Nuking Japan Saved Millions? Horsehockey

[Thumper]

Welcome, Anna.

Do you agree that the Japanese as a whole thought of gaijin as subhuman and not worthy of consideration? Their writings, speeches and actions of the time certainly bear out this idea.

They certainly had no problem with the wholesale slaughter of civilians. Of course, two wrongs don't make a right.

However...

In time of total war, if your enemy engages in ruthless slaughter, you had better be prepared eventually to do the same.

It is interesting that, from your point of view, the primary distinction is civilian vs. military, while in mine personally, the distinction is American vs. Other. I believe both points of view have their merits.

Again, welcome to THR.

 

[Glock-A-Roo]

If you dont want the business end of the red, white, and blue SH$T HAMMER, dont throw rocks.

Amen to that.

Why is it no surprise that the notion of a "demonstration A-bomb" comes from our favorite Brit? Such an idea is like a large-scale version of a warning shot w/ a single attacker, and it is a mistake for the same reasons:

- it gives the opponent more time to strike you
- it shows the opponent that you are not committed to the fight
- it wastes your resources (really bad when you have but 2-3 "bullets"... and they are the only ones IN THE WHOLE DAMN WORLD)
- it assumes that the opponent is a person of reason and restraint, instead of a committed agressor who ardently seeks your demise. Sort of like, um, I don't know... THE JAPANESE DURING WW2.

So very British: "Stop! Or else... I'll say stop again!!".

Give me a break about how tough we were on the poor, gentle, peaceloving Japanese. If they didn't want a fight, they shouldn't have started it.

 

[VNgo]

Seems simple to me. You've got two choices:

1 - invade Japanese home islands. many thousands of Americans dead.

2 - drop atomic bombs. No invasion, no more Americans dead.

Looks like an easy choice to me. They were the ENEMY, remember?

We made the right choice.

Not quite. The choices are more like:

1. Invade Japanese home islands. Millions of American soldiers dead and the entire Japanese race well-nigh wiped out because it believes in the idea of "death before dishonor" and will therefore not surrender no matter how suicidal the odds against it.

2. Drop atomic bombs. Probably the same as above, with a small but nonzero chance of the Japanese people being sufficiently shocked by the sheer devastation to stop yelling "Banzai for the Emperor!" and surrender peacefully.

 

[Foreign Devil]

I think a couple things to remember are first that there were those in JApan military who wanted to continue fighting even after the destruction of the cities. So a demonstration probably would not have worked, it could even be counterproductive, showing that we are unwilling to do whatever necessary to win.

The war plans for invading Japan called for posible use of chemical weapons, I believe, every bit as terrible asthe A-bomb.

Japan civilian population was being prepared to resist the American force, there are training manuals and documents that show this. An invasion would have been costly to both sides.

 

[CarlS]

Welcome to the forum, Anna; and thank you for giving your opinion.

During the days of the Battle of Britain when the Brits were going it virtually alone, do you not think the Brits held the view that one British life was incalculably more valuable than a German life? I feel 99.99% confident that they did. As another put it so very well, my life is infinitely more valuable to me than the life of the person who is trying to kill me.

I was one of those who posted that American lives were more valuable than the Japanese. I stand by that. Had it not been for the A-bomb, there was a good chance that I would not have known my father. I was born during the war at a time when he was home convalescing. By 1945, he was on his way to the invasion of the Japanese home islands.

Let me put it this way, we did not start the war in Europe nor in the Pacific. In fact, we stayed out of it far too long. Once we were attacked, I don’t care how many Japanese civilians or military died. If it had been double that number to save American service men’s lives, it would have been worth it. That is a fact of all out war. The Japanese made a decision and suffered the consequences of that decision. There are and always have been civilian casualties in war. Terrorism is deliberately attacking civilians and targets of no military or strategic value. That is not the case with Nagasaki or Hiroshima. Both had strategic and military value.

 

[fix]

Anna, If you want to take the "one for one is fair" path, go right ahead. The inevitable conclusion of that way of thinking is that there are only two options for us all. Die, or learn to speak Chinese.

My apologies if you are from China, in which case your position of one for one would make perfect sense, both strategically and tactically.

 

[Shane333]

Anna G.,

You pose a fair question regarding an attack on civilians. It is an unfortunate fact that attacks on civilians were simply a part of WWII, particularly from an "air campaign" point of view. If you don't understand that, you need to read and study more about that war.

In some ways total war is the only correct way to fight a war. Otherwise the general population somehow forgets that "War is hell" and there is a reason to bring it to an end. Look at how wars are fought today. The "civilized" countries try to hard to minimize civilian casualties. The result is that once the war is officially over, the supposedly conquered civilians continue a "terrorist" war. Why? Because they haven't been given an incentive to not continue fighting.

Anciently Alexander the Great was faced with the same dilema. Supposedly conquered communities would countinue to fight. He thought up a most effective remedy. The next time a town continued to fight back after being conquered, he took every man in that town and cut off their hands. He then sent them to the surrounding areas as living examples of what happens when the conquered population continues fighting.

Can you imagine the results? All "civilian" uprisings immediately ceased. The war stopped for real at that point.

How does this apply to Japan? The answer is supprisingly similar to the above example. People all over Japan understood the price they would pay for continued war. The result was peace. It's all about incentives.

Take Iraq for example. If we literally level Fallujah(sp?), do you think the surrounding areas are going to continue causing problems? Of course not. Would an Iraqi father let his neighbor plant a road-side bomb if he knew it meant certain death for his entire family? Of course not. The ironic but true answer is that absolute total war is the best way to create peace.

Unfortunately, the USA will try to be civilized with these savages, and the result with be the further suffering and loss of life on both sides.

 

[oldfart]

RGR, you have to be careful about quoting sources that were written by people who got much of their data from books by people who got much of their data from books by... You get the idea.

I was in Japan a bare ten years after the end of the war. I saw first hand the preparations made for welcoming the American soldiers. I spoke with and listened to civilians who told of the utter fanatacism instilled into the population. I walked through miles of tunnels and passages hewn in solid rock, with storage facilities for thousands of tons of munitions. I saw a sweet old mamasan whip the snot out of a drunken American soldier. She used a broom and tactics she had been taught by her government in expectation of the invasion. I spoke with people who had been told that American soldiers were cannibals with a taste for babies.

I also visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki where city officials welcomed me and my American wife. I wasn't a high-ranking diplomat either, just an ordinary enlisted sailor. No one spit on us because of our skin color or because our eyes weren't slanted. People were friendly and just happy the war was over. Sure there were a few "hardcases" left over from the war who would have been happy to be able to kill me and my wife, but they were smart enough to know that there was no profit in such action.

A lot of civilians died when those bombs were detonated. We know how many, because we can count them. We can only guess how many would have died in a conventional invasion so we tend to give the hard numbers more weight than those with no factual data to back them. But a later experience gave me some insight into that matter.

Two years after my tour in Japan, I was sent to Guam. The island has a number of natural caves hidden away in the hills. I remember being shown one such cavern. We walked from a brilliantly sunny day into a dark hole. Our lights were weak and flickering, so we stumbled a bit, kicking limbs and rocks along the path. After awile, when our eyes became more accustomed to the dimness, I saw that the 'limbs and rocks' were, in actuality, bones. I was standing, ankle deep, in what remained of twenty or thirty Japanese soldiers.

I couldn't help but make a connection between the caves on Guam and the tunnels of Japan. I, for one, am damned glad we dropped the bomb. I know it saved lives-- on both sides!

 

[Baba Louie]

For a chilling read, peruse James Bradley's FLYBOYS for a mindset of the WWII Japanese as well as other gruesome tidbits that were hidden from the world by the US and Japanese Governments.
I believe it was Iris Chang (Rape of Nanking) who suggested he focus his efforts to look in this particular direction for (tin foil hat on) this hidden from the public for obvious reasons conspiracy.
NO. War is not pretty. YES. It does bring out the worst and the best in mankind.
Killing of innocent and unarmed civilians is now a forgone conclusion it would appear.
So maybe we all shouldn't be so innocent or unarmed, neh?

 

[bountyhunter]

A truth not focused on is that it is essentially correct to say that WWII was the war where general acceptance of civilain casualties for military objectives were permissible first became entrenched in the world's conscience. Here is history: when the U-boats first started poaching shipping headed to England carrying materiel, it was common practice for the U-boat to surface and warn the ship. There is even cases where the U-boat crews helped the civilains into the life boats before sinking the vessel carrying the war supplies. Prior to WWII, the casual slaughter of civilians was basically condemned by all.

Why did this change?

In one case, it was a result of the US implementing th convoy sysytem of destroyer escort. Obviously, the U-boats had to use "sneak attacks" because they had no other option.

The second major step on the road to slaughtering civilians was the german bombing of England. At first, they tried to focus on military targets. Eventually, it was simply bombing to terrorize and cause the country to surrender. At that point, all consideration of civilian dead was gone.

In retaliation, US forces bombed the German mainland into a smoking pile of rubble. The total tonnage dropped as well as lives lost in that campaign FAR exceeded what was delivered upon Japan. The truth not widely known is that we quickly used up all the military targtes in germany and switched to hitting major cities knowing they had no military value.

Most of us know of the "firebombings" of cities like Dresden and Cologne, in which the strategy was to create a burning air mass that would sweep the city and destroy everything including all life. By the end of the war when we had the opportunity to deliver the coup de grace to Japan, civilian casualties was no longer a concern.

The legacy of civilian death to achieve a victory is now more or less accepted. In Iraq, the US had two (reported) bombing attacks against civilian targets based on flimsy (and completely inaccurate) intel about saddam being there. In one case, I believe the civ body count was about twenty with children among them. There was no public outcry over this. It is the standard of human decency that now exists.

 

[Cosmoline]

Howard Zinn?! LOL

Yeah. Sure. The Japanese were ready to give up. That's why Iwo Jima was such a cake-walk for our guys. The Japanese kept trying to give themselves up by fixing bayonets and charging. But our boys, culturally inept as they were, interpreted this through Western eyes as a Banzai charge.

I'd love to see a "Twilght Zone" where these revisionists get to be the first ones off the landing craft.

 

[Paco]

Bountyhunter:

I follow your train of thought on WWII. Makes sense, but to say it has become an accepted practice is a stretch. Why all the way-more-expensive laser guided bombs when we could make way more conventional bombs for cheaper instead. Yeah, I know: it makes them more effective, but I bet the pentigon folk sold it as a civilian saver to John Q taxpayer as well.

We Americans like to do the right thing: we'll make our pie and want to eat it too. It's always better to soundly defeat an oppponent AND do it with the least amount of civilian and even military casualties as this will benefit you in the future. How? Well, you won't always have to be looking over your shoulder when it comes to folks you've treated with cleanly and with mercy.

-Killing innocents is never acceptable especially if I'm the one that has to pull the trigger or push the button. It's excusable, even in the worse wars, only when it's absolutely necessary and because the enemy gave you no other recourse IE Civies working in a munitions factory, or making fighterjet parts. They are civies as well as a definitive part of your oppponent's war machine.

-paco

 

[Shane333]

Bountyhunter,

I'm curious, would you rather that the USA or other countries didn't escort their ships in WWII?

 

[Oleg Volk]

Each enemy soldier is supported by that country's infrastructure. That, in turn, consists of raw materials and equipment, which are replaceable, and trained operators, which are not easily repleaceable. For that reason, whatever we think of the ethics of that practice, killing of enemy civilians will continue whenever the opposing countries are fairly equally matched.

One reason for our distaste for civilian casualties is the nature of our morality, the other is that we think "there, but by the grace of providence, would be we". I think that, in the eyes of our opponents, US civilians are also fair targets.

PS: Read Mike Williamson's (madmike here on THR) Freehold for an interesting take on this situation.

 

[Poodleshooter]

Paco: Who judges who is innocent? Are grandma and grandpa working in the munitions plant innocent? The kids collecting pots and pans to make bullet jackets? The farmer growing crops that feed the military? The banker who finances the war effort? Maybe in tribal times there were innocents, but I don't think there are any innocents anymore. Even if through taxes alone, we ALL support the military in some way.
Total war makes perfect sense now, just as it did in WWII. Civilians provide the backbone for any military. They provide it not only in an economic sense, but also in an emotional sense (something for the military to hold dear and protect). Osama knows this. His war is against American culture. Why fight our military, when you can destroy our culture and undermine our military just as easily by destroying our civilians? It just makes sense when you examine the goals involved.
Sure that's a horrific concept. That's war.

 

[bountyhunter]

Bountyhunter,

I'm curious, would you rather that the USA or other countries didn't escort their ships in WWII?,

No, I am saying that well intended strategies have unforseen side effects. We had no choice but to use the convoy system with destroyer escort and the Germans had no choice but to employ sneak attacks on ships to delay detection by the destroyers.

Makes sense, but to say it ( bombing which directly causes civilain casualties) has become an accepted practice is a stretch.

Not really, but to please you perhaps I should say that killing civilains now appears to be acceptable collateral damage if:

1) The target is important

2) There are not too many civilains killed (less than a few dozen perhaps?)

3) The civilians are not Americans.

Why all the way-more-expensive laser guided bombs when we could make way more conventional bombs for cheaper instead.

The problem was not the accuracy of the bomb. It hit the target, which was a restaurant and killed everyone in it and left a massive smoking crater, as well as killed people nearby. The targeting system worked perfectly: it was the decision to use it on a target where there was a very remote chance that one military target was present but an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY of killing multiple innocent bystanders that I was using to prove my point.

 

[Paco]

Poodleshooter,

I agree if you approach it with the one goal of- DEFEAT ENEMY. I buy it if that's all you wish to do. But ofcourse any human conflict is waaay more complicated than that. One must consider the mental health of the soldiers and the society who asked that soldier that just slaughtered the little girl collecting spent brass-ofcourse she doesn't know what she's doing except to follow the orders of her parents. One must assess the situation as much as possible. Yes it's harder and takes time. One must consider every life of having worth. I know, they're animals and not worth any respect...

If we wish to maintain our humanity as much as possible during war then we follow those laws set down to govern war. I obviously am not the only one that believes this because there are still Vietnemese, Japanese, and even Germans that still walk the Earth. Oh wait, would if they want revenge one day! Oh no! We should have wiped them out clean when we had the chance then we would be safe.

-My friend, we'll NEVER be safe, but something we can ALWAYS aspire for is to retain our humanity. Once that's lost-Game Over.

 

[Paco]

Bountyhunter,

Thanks for the clarification. But, it's not about pleasing me or the tree-huggers. It's logical to use only the force necessary to neutalize an opponent. It behooves the whole war effort to keep civie casualties down and it's not just about 'feeling good'. Think about it. Peazzzout bro!

 

[Shane333]

Good reply Bountyhunter. Yes, there are some nasty consequences that can come from the best of intentions.

Well, I still firmly believe that we were justified in dropping two bombs on Japan. I also feel it was an act of mercy that we didn't drop a third.

 

[Paco]

Given what we knew at the time and going off quite a few assumptions, I think we handled Japan admirably. Still it sucks to know that we vaporized quite a few villagers. Yeah, I know, it saves lives but it doesn't make me wanna skip down the street whistling! War's Hell...

 

[Anna G.]

Thank you for the warm welcome. I am sorry, but I am not used to such an active forum, I have no idea how I am going to answer all this though I'll give it a try.

You can jump to the last paragraph if you dont feel like reading, by the way.

When I made the point about the civilians, my idea was that the attack of the Pearl Harbour doesnt look good as a reason. I am not sure if killing civillians is neccessery in the modern times, because we have peace contracts. If the japanese indeed wanted to surrender the bombs were pointless. Unfortunately I doubt we can find a reliable source to tell what the truth is. Its interesting how the content of the history books changes through time and location. The common opinion here is that the bombs were a bad idea. Last year when we studied about that in my history class I found that this year we actually justify them. I am sure this has to do with the tries of our government to be liked by the USA. My point is that you cant trust everything they tell you about history.

StuporDave, I am sorry, but I disagree. I am a bulgarian and for me a bulgarian life doesnt worth more than the life of another person who belongs to any other nationality. Though I have to agree on the last one. My life definately worths more for me than any other. Selfish, but true, its human nature.

Thumper, I am not sure. I personally have never seen or read anything of what you mentioned but it seems normal to me. Thats what all the nations do to raise the spirit of the people. For example I've seen american movies which brought tears of offence to my eyes because it was obvious that the americans were shown as better (better looking, faster thinkers, ecc.) than other nations. The exact case I have in mind was about a balkan nation and since we here are pretty much all the same I took it a little personally. Of course its possible that the japanese went a little further, their psycology is different than the one of the western world.

I understand that for the americans here the american life worths more, but I think we are trying to get to the truth if the bombs were neccessary or not (and enjoy the good debate of course) and if everyone is looking from such a personal point of view this wont lead anywhere. CarlS, I understand you, but I am sure lots of japanese lost their relatives there. I have to admit I dont understand anything from military business but I think if there is something worth destroying in these two cities there is no need to kill everyone in there, just what you have to. Ie there is no point to try to believe that the real reason was to destroy something specific, it was a show of power.

Fix, I am not sure I understand.. why chinese?

It looks to me that it all sums up to the simple question: Did the japanese indeed want to surrender or not? Like I said since we get lots of completely controversial information about it, you can never be sure.

 

[fix]

I am not sure I understand.. why chinese?

In a war of attrition, with artificial rules imposed by you, where we take one life from them for every life they take from us...they win handily.

 

[bountyhunter]

I understand that for the americans here the american life worths more, but I think we are trying to get to the truth if the bombs were neccessary or not

Coming to agreement on whether it was "necessary or not" would require agreeing on what the necessary outcome of the war had to be... and we see that very differently than the japanese, and we always will. If all that was to be accomplished was to temporarily stop Japanese aggression in the Pacific, then we had pretty much assured that by the time we had the A-bomb. But, the only outcome which the allies would accept was unconditional surrender, assuring that Japan would suffer a defeat of sufficient humiliation to make sure they never considered a similar action in the future. Such is the end of all wars... those who believe they were wronged never settle for anything less than unconditional surrender, true even when the United States fought itself in our own civil war. One point which is clear: Japan would NEVER have surrendered without dropping the bombs and many in the regime fought hard against surrender even after they were dropped.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

This is kind of like the often discussed topic of some founding fathers owning slaves. Different times and different views of right and wrong.

During WWII, it was a common strategy to bomb cities in an effort to break the enemies willpower over continuing the war. It was practiced by all major participants in the war.

Japan, obviously, lacked the ability to bomb American and British population centers. This does not mean, however, they didn't try alternate methods to accomplish the same goal.

The Japanese Imperial Army's Unit 731 had been researching biological and chemical weapons in Manchuria since 1936. One plan of the Japanese was to use balloons carried by the jetstream and loaded with biological weapons to create epidemics of plague or anthrax in the United States. A variation called for the use of cattle plague virus to wipe out the American livestock industry or grain smut to wipe out the crops. They did launch 9,000 balloons loaded with 4 incendiary and one antipersonnel bomb in an effort to start forest fires.

Another plan codenamed Cherry Blossoms at Night, was to use kamikaze pilots to infest California with the plague. The plan was for submarine seaplane carriers to launch the kamikazes off California, at which time they would fly aircraft loaded with plague-infected fleas and crash them in the San Diego area. The attack was originally scheduled to occur on Sept. 22, 1945, but was delayed and finally halted by the end of the war.

So the dropping of the two atomic bombs was an appropriate attack at the time and regardless of the semantics over the numbers, did save hundreds of thousands of lives, both American and Japanese.

 

[madmike]

some facts:

The Purple Hearts being awarded in Iraq were minted in 1945 for the Invasion of Japan. They minted a million. A "Broken war machine" doesn't stop 60 million Japs with machineguns and sticks from killing troops in MOUT.

FACT: A JAPANESE PRODUCED MOVIE called "Hiroshima" covers the discussions the high command had even after Hirohito said he was ready to surrender. It was not a term they were prepared to embrace. It was alien. They had created a theocracy. Before the end of the Samurai Era, all dates (such as on swords) were "emperor so and so, year 25." After that, dates were "The glorious year 3XXX of the Emperor as God on Earth."

God can't surrender.

Additionally, Japan had never (and still hasn't...) been successfully invaded. Every Korean attack in the 3-9th centuries was repulsed due to storms or other circumstances. It was taken as axiomatic that the Gods protected Japan. The actual Japanese plans for 1945 were based on "The Americans have almost taken everything we have! Then they will invade and we'll win!"

They were, in fact, drilling 12 year old school girls with BROOMHANDLES to fight.

Due to inadequate information about nukes, After Hiroshima and before Nagasaki, they actually started handing out WHITE SHEETS as "defensive" material. (white does reflect small amounts of thermal radiation if you're at the fringes of the effect). Now, you tell me they were ready to "surrender" and had no "war machine" and I'll call you an idiot.

Pluto Press publishes such crap as Ritter's, where he claims as a "fact" that "nerve agent decays in five years."

I'm sure the US Chemical Depot in Newport, IN, which has had stockpiles of VX since 1968 will be glad to know that. Or the stores of mustard agent at Ft Rucker, buried under mounds of dirt and surrounded by a safe zone.


http://www.charlesmartelsociety.org/toq/vol1no2/ss-pearlharbor.html
then there's this garbage. I HATE FDR and I'll call this one a lie about him.

Also, one of the problems in the war was that Surrender was insulting to the Japanese mentality. Noted SF author Cordwainer Smith (Paul Anthony Linebarger) was the son of diplomats to Asia and polylingual. He devised a phrase for the air dropped pamphlets that read in Japanese, "I honorably cease resistance." Phonetically in English, it sounded like "I surrender." True story. He was very proud of that, as it saved thousands of both American and Japanese lives.

But that's the mindset we were fighting.

Of course, if we hadn't used nukes in Japan, we might have in Korea, not knowing the effects. Or Vietnam. Would that have been better?