19 Mar 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThey understood it without the need to nuclear bomb Tokyo, so my guess is that you should read the context of what I'm saying.
They needed to be shocked into sanity. These were people who believed enslaving women to be gang raped by abusive soldiers is the way to wage war. They needed brutality. That's what they understood at the time.
19 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaBut would they understand it if some uninhabited island was nuked? The USA targetted a city that had been spared other attacks precisely so that there would be mass civilian carnage.
They understood it without the need to nuclear bomb Tokyo, so my guess is that you should read the context of what I'm saying.
19 Mar 08
OK, real quick, when the Japanese military saw Hiroshima, they didn't believe the survivor's claims that only one bomb did all that damage, in the confusion even many of those left alive weren't sure themselves. They thought it must have been a huge bomber raid that did it. Even after Nagasaki, the Japanese military wanted to continue the war, and there was a plot by high ranking officers to overthrow the emperor to prevent his capitulation, which was just narrowly averted. It's a myth that the one-two knockout punch caused the Japanese to instantaneously want to surrender without a second thought.
So, if ya only got ONE BOMB, as per the original question, put it where it will do the most damage to their infrastructure and hurt the most. Tokyo would seem the obvious target.
And for those who want to whine about it not being one of the three options given, if it makes ya happy, I'm offering it as a superior fourth option not listed. And for those who want to crab about 1941 not being the start of the war, yes, WE KNOW. Got nothing to do with anything. Thank you for bringing it up, though.
19 Mar 08
Originally posted by PalynkaOK you're arguing a semantic interpretation. I've reread the question and see your point, but as written it seems that dropping one bomb and how best to use it is the question. However, if we had an unlimited supply, I suppose dropping it in an isolated area as a demonstration might be the first choice.
No, the question did not involve ONE bomb. It's about the decision to drop A bomb. The bomb also serves as a signal that more could come.
But of course, we only had two anyway, I've forgotten how long it took us to make enough plutonium for another, and we were fortunate the Japanese surrendered right away, a third one wasn't forthcoming anytime soon.
I think. Anybody got any info to the contrary? Please don't be a jerk about it if I'm wrong.
19 Mar 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSure, but I'm not attacking the US for bombing or Nagasaki, I'm defending that nuking Tokyo would just kill more civilians with no improvement in the result.
But would they understand it if some uninhabited island was nuked? The USA targetted a city that had been spared other attacks precisely so that there would be mass civilian carnage.
This is why I think you're a bit out of context on my discussion with Sam.
19 Mar 08
Originally posted by Sam The ShamTrue but the Japanese didn't know that. Had they known, would they have surrendered? I doubt it. It was the prospect of more such bombs that led them to it.
But of course, we only had two anyway, I've forgotten how long it took us to make enough plutonium for another, and we were fortunate the Japanese surrendered right away, a third one wasn't forthcoming anytime soon.
19 Mar 08
Originally posted by PalynkaIke thought they were ready to surrender anyway. If he's right, you'd have to be pretty messed up to think it's ok to drop the bomb.
True but the Japanese didn't know that. Had they known, would they have surrendered? I doubt it. It was the prospect of more such bombs that led them to it.
19 Mar 08
Originally posted by bjohnson407The B-29's were bombing Japan all over the place at will, it's true. How many more of the big massive firebomb raids would it have taken? At what cost to Japanese civilians? More than the two A-bombs? Who knows. Who cares, it's a done deal anyway.
Ike thought they were ready to surrender anyway. If he's right, you'd have to be pretty messed up to think it's ok to drop the bomb.
19 Mar 08
There was no humane reason to choose anything else than '1. Do not drop the bomb'. There was enough information available about the effects of using the bomb, both in terms of casualties (non military), and on the politics of the years to come (like the cold war and issues with other countries building the bomb). It was a crime against humanity, perhaps the biggest ever.
19 Mar 08
Originally posted by Sam The ShamIf they were ready to surrender, the war should have ended then and there. We never tried Hirohito for war crimes, and we let him stay in power. As a country, I think we should come to terms with the fact that dropping the a-bomb may well have gained us nothing.
The B-29's were bombing Japan all over the place at will, it's true. How many more of the big massive firebomb raids would it have taken? At what cost to Japanese civilians? More than the two A-bombs? Who knows. Who cares, it's a done deal anyway.
19 Mar 08
Originally posted by bjohnson407They weren't "ready to surrender". As pointed out earlier, even after the two A-bombs were dropped, there were high ranking military officers that did not want to surrender and were advising Hirohito not to capitulate, and even planned a takeover to prevent him from doing so.
If they were ready to surrender, the war should have ended then and there. We never tried Hirohito for war crimes, and we let him stay in power. As a country, I think we should come to terms with the fact that dropping the a-bomb may well have gained us nothing.
19 Mar 08
Originally posted by Mephisto2But every military reason to do so.
There was no humane reason to choose anything else than '1. Do not drop the bomb'. There was enough information available about the effects of using the bomb, both in terms of casualties (non military), and on the politics of the years to come (like the cold war and issues with other countries building the bomb). It was a crime against humanity, perhaps the biggest ever.
Iwo Jima had showed that the Japanese Army was prepared to fight to the last man. Japan itself is 70-80% forested and mountainous, with thousands of islands. Fighting a determined army in that terrain, it is utterly impossible to predict how much longer the war would have lasted, or how many Allied casualties would have resulted.
The bombs were dropped on August 6th and 9th. Japan surrendered on August 15th. They were probably the most effective single weapons ever used in war.
As for war being inhumane -- yes it is. That's why the punishment for starting an unnecessary war should be very, very severe.
And it was.
19 Mar 08
Originally posted by Mephisto2Considering the Japanese treatment of people in the countries they conquered, I think your opinion would have made you very unpopular in most of Asia around September 1945.
There was no humane reason to choose anything else than '1. Do not drop the bomb'. There was enough information available about the effects of using the bomb, both in terms of casualties (non military), and on the politics of the years to come (like the cold war and issues with other countries building the bomb). It was a crime against humanity, perhaps the biggest ever.
19 Mar 08
Originally posted by Sam The Shamby no means conclusive.
They weren't "ready to surrender". As pointed out earlier, even after the two A-bombs were dropped, there were high ranking military officers that did not want to surrender and were advising Hirohito not to capitulate, and even planned a takeover to prevent him from doing so.