong Kong British.

[bush_cheney2004]

You mean the transporting of Nukes to Iwo Jima was a mere empty threat? Canadians only died to keep Hong Kong British.

There were only three weapons available or enough enriched material to make a few more in short order. Your ideas run counter to the actual experience in the Pacific and many Allied lives lost, not just the dead Americans you want to insult now that they are safely in their graves.

Using your logic, the Allies should have stopped at the River Rhine too.

Edited August 11, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Peter F]

There were only three weapons available or enough enriched material to make a few more in short order. Your ideas run counter to the actual experience in the Pacific and many Allied lives lost, not just the dead Americans you want to insult now that they are safely in their graves.

Using your logic, the Allies should have stopped at the River Rhine too.

Save you "insult" strawman for someone who buys that shit.

[bush_cheney2004]

Save you "insult" strawman for someone who buys that shit.

The only "shit" here is obvious...shoveled by revisionists like you. Oh...and as usual...thank you for the uranium that made the "atrocity" possible.

[capricorn]

Dropping nukes on civilians is one of the most disgusting atrocities of the war.

Well then. It seems you're unaware of the assortment of atrocities committed during wartime. Or is it that you're selective in what you view as an acceptable atrocity versus a condemnable atrocity.

Good thing the Emporer got real cause if he

hadn't of stepped up to the plate there would have been quite a few more nuked towns for the japanese to feel like victims (shame on them!) over.

The Emperor did what he had to do. Act to protect the Japanese population from further injury. That meant standing up to the Japanese military and putting an end to the war. Long live the Emperor!

[Peter F]

The only "shit" here is obvious...shoveled by revisionists like you. Oh...and as usual...thank you for the uranium that made the "atrocity" possible.

Revisionist my ass. They were transporting bombs out so they wouldn't use them right? And you're very welcome for the uranium I'm sure. Thats the major problem with this country. We are willing to do almost anything to get a pat on the head: Oh let us invade Dieppe! Oh let us defend Hong Kong! Oh Let us be your buddies! Pleeeease?