READ ON!

I completely agree that the atomic bombs should not have been dropped, but I'm wondering....was it good that we dropped them?


What I mean is that because we dropped them, we saw the destruction, and we saw the after-effects. Do you think this knowledge has prevented the united states or other countries from dropping modern bombs which are much, much more powerful? Do you think that if we hadn't dropped them, some other country might have (by now) dropped a much more powerful bomb and caused much more damage?

I completely agree that the atomic bombs should not have been dropped, but I'm wondering....was it good that we dropped them?


I disagree.

At the time the bombs were dropped, the US was facing a Japanese nation dominated by the military, who were determined to fight to the death. Estimated casualties from an invasion of the home islands were hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions of Japanese (extrapolating from the experience of Okinawa). It appears the use of the bombs saved many American lives (which was the primary concern of the US gov't.) as well as many Japanese, and spared Japan from extreme devestation.

By late 1944 Japan was militarily defeated the allies bombed Japan at will and a sea blockade was crippling the Japanese ability to feed itself let alone continue to make war . In August 1945 , 2 atomic bombs flattened 2 cities, again killing 103,000 civilians in these 2 non-military cultural centres s totally unnecessary also as now being revealed by declassified documents Japan was sending out peace feelers that it wanted to surrender .The object of the allies was to let the Communist government of Russia get a first hand view of Capitalist western power the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was to demonstrate to Communist Russia the willingness of America to use this weapon and by using 2 to show that there was more of those from where they came from . In short it was a clear and dire warning to Communist Russia not to interfere with the new post WWII world order being created by America the new leader of the Western Plutocracies .

Estimated casualties from an invasion of the home islands were hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions of Japanese (extrapolating from the experience of Okinawa). It appears the use of the bombs saved many American lives (which was the primary concern of the US gov't.) as well as many Japanese, and spared Japan from extreme devestation.

Not true what so ever. The projected casualties are misleading because the probability of invading Japan before they surrendered was incredibly small. Also, U.S Strategic Bombing Survey said that Japan would have almost certainly surrendered before November 1, 1945 without invasion, without the use of the atomic bomb, and without the Soviets entering the war.

Surrendered? Hell, their military basically staged a coup to prevent just that even after we dropped the bomb.
Somehow I doubt a good, clean unconditional surrender was going to be on the table without a show of force.

Not true what so ever. The projected casualties are misleading because the probability of invading Japan before they surrendered was incredibly small. Also, U.S Strategic Bombing Survey said that Japan would have almost certainly surrendered before November 1, 1945 without invasion, without the use of the atomic bomb, and without the Soviets entering the war.
are you kidding? japan didn't even surrender after we dropped the first atomic bomb! they were still fighting us even after we decimated an entire city (mostly military and industry) with the first nuclear weapon ever used.

We went through all this already with a bit more depth. I am too lazy though to find that thread.

Here is some background reading
http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm

Also, U.S Strategic Bombing Survey said that Japan would have almost certainly surrendered before November 1, 1945 without invasion, without the use of the atomic bomb, and without the Soviets entering the war.
That's the kind of thing that makes me want never to read history again, because it's the exact opposite of what almost any history book says...

No, it is probably just the opposite of what american schoolbooks say.

It's quite well known that Japan was on its knees and actually looking for an end. It's just that the US had the inclination that it wanted more than just an end.

Dropping the bombs on populated targets was reprehensible; the devastating power of the bombs could have been demonstrated on any number of virtually unpopulated locations. The canard that "it saved untold civilian and military lives in the long run" needs to be laid to rest.

As Brian Foley said, it was about more: Not only was it good data on the effects of a nuclear weapon on a populated target (from which they could extrapolate higher yield damage amounts) but it sent a very clear signal to the Soviet Union that the United States was not to be trifled with.

I've never seen an American schoolbook, but World Book Encyclopaedia seemed to say Japan didn't want to surrender, and that's published in Denmark :(

Perhaps logistically speaking Japan should have surrendered without the atomic bomb but the evidence of the Battle of Okinawa suggests otherwise. More human lives were lost as a result of the Battle of Okinawa than as a result of the atomic bombs.
Do you honestly believe that the battle for the home island would have been less bloody than the resistance on Okinawa?

It is by no means certain Japan would have surrendered if not for the atomic bombs, there were many hard liners in the Japanese heiarchy, and even if they were sending out "feelers" for the feasibility for surrender, we couldn't have known if it was a trick or not, and perhaps there wasn't time to find out.

Anyway, the bombs certainly weren't good for the people underneath them, but it did contribute to ending the war more quickly.

Also, it made way for US occupation and with it, economic assistance for rebuilding, and most importantly a new way of manufacturing including rigorous quality control which led to Japanese success years later.

The occupation made Japanese familiar with the west and western culture.

It may have helped prevent nuclear warfare over the Cuban missile crisis by showing the world how terrible they can be, but we probably would have known that anyway when they were tested over the Pacific islands in the 1950's.

Explain to us why 2 bombs were dropped then.

Explain to us why 2 bombs were dropped then.
because its all we had
i'm sure if we had 3 we would have used them

Indeed. If you wanted to end the war with minimal casualties you would have dropped one. Waited. And threaten to drop another one.

It was an experiment and political statement of the first order.

It was an experiment and political statement of the first order.
i disagree
it was the murderous bloodthirsty appetite of america that did it
we did it without cause or provocation

i was speaking from the hypothetical situation: if you wanted minimal casualties and a quick end of the war. Would you drop 1 or 2 bombs

1. would you threaten to drop an atomic bomb?
2. would you drop one bomb. Let it sink in. Threaten to drop another bomb.
3. would you drop 2 bombs in succession without any opportunity for surrender.
It's just not logical to me to pick option no.3.

-------


What do you think made america so bloodthirsty? Was it pearl harbor? The media? Japanese cruelties that were reported?

I agree with you Spurious. Why two in quick succession? Sure, it was a heated situation with lots of emotion running rampant. Sure, the atomic bomb was new. Still, why not just one devastating blast plus the threat of another?

in all seriousness it was a number of things

japans sneak attack on pearl harbor
the japanese diplomats stalling for time
the fanatical fighters of japan
political motivations
the money spent developing the bomb

i beleive all of those played a role

It's interesting to note here that the two nukes dropped were of different design. An uranium bomb was dropped on hiroshima and a plutionium bomb on nagasaki.

The skeptic could read this as 'testing' weapons of war.

One point that seems to go unnoticed is that before the atomic bombs were used, the US was using conventional bombs all over Japan, including a fire raid on Tokyo which had more deaths than either of the A bombs. No one seems to be overly concerned about the morality of these raids. What's the difference (except technology).

I'm quite aware of these bombings. If the US had lost the war they would have been trialled for war crimes.

Spurious: I think you fail to grasp the concept of war.
You hurt an enemy until he is either incapable or unwilling to fight you anymore and is willing to agree to any terms you lay down.

WWII was different than many other wars in that it was TOTAL war, encompassing all of society. Nukes were dropped because they were cheaper than their equivalent in conventional bombs and put fewer US troops at risk.

Spurious: I think you fail to grasp the concept of war.
You hurt an enemy until he is either incapable or unwilling to fight you anymore and is willing to agree to any terms you lay down.


Oh really? Well then we should've nuked Iraq. That sure would have made them agree to the terms that the U.S wanted. Part of war is also trying to end a conflict peacefully, losing as few casualties as possible. However, the U.S had spent billions of dollars on the development of the atomic bomb, and felt the need to show everyone that they did it first. The two bombs were dropped for compeltely false reasons. Why on earth would you only wait TWO days for surrender. To catch the attention of those that might have missed it? Or because you didn't want your only plutonium bomb to go to waste?

Are you telling me that MOABs aren't big enough?

i was speaking from the hypothetical situation: if you wanted minimal casualties and a quick end of the war. Would you drop 1 or 2 bombs

1. would you threaten to drop an atomic bomb?
2. would you drop one bomb. Let it sink in. Threaten to drop another bomb.
3. would you drop 2 bombs in succession without any opportunity for surrender.
It's just not logical to me to pick option no.3.

These things were new. We weren't even sure if they would work. Threatening to drop the bomb was out of the question. We'd look really stupid if they didn't go off. I'm sure you've heard the story about some scientists fearing that the bomb would set off a chain reaction and ignite all the oxygen in the world? We said, fuck it, try it anyway.

Anyway, wasn't there a couple days between the two bombings? How long should they have waited?

I shall now defuse this highly explosive bomb while simultaneously, and at the same time, reciting from the works of Percy Bysshe Shelley.
Meh. It seemed appropriate to the thread.

well the loss of life was bad i think that it was a good thing that the bombs were dropped. many more people would have died if it wasnt for the bombs being dropped. and dont forget that there nearly wasnt a surrender from the japanese as many people opposed surrendering to the americans as it would make them look weak

These things were new. We weren't even sure if they would work. Threatening to drop the bomb was out of the question. We'd look really stupid if they didn't go off. I'm sure you've heard the story about some scientists fearing that the bomb would set off a chain reaction and ignite all the oxygen in the world? We said, fuck it, try it anyway.

Anyway, wasn't there a couple days between the two bombings? How long should they have waited?

I'm sure that it was in the report of the flight crew that the first bomb actually blew up delivering a fine mushroom cloud. Not to mention other intelligence reports.

They should have set an ulitimatum after the first bomb if they were really after minimizing casualties and ending the war quickly. That could just have been 2 days...or a week. It doesn't really matter. They didn't. They had no intention. They dropped it again without warning.

I'm ok with excuses, but this is just a case of logic.

japan sneaks up and bombs the crap out of pearl harbor with no warning
and we are supposed to say okay guys we are going to bomb such and such a place?
it's too bad the US didn't have 6 bombs.

Yes, but now we move back to motives. I can totally agree that there was a specific reason or reasons for dropping 2 nukes. But I do not think that ending the war quickly and minimizing the casualties was one of them. It had already been possible to end the war by diplomatic means. It was just not acceptable as a solution because part of the american leadership was looking for something more than just the end of the war.

Eisenhower
"it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63, pg. 108).
Was this man a complete fool lacking an overview of the war situation? I seriously doubt it.

even when japan was reeling from the knockout blows dealt by the americans they still managed to have plenty of fight left in them
for example at the battle of okinawa at the end of the war the japanese sent 16 year old pilots to crash their planes into our ships
such tactics are an act of desperation but still the japanese fought on and they fought hard.
invading their homeland would have cost 10's of thousands of lives

if you read about how the japanese defended the outlying islands of their empire it isn't hard to see that the japanese did not surrender

japan sneaks up and bombs the crap out of pearl harbor with no warning
and we are supposed to say okay guys we are going to bomb such and such a place?
it's too bad the US didn't have 6 bombs.


And if we look at the whole thing objectively; did the USA really have the right for revenge? What was the biggest victim of the US? It's pride?

Casualties during WW2
USA
military - 295.000
civilian - nihil

Japan
military - 1.700.000
civilian - 360.000

Now can you objectively look at these figures and say the US suffered beyond reason during WW2? Because the japanese bombed pearl harbor? A military base.

The soviet union had 13 Million military casualties! The UK had 450.000 military casualties. Germany 3.2 million military and 3.8 million civilian casualties! Does this justify the use of nuclear weapons because the japanese bombed a military base? It's all bullshit this justification of using the bomb to end the war.

It was a political message. Shame a few hundred thousand people had to die for it. But what else is new.


edit-
figures can differ depending on the source. Here is another one:
http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob62.html

no, the shame is we didn't have 10 bombs

On the warning and ultimatum for the second bomb.
On August 8 - before the Soviets announced their declaration of war and before the Nagasaki a-bomb was detonated - Foreign Minister Togo met with the Emperor to tell him what he knew of the Hiroshima bombing. They agreed that the time had come to end the war at once (Pacific War Research Society, DML, pg. 300; Pacific War Research Society, JLD, pg. 21-22).
Clearly the first bomb had been enough.



Why didn't the japanese want to surrender? It was because of the uncertainty of what would happen to the emporer. A deity in japanese eyes. That's all. One little compromise would have been enough to end the war months earlier. Saving many of your precious american heroes.

yes the japanese can kill 3000 of our young men with no provocation whatsoever and sent diplomats over here to stall for time so they can
then we are supposed to let them make demands as to their surrender???

you have it wrong spurious

I don't really know what you are after. You want to discuss your personal opinion on how big american balls are? Or are we discussing history, motives, background.

I'm not really interested in your platitudes.

goodbye discussion.

I don't really know what you are after. You want to discuss your personal opinion on how big american balls are? Or are we discussing history, motives, background.

I'm not really interested in your platitudes.

goodbye discussion.
this has nothing to do with balls

frankly the discussion is moot because the perpetraters are not here to defend themselves or their position

Why discuss anything then? Why have a WEP forum? Why discuss science in the science forums? The original researchers are not participating. Darwin isn't defending his theory because he is dead.

Why didn't the japanese want to surrender? It was because of the uncertainty of what would happen to the emporer. A deity in japanese eyes. That's all. One little compromise would have been enough to end the war months earlier. Saving many of your precious american heroes.
So it was a religious war?

So it was a religious war?
no, the japanese people thought their emporer to be a god

The Emporer was ready to surrender, yes but it took the 2nd bomb to convince the military, there were officers that were going to try to take the Emporer into protective custody to keep him from surrendering,and continue the war, and remember we are looking at history wich gives us a clear view of events that the participents did not have, so is it fair to judge them from our perspective?

Assuming that the bombs were thrown for political reasons. Could you guys come up with anything other than showing Russia who's the boss? Or be more specific on it, how did the Russians answer the nuclear bombing?

russia declared war on japan was the immediate response

let me put it to you this way..id rather a japanese man id never met die than my grandfather who was about be sent out to the war as the european side of the war had just finished

let me put it to you this way..id rather a japanese man id never met die than my grandfather who was about be sent out to the war as the european side of the war had just finished

And? This justifies the use of nuclear weapons? Because you like your grandfather?

So it is ok for Iran to use nukes too. Because this iranian guy likes his grandfather more than a random american guy?

well as a brit i couldnt give a flying fuck if an iranian wipes a few of you out

I just wish they wait till after 1st of june when I have left the US.

what nationality are you then spurious

The monkey hails from Central Afrika (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimp) but he left his familie behind and moved out several years ago to persue a life as a high rolling scientist in a faraway country, something he has recived both fame and medals for.

somewhere along the way he found a mate (maybe here (http://www.hel2.fi/zoo/index_eng.html)) they live on happly togetter following naturs call until one day they decided to move once again to a new zoo (http://nyzoosandaquarium.com/czabout), but life was not as good there as they had hopped and now the monkey is packing his bags once more.

hehe... :D

the fact that nagasaki was on a hilly land saved it from total obliteration. the plutonium bomb dropped had 7tonnes more tnt than the hiroshima bomb. it was only the fact that hiroshima was on flat land as to why it was more badly damaged than nagasaki

well the loss of life was bad i think that it was a good thing that the bombs were dropped. many more people would have died if it wasnt for the bombs being dropped. and dont forget that there nearly wasnt a surrender from the japanese as many people opposed surrendering to the americans as it would make them look weak


You're speaking out of your ass, from what you personally feel the circumstances were. Japan had NO FOOD. They were blockaded! Japan WAS going to surrender. The following is a QUOTATION from president trumans diary:

"P.M. [Churchill] & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe the Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan [reference to Manhattan Project] appears over their homeland. I shall inform about it at an opportune time."

Truman knew they would surrender. But he didn't want to "waste" a $2,000,000,000 project, and he wanted to intimidate the Russians.

possumking
of course the emporer wanted to surrender
but the military did not
as a matter of fact there were hawks in the military that thought the emporer to be a traitor to the japanese people

all the way up till the bombs were dropped the japanese were fighting fanaticly
if america invaded the japanese homeland the loss of life on both sides was going to be horendous

its been estimated that 1000 men per hour would die
and that was considered a conservative estimate

And again remember we are argueing from the point of history were we have all the facts, remember also comunication systems back then did not allow for almost insantanious transmission of information, the internet didn't exist, so yes you can find lots of people who knew some things, but could it be collated into a usable information form that could be used to make totaly informed decissions?

possumking
of course the emporer wanted to surrender
but the military did not
as a matter of fact there were hawks in the military that thought the emporer to be a traitor to the japanese people

all the way up till the bombs were dropped the japanese were fighting fanaticly
if america invaded the japanese homeland the loss of life on both sides was going to be horendous

its been estimated that 1000 men per hour would die
and that was considered a conservative estimate

Nonsense. You lost 279.000 men in the entire war on every front. Did you fight only 279 hours? Even d-day only had a few thousand casualties and that was the biggest landing ever against fortified positions.

Nonsense. You lost 279.000 men in the entire war on every front. Did you fight only 279 hours? Even d-day only had a few thousand casualties and that was the biggest landing ever against fortified positions.
no, it isn't nonsense
i got that figure from a website and i posted the link to it in one of these threads somewhere.

Then explain the logic there, if you will.
The math does not quite add up.

i think he was talking about a theoretical invasion of the japanese mainland.

Still. Even D-day didn't have a 1000 casualties per hour and that was the biggest military operation ever. There weren't even near enough that many troops in the pacific.

What was one of the bloodiest battles ever? Stalingrad. But the situation is difficult to compare with that. In stalingrad two huge land armies clashed. And none wanted to surrender. None was following sensible military doctrine. The harsh climate alone took countless victims. The battle raged for almost 200 days.

"In the whole Stalingrad campaign, the Red Army had suffered 1.1 million casualties, of which 485,751 had been fatal."

But this was an army whose tactics were based on sacrificing human meat to bleed the german army to death. 500.000 deaths in 200 days ~ 2500 deaths per DAY. that's about 100 death per hour. Not 1000. A factor 10 difference.

And remember stalingrad is the considered to be one of the bloodiest battles ever with the soviet union suffering the most of both parties.

I think the website you mentioned made an error. It happens.

there were people for and against the war
there were japanese that was willing to surender but many would not

there were military men that thought attacking the US was suicide but they did anyway

the fact of the matter is that the japanese dealt an underhanded blow at pearlharbor
why do i say underhanded? because japanese diplomats was in washington dc stalling for time so their navy could move into position

another thing to remember is that the bomb would eventually be developed
germany was seeking to develope it
japan was researching the possibilities but came to the conclusion it was impossible with their current budget

japan also built aircraft carriers that were larger than was allowed under the then current conventions
japan also figured that if they dealt a knockout blow at pearlharbor that the US would be forced to sue for peace

so with all of those things taken together and remembering that we have the advantage of hindsight i believe that america had no ulterier motives

Still. Even D-day didn't have a 1000 casualties per hour and that was the biggest military operation ever. There weren't even near enough that many troops in the pacific.

that figure isn't a sustained loss

i should clarify and say within the first few hours
like i said the link is posted in one of these threads

that figure isn't a sustained loss

i should clarify and say within the first few hours
like i said the link is posted in one of these threads

oh...

but that is normal. And actually most casualties during D-day occured on one beach. The resistance on others was much lower. I would imagine japan didn't have an atlantic wall, or should we say pacific.

But sure..initial losses would be greater than sustained losses.

The high loss projections were based on the assumption that invading the home island would be as bloody as the battle for Okinawa not on what happened in France.

Yes, it was sure great that the U.S. entered WWII and conquered Japan. Just imagine how bad the world would be if Japan had remained unchecked in its ambitions. Why by today we'd probably be seeing a giant nation in Asia with the ability to challenge U.S. cultural and economic superiority. It would be making economic colonies of the nearby Asian nations. Violating copyrights. Putting entire American industries out of business. Violating human rights. Thumbing its nose at Western values. Yes sir, it's a good thing we destroyed Japan.

The Japanese decided to declare war on the US not the other way round. I doubt the countries that Japan had invaded wanted to continue to be brutally occupied by Japan. Any Korean or Chinese posters care to voice an opinion about having Japan as the dominate force in the area.

i believe that the atom bomb should not have been invented fore we are now doomed and sooner or later a nuclear bomb will hit some country and so a nuclear holocost will follow by eliminating the human race and maybe even the planet.

Yes sir, it's a good thing we destroyed Japan.
we destroyed japan??
what is it with you fraggle rocker.
everything that japan is today is a direct result of american involvment

but you are correct it is a good thing that we destroyed what japan used to be.

Leopold, I'm fairly certain that Fraggle was being satiric by talking about modern day China, not the literal 1940's Japan.


AmishRakeFight

America shouldn't have nuked Japan.

It shouldn't have embargoed Japan and interfered with an Asian war that had been going on for millenia.

Japan was at war with China two years before WW2 even started. They had mostly conquered the huge neighbouring nation at great cost in troops, pilots and resources. Then this stupid foreign power sticks its nose in.

While Japan was already exhausted and still struggling with resistance in the chinese countryside the Americans EMBARGOED them!

No wonder they bombed Pearl Harbour. They had no choice.

Then these gutless Yanks NUKE them!

America sucks!

Yeah well said UT if only the Japanese had been left alone they could have completed the conquest of China, imagine the rape of Nanking times 100 :cool: The yank bastages MADE Japan bomb Pearl Harbor!

Wait a sec... If somebody thinks we should have stood by while Japan sodomized half of Asia and all of the Pacific, that means that they shouldn't be able to complain about anything America does. Ever. At our worst we still don't pull that rape and enslave crap in war.

We could sack Rome tomorrow and Universe couldn't complain.
Sweet.

It shouldn't have embargoed Japan and interfered with an Asian war that had been going on for millenia.
Japan was at war with China two years before WW2 even started.

so which was it two years or millenia?

The offical casualtie figures are this, KIA< 300,000, WIA< 300,000 for a total figure of < 600,000 military casualties
The greatest human losses, as indicated below, were suffered by combatants and civilians of the Soviet Union and China. In the near two-and-a-half year siege of Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) by the German forces, 1 1/2 million Russians alone died from shelling, bombing, disease and starvation, a figure that exceeded all the military casualties of the U.S.A.and British Commonwealth combined. The cruelties perpetrated by morally depraved units of the Japanese army in China is demonstrated most vividly in the torture and massacre of civilians and the barbaric killing of war prisoners in the infamous Rape of Nanking that took the lives of over 300,000 Chinese. Other mass civilian deaths, apart from the singular destruction of European Jews, comprise the hundreds of thousands of slave laborers in the Japanese-held Netherlands East Indies (Indonesia) as well as the 1 1/2 million deaths in Bengal as a consequence of war-related famine
Country Pop. Killed/Mising Wounded Total(Military) Civilian (deaths)
China 450m 1.3 million 1.8 million 3.1 million 9 million
Japan 72m 1.75 million ? ? 350,000

I just think that the dropping of the atom bomb was just an excuse for displaying "American Power". But then on the other side it did prevent many further casualties.

But then on the other side it did prevent many further casualties.


Do we have to go through this again? Of course the Americans wanted to make it seem as though it prevented further casualties. Wouldn't you? Would you want to say "Well we killed hundreds of thousands people even though we would have had less fatalities if we only waited a few more weeks."?

Do we have to go through this again? Of course the Americans wanted to make it seem as though it prevented further casualties. Wouldn't you? Would you want to say "Well we killed hundreds of thousands people even though we would have had less fatalities if we only waited a few more weeks."?
how do you know that we would have had less casualties if we waited a few more weeks?

the point is that we would have more. That's the main reason the bomb was dropped. The new scare is microwave guns. If u fired one it can go through a tank and reach the crew inside burning them inside out.

how do you know that we would have had less casualties if we waited a few more weeks?


Because the invasion would have never happened. Japan was on its knees ---on the verge of surrendering.

Because the invasion would have never happened. Japan was on its knees ---on the verge of surrendering.
i disagree and heres why
we routed the japanese from every outlying island that they invaded
even mighty truk which the japanese boasted could withstand the onslaught of one million men
one by one through a bloody engagement of battles we wrested them all from the grip of the japanese

then we get to okinawa in june of 45
even in that late date after losing every single island the japanese invaded she still managed to mount a defense of kamakazes

we were slaughtering the japanese like cattle but yet she refused to surrender

in my opinion it should be apparent that the japanese was going to fight to the last man, woman and child

That's what I learned In history class :)

No Possumking, the Japanies were not on the verge of surrendering, if you do even a little reasearch you will find a lot of information that the Military Leadership was planning to take the Emporer into protective custody,to prevent him from calling for a end to the war, was practiceing mass civilian human wave attacks armed with bambo spears! You must understand the Bushido Code, that if you die in combat against a enemy soldier you have served the Emporer and are Honored for the scrafice, what we did with the atomic bomb is took away the honor of sacrificeing your self and taking a enemy of the Emporer with you, there by making your death usless, so finally most of the Officer Corp realised futher reisistance was truely futile. Even then there were Officers who tried to kidnap the Emporer to avoide the shame of haveing to surrender.

yes the japanese can kill 3000 of our young men with no provocation whatsoever and sent diplomats over here to stall for time so they can
then we are supposed to let them make demands as to their surrender???

you have it wrong spurious


http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/chamberl.html
The freezing of Japanese assets in the United States on July 25, 1941.

The attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbour, Hawaii, took place on December 7th 1941.


(please note those dates.... 25/7/41 and 7/12/41)
despite NO american casualities or attacks by the japanese at that time on the usa itself..
the japanese let 5 MONTHS go by-only using diplomatic means to protest

AFTER 5 months when this achieved nothing-they attacked by military might


surprise surprise they didnt exactly take out full page adds when they did so


`with no provocation whatsoever'


im glad i grew up in a country that actually HAS an education system...

(see i even spelt education wrong the first time and knew it was wrong..and didnt even have to google to find the correct `spullin')

;-)

http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/chamberl.html

the first 2 setences from your quoted site:

From the archives of The Memory Hole
Antiwar Propaganda: Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace

'nuff said

No the Japanese used those 5 month to plan, assemble, pratice, move into position,and attack, and they had already sunk the USS Panay before WW II.
For two miles the American flotilla sustained fire from Japanese shore batteries. The intent of the Japanese was to provoke the United States into a declaration of war. Militarists close to seizing full control in Japan hoped that a declaration of war by the United States would give them the final push needed to eliminate civilian influence in their government.

Japanese military goals, they thought, could be more easily obtained without resistance from civilian Japanese governmental officials. The shelling was so inaccurate that the Panay and the barges, even going against the current at slow speeds, were able to pull away without damage. Communications to the Panay on Dec. 11 indicated that Chinese troops were fleeing the capital and that a Japanese takeover of the entire country could not be far off. By all accounts the Panay needed to press forward and get away from the advancing Japanese.

At 11 a.m. on Dec. 12 the Panay and the three oil barges, Mei Ping, Mei Hsia and Mei An were anchored near Hoshien, located upstream from Nanking. American flags were hoisted on the masts and painted on the awnings and topsides so Japanese forces would be able to distinguish between them and Chinese vessels.

As it was a Sunday, time was taken out for all aboard the Panay to have their dinner. None of the craft's guns were manned and the day was clear, sunny and still. All seemed peaceful despite what was happening ashore several miles away. Just after 1:30 p.m. in the afternoon, three Japanese naval aircraft flew overhead and released 18 bombs. One of the bombs disabled the Panay's forward three-inch gun and wrecked the pilothouse, the sick bay and the fire room.

The captain of the Panay, Lieutenant Commander J.J. Hughes, and several others were wounded. Immediately after the first assault, 12 more planes dive-bombed and nine fighters strafed the barges and the Panay. The fighters made several runs over the vessels. The American crew fought back with .30-caliber machine guns on the ship but the outcome looked bleak. Just minutes after 2 p.m. with all propulsion lost and the main deck awash, Captain Hughes ordered the ship abandoned.

The attack, however, continued. Japanese planes then attacked the lifeboats on their way to shore. The fighters even strafed the reeds along the riverbank where the wounded were trying to get ashore or hide temporarily. Two of the three oil barges were destroyed. The Mei An captain, Carl H. Carlson, and several dozen of his crew perished when their barge sank. Twenty minutes after the first explosion, the 450-ton Panay with its 55-man crew and passengers began to sink. Finally at 3:54 p.m., the ship flooded and then rolled beneath the water. Two were dead and 48 were wounded, some seriously. The survivors of the attack cared for the wounded and assisted in getting word to the commander of the USS Oahu. Two days later the USS Oahu and the HMS Ladybird picked up the survivors.

Jumping in to post an interesting tidbit from the USAAF Strategic Bombing Survey.

Summary of Rail Attacks.

Aside from the raids directed against the Amori-Hakodate car ferries, and yards at the Kagoshima and Iwakuni, the few attacks sustained by the rails were the result of spillage or opportunity bombing and were not a part of any planned bombing offensive directed against the railroads specifically.

Not one of the many vulnerable and accessible line-cut points on the main trunk lines had been attacked in planned aerial assualt. Incalculable damage could have been done to the railroads and in turn to the Japanese economy by one or two cuts on the Tokaido and Sanyo main lines over which moved the bulk of the freight traffic transported between Tokyo and Shimonoseki and intermediate industrial areas.

The gist of the Survey was that the destruction of the Japanese merchant marine had placed a massive burden upon the rail system to make up the slack in the movements of goods about Japan. Further, that the Japanese rail system was coastal and intensly vulnerable to interdiction because a few key junctions functioned as traffic chokepoints, the interdiction of which would have ground the Japanese economy to a halt within weeks.

So, my question isf the Americans were so fearful that the Japanese weren't going to surrender, they why did they refrain from the type of transportation attacks that they knew how to perform (lots of European experience) and knew would bring the Japanese to their knees within weeks?

The fog of war to quote Clausewitz, how many times in your life have you missed something obivious?

anyone that is familiar with the japanese fighting tactics of ww2 will quickly come to the conclusion that they did not surrender.

the islands of the south pacific was taken by the allies by a series of bloody brutal engagements.

Perhaps they did it because experienced military strategists who were alive during the time and had intelligence on their enemies state of mind at the time had a better idea of what needed to be done than citizens of anti american countries doped up on propoganda and perhaps the words of some bleeding heart japanese of today (as opposed to the japanese of the time who would rather hold an american's bleeding heart)

The fog of war to quote Clausewitz, how many times in your life have you missed something obivious?

Consult the history of the United States airforce in the European conflict. Rail transportation interdiction was a fundamental, core strategy and it is patently impossible that this could have been overlooked or otherwise neglected in the Pacific.


Perhaps they did it because experienced military strategists who were alive during the time and had intelligence on their enemies state of mind at the time had a better idea of what needed to be done than citizens of anti american countries doped up on propoganda and perhaps the words of some bleeding heart japanese of today (as opposed to the japanese of the time who would rather hold an american's bleeding heart

I think droppingthe A-bomb was the right thing to do, I would never choose to second guess Truman on that score.

However, the question I asked was entirely different: Why was an obvious, tried and true strategy from Europe not used on Japan? The USAAF Strategic Bombing Survey seems to indicate a deliberate decision was made to refrain from a tactic that could have brought the Japanese to their knees in weeks. I wonder why this was so. It appears I'm not the only one with no answer...

Consult the history of the United States airforce in the European conflict. Rail transportation interdiction was a fundamental, core strategy and it is patently impossible that this could have been overlooked or otherwise neglected in the Pacific.



I think droppingthe A-bomb was the right thing to do, I would never choose to second guess Truman on that score.

However, the question I asked was entirely different: Why was an obvious, tried and true strategy from Europe not used on Japan? The USAAF Strategic Bombing Survey seems to indicate a deliberate decision was made to refrain from a tactic that could have brought the Japanese to their knees in weeks. I wonder why this was so. It appears I'm not the only one with no answer...

It is a very interesting point, and I would also like some kind of conjecture on the topic.
My position on the detonation of the atomic bombs is that it needs no moral justification, nor does any other act of war. I am a firm believer in total war, so I may appear like an amoral asshole to the lot of you, but that's my position.

However, the question I asked was entirely different: Why was an obvious, tried and true strategy from Europe not used on Japan? The USAAF Strategic Bombing Survey seems to indicate a deliberate decision was made to refrain from a tactic that could have brought the Japanese to their knees in weeks. I wonder why this was so. It appears I'm not the only one with no answer...
japan was an island nation
not only was she an island nation she is composed of 4 or 5 main islands
i for one find it hard to believe that bombing a few "key" railroads would have brought japan to its knees

would a tactic like that have worked on britain? if so why didn't hitler use it?

the european theatre was different than the pacific theatre

Japan was an island nation
not only was she an island nation she is composed of 4 or 5 main islands
I for one find it hard to believe that bombing a few "key" railroads would have brought Japan to its knees

The quote was concise and precise, and straight from the horse’s mouth: the United States Army Air Force itself. For further details, see the Bombing Survey itself, (Vol. VII, I think). Japan’s rail system was inherently vulnerable to bombing for two reasons. First, because Japan was a series of islands that were long but thin. This meant that only a few rail lines (two to be exact) ran the entire length of Honshu, one in the north, one in the south. Extending inwards from these two main east-west arteries were numerous branch lines running north-south into the interior. But these all depended upon the two main lines for communications.

The second factor was that Japan was flush with ports along both coasts. This meant that the rail system had always played second fiddle to the sea lanes in the movement of goods about the country. So when those oceanic communications were extinguished, the railroads rapidly became the only means to move minorly convenient things (such as food to ward off mass starvation) about the nation. Therefore; a national resource of critical importance in the preservation of Japan’s population and ability to wage war. The USAAF SBS records the fact that rail communications were at max capacity by 1945 and could not afford any form of sustained attack. It also records the fact that said interdiction would have been easily within the USAAF’s capabilities due to fortunate geographical and logistical circumstances. And that by doing so, the Japanese economy would have disintegrated, perhaps within weeks.

I will not speculate as to why the Americans deliberately refrained from a tactic that could win them the war. But I think it’s difficult to suppose that this inaction stemmed from a conviction that securing a Japanese surrender would be difficult or impossible.

A very good site on the estamated causalitys for the invasion of Japan,
http://home.kc.rr.com/casualties/
Another for invasion,
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8141/downfall.html
Another on Japans plans for defence,
http://www.users.bigpond.com/pacificwar/AtomBomb_Japan.html
http://www.warbirdforum.com/olympic.htm
if you do the reaserch the answer is obivious, and the bomb was nessary.

So when those oceanic communications were extinguished, the railroads rapidly became the only means to move minorly convenient things (such as food to ward off mass starvation) about the nation.
can you provide a link so that i may view this work myself?

there is one major problem with the above quoted passage.
and that is japan prior to the end of ww2 was not an indusrial nation
the food staple consisted mainly of rice which was grown in great quantity by the individual people. the rice, to my knowledge, was transported to market by oxcart where it was sold.
a great many of japanese families had there own gardens where they could grow their own food

the only area where the railroads would be of any value is the fish market.

And the people were literally expected to fight to the death.
Starvation to them was better than raising a white flag.

To answer this question correctly to me, seems like a hell of a guess.
(I of course am talking about the atom bomb being dropped. After all it's only impossible to know for sure. So keep guessing.)

can you provide a link so that i may view this work myself?

I'm not aware of the USAAF SBS being on the net. Try a local university.

The quote was concise and precise, and straight from the horse’s mouth: the United States Army Air Force itself. For further details, see the Bombing Survey itself, (Vol. VII, I think).
typing "usaaf bombing survey" (without the quotes) yeilds the following website
http://www.447bg.com/library/survey.html

the war with japan was mainly a naval and marine engagement

Strategic bombing formed a core element within the American strategy to defeat Japan in 1945. In Europe, the systematic suppression of rail communications was implemented as a key strategy - one might say the key strategy - in the pursuit of victory. This included the destruction of nets in France and Germany much more difficult to interdict than Japan's. In Asia in 1945, the USAAF by and large refrained from any attacks of this type save for secondary effects arising from the area bombing of Japanese cities.

Theories as to why this was so do not interest me. What I have observed is that it appears difficult to reconsile this failure of action with the idea that an acceptable Japanese surrender was judged improbable via the methods employed prior to 6 August.

As a direct response to the notion that the Americans somehow "forgot" that they knew a thing or two about rail interdiction tactics,

"But American naval aircraft gave a foretaste of far worse things to come. Patrol planes of Fleet Air Wing One disrupted Korean rail lines and halted traffic for five days in early July. Continued attaks compelled considerable changes in plans for shipping raw materials from northern China and Manchuria to Korean ports. An extensive study of rail bridges highlighted the vital role of the bridge at Seisen. On July 31, six PB4Y Privateers destroyed one span of the bridge. As an American intelligence summary explained, this one stroke, "effectively cut off Southern Korea, except for branch lines of little comparatively small capacity." This episode served notice of how readily bulk-commodity shipments could be drastically reduced or halted on a limited rail net."

Downfall, Richard Frank, pp156

Not a good thing at all to kill 100,000-200,000+ civilians. It may have been decisive, but not a good thing at all.

nobody told japan to bomb pearl harbor.
she did it of her own free will

if you pick a fight with somebody and they thoroughly kick your ass, well i for one will not feel sorry for you.

Somehow too many people have home upon the opinion that we are supposed to be using teargas and rubber bullets in a freaking war.
Its war, dammit. People are expected to die in droves.

No, in a war, Soldiers are supposed to die. Not civilians.

I think the events of 1945 proved quite...therapeutic...to American-Japanese relations. Never underestimate the healing power of a really good beating.

Where I question matters is the potential incompetence of an American strategy that threw away all its strengths and allowed a post-war order in the former Japanese Empire completely at odds with American interests.

what america didn't realize was the tremendous phsycological effect that the bombs had on the japanese

to be honest the japanese people were ready for a change
prior to the end of the war marriages were arranged, you, in all probability, were married to someone you didn't even love much less liked. of course that ended with the war

I completely agree that the atomic bombs should not have been dropped, but I'm wondering....was it good that we dropped them?
Was it good? No. Nothing in war ever is.
Was it necessary? One hundred percent.

glenn 239 (Where I question matters is the potential incompetence of an American strategy that threw away all its strengths and allowed a post-war order in the former Japanese Empire completely at odds with American interests.)

You have just proved that the U.S. dosen't subjugate and opress nations we defeat in war, we let them develope their own systems of goverment and economics as long as they are non-agressive. The Foiley's of the forum should take notice, this was also done with Germany, and Italy, and then compair what shape eastern europe was left in for decades under Soviet Oppression and Domination, wich they are finally recovering from!

No, in a war, Soldiers are supposed to die. Not civilians.
from a military standpoint civilians are a countrys asset
civilians are future soldiers

poisoning food and water supplies are also justified

war is a nasty, ugly and brutal business.
if you or i do not like the horrors of war then we should do everything in our power to prevent it

if you or i do not like the horrors of war then we should do everything in our power to prevent it

By waging war?

By changing the equasion, wich we did in Germany and Japan, sometimes it the only way.

No, in a war, Soldiers are supposed to die. Not civilians.
That kind of thinking may have been perfect a few hundred years ago, in the 1770s, but this is the modern world. A brutal, harsh environment where if you are in the wrong at the wrong time, then it's tough shit.

Civilians have always died as a result of warfare. Real war is not a tidy toy soldier board game. War is a vicious mean sprited dirty cruel event that we should try to avoid but when it becomes necessary you do what ever is needed to protect your troops in a combat area.

You have just proved that the U.S. dosen't subjugate and opress nations we defeat in war, we let them develope their own systems of goverment and economics as long as they are no-agressive.

Well said.

My problem with American policy towards Japan in 1945 is that it was so incompetent that huge swaths of territory in the Japanese empire (Vietnam, China, Manchuria, Korea) were permitted to slip from the American sphere of influence into the Soviet. This poisoned the development of the areas in question and caused all sorts of trouble in subsequent decades. It remains to be seen how much trouble this avoidable folly has yet to cause to us. I've got no problem with a big China, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable if that China looked more like Taiwan...

Yes Glenn, but we had the same problem after WWII that we have today, peace at any price liberals, who don't understand, that peace comes at a price, and that if you appear weak, you invite attack, and every time we have negotiated from a position of non-agression we have had our heads handed to us!

Indeed. Prior to WWII, the very vocal pacifistic and isolationist groups damn near made us give up on the idea of a standing military. We basically had to regear every industry in the nation to produce war goods and draft like mad for the entire length of the war to make up for that mistake.

One of the truest rules in this world is that you must always have bigger fangs than the next beast over and must never be afraid to use them. When you bite, you go for a killing blow. Mercy to the enemy is treachery to your own men because you can be sure that your opponent would slam a knife into your belly for your efforts.

No, it is not a good thing that the U.S. dropped the atomic bombs.

There is more evidence that Japan would've surrendered soon enough anyway without the bombs.

Unconditional, lie prostrate upon the ground before us, 'have your emperor renounce his godhood'-type surrender?
I doubt it.

Was it good that the romans completely razed Carthage to the ground? Was it good that the assyrians impaled their captives in front of their countrymen as a form of psychological warfare?

You can't really judge the past to any good effect. You can only learn from it.

Worked for Rome and Assyria for many a century. That really is all you can ask of a policy.

No, it is not a good thing that the U.S. dropped the atomic bombs.

There is more evidence that Japan would've surrendered soon enough anyway without the bombs.
i disagree with both of those statements

it WAS a good thing that america dropped the bombs.
sooner or later nuclear weapons would have been developed.
it's quite possible that some numbnuts country could have developed the bomb and held the rest of the planet hostage.

about japans surrender, judging by the fanatical way japan was fighting all through the war even to the end it is clear that japan was going to go down swinging.

Develop, yes. Drop, no.

it's quite possible that some numbnuts country could have developed the bomb and held the rest of the planet hostage.
What, like, uh...us? :D

it is clear that japan was going to go down swinging.

This is called honour. (translation: honor)

Something the US rewarded by vapourising several hundred thousand women and children.

nobody told japan to bomb pearl harbor.
she did it of her own free will

if you pick a fight with somebody and they thoroughly kick your ass, well i for one will not feel sorry for you.

Drop the macho shit please.

You can brag and flex your muscles when we are discussing a slightly less cowardly and dishonourable method of winning a war.

what america didn't realize was the tremendous phsycological effect that the bombs had on the japanese

to be honest the japanese people were ready for a change
prior to the end of the war marriages were arranged, you, in all probability, were married to someone you didn't even love much less liked. of course that ended with the war

Do you think marriage should be exclusively about "love"? Do you think that if two people stop "loving" each other who have had children, they should just go their separate ways? Do you think that two people, one beautiful, one ugly, should be encouraged to breed solely on the grounds that they "love" each other?

Please tell me exactly what is so much better about our contemporary Western situation marriage-wise than in arranged marriages.

from a military standpoint civilians are a countrys asset
civilians are future soldiers

poisoning food and water supplies are also justified

war is a nasty, ugly and brutal business.
if you or i do not like the horrors of war then we should do everything in our power to prevent it

Those things you describe are basically terrorism.

You are american right? Don't you believe in that whole "war on terror" thing? Or does that only apply when it's YOUR civilians who are being bombed? What is the difference between an organisation murdering civilians and a government murdering civilians? If someone's father is a murderer, is it OK to go into their house and shoot them?