America dropping the A-bomb

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='Deluge' post='1616952' date='Dec 11 2008, 21.22']Yeah, why the fuck did we bomb Nagasaki?[/quote]
Nagaski was a secondary target to both Hiroshima and Kokura (the luckiest city ever.)

If you mean why the second bomb, one popular theory is that being a different type of bomb, they wanted to see if it worked as well.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Bronn Stone' post='1616828' date='Dec 11 2008, 20.31']I'm one of the usual suspects on this topic. I hold the view that Hiroshima was a brutal necessity of war and Nagasaki a war crime. Three days was not enough time for the effects to sink in. It took six days after Nagasaki even.

They should have given the Japanese government more time to surrender. But that lives were saved relative to ground invasion is pretty much beyond question. And it probably saved Japan from partition.[/quote]

I'm with Horza on this one, why exactly was it incumbent upon us to wait for them to come to their senses? They had months of their cities being leveled by bombing raids with hundreds of thousands dead and entire metropolis's wiped out, yet they did not surrender. Their entire industrial capacity wiped out. Allied blockades strangling the supplies of the mainland. Their military to a large extent neutralized. Their army was scattered and helpless throughout hundreds of tiny islands across thousands of miles of ocean. The Soviets had just invaded Manchuria. And what was their response?

On August 9th (Nagasaki day) they were making preparations to declare martial law in order to stop anyone who might be thinking of surrendering. Days later when Japan was finally set to surrender, some officers attempted a coup to prevent it. Even just before surrender many of their senior officers were talking about a last stand on mainland Japan that would inflict so many casualties that the allies would be forced to accept a ceasefire and perhaps even let Japan keep her war gains. These are not the words and actions of a people who knows they're defeated.

I'm not buying that a few more days after Hiroshima would've made them come to their senses. Too much of their leadership was still on 'fight til the end' footing before Nagasaki and the invasion of Manchuria. They didn't just have three days (though that should've been more than enough time in their position), they had 6 months or better of constant bombardment of mainland Japan. They did not yield. Noone suggests that we should've given a few more days between MASSIVE conventional bombings raids that inflicted destruction within reasonable range of Hiroshima/Nagasaki to see if they've changed their minds. I don't see why its suddenly intolerable that we didn't do so here.

[arya_underfoot]

unpalatable as it is, it seems to me that nagasaki was just as necessary as hiroshima, once it had been decided that nuclear weapons were the way to go.

i'm not very knowledgable on this topic, so i'm wondering if some of the american boarders can answer this for me: why did it take america so long to drop their nuclear bombs? is it because the bombs werent ready, or was there a moral dilemma about whether to use them or not? perhaps the war could've been ended several months or a year earlier??

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='arya_underfoot' post='1616986' date='Dec 12 2008, 00.26']i'm not very knowledgable on this topic, so i'm wondering if some of the american boarders can answer this for me: why did it take america so long to drop their nuclear bombs? is it because the bombs werent ready, or was there a moral dilemma about whether to use them or not? perhaps the war could've been ended several months or a year earlier??[/quote]

The first atomic bomb was tested July 16th 1945 and Hiroshima was bombed on August 6th 1945. It takes a while to get enough enriched plutonium/uranium (whichever they were using, they used both) to make an operational bomb. Fat Man and Little Boy (the names of the bombs) were the only two that we had when we dropped them. (though they were expecting another to come on line within a week or two)

The answer would be because they didn't have the bomb months or years earlier. 20 days from testing to shipping halfway across the world and loading onto a bomber is pretty damned quick actually. There was significant discussion of whether to use the bombs or how to deploy them, but they had that discussion and reached the decision long before the bombs were operational. There was even talk after Nagasaki of whether to ship the third bomb immediately to Japan once ready (2 weeks I think) or build up several of them and use them for mass effect during the invasion of mainland Japan. The allies did not think Japan was inclined to surrender yet. They were still planning for a mainland invasion after Nagasaki.

[arya_underfoot]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1616993' date='Dec 12 2008, 17.38']The allies did not think Japan was inclined to surrender yet. They were still planning for a mainland invasion after Nagasaki.[/quote]

holy crap!! was the plan to stage a normandy-like landing on the japanese coast??

what i dont understand is this: the allies were isolating and annihilating groups of japanese soldiers throughout south-east asia and the pacific islands. the soviets were advancing on japanese positions in mainland east asia. so if all the territory the japanese gained was taken away from them, all their soldiers outside of japan killed, all their big cities and factories in smoking ruins, and them being completely surrounded and cut off from vital resources, what hope did japan have of sustaining the war effort. shouldnt it have been simple enough to wait it out.

[Horza]

[quote name='arya_underfoot' post='1616997' date='Dec 12 2008, 17.51']holy crap!! was the plan to stage a normandy-like landing on the japanese coast??[/quote] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall"]Two [/url]of them, each bigger than D-Day.

[quote]what i dont understand is this: the allies were isolating and annihilating groups of japanese soldiers throughout south-east asia and the pacific islands. the soviets were advancing on japanese positions in mainland east asia. so if all the territory the japanese gained was taken away from them, all their soldiers outside of japan killed, all their big cities and factories in smoking ruins, and them being completely surrounded and cut off from vital resources, what hope did japan have of sustaining the war effort. shouldnt it have been simple enough to wait it out.[/quote]

Well, no, as all of that stuff (with the exception of rolling up the Kwangtung Army in Manchuria) was slow, bloody and costly. Borneo was in Japanese hands, as was Malaya - both are inhospitable climates and would take months to pacify if the Japanese continued to fight tooth and nail. Singapore and Hong Kong had to be retaken, likely at great cost - and we aren't just talking Allied soldiers but PoWs and the civillian populations of all these regions and China who by this time are in danger of starvation, disease and mass executions as the Japanese slowly lost their grasp on power. The Allies had to achieve as fast an end to hostilities as possible without throwing away their soldiers lives or giving up the aim of total dismantlement of the Japanese empire.

[tzanth]

Oh no, not this tired thread again. :/

This one:
[quote name='sologdin' post='1616827' date='Dec 11 2008, 18.31']the japanese would've surrendered without the bombs and without an invasion. the bombs were necessary only to the extent required by the technocratic imperatives of the military-industrial complex.[/quote]

According to Americas [i]own commanders[/i], the dropping of the bombs had absolutely nothing to do with saving lives or ending the war:

[quote name='1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey']Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.[/quote]

[quote name='Dwight D. Eisenhower']In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.[/quote]

[quote name='Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.']The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.[/quote]


There were only two reasons the bombs were used: 1. To scare the ruskies, and 2. Cause they had to justify building them. Their use was most defiantly a war crime.

[Horza]

First quote is a post-facto assessment based on access to Japanese sources. ETA: which you've selectively quoted - the USSBS also acknowledges the role the atomic bomb played in shaping opinion within the War Cabinet and the Imperial Palace in favor of accepting unconditional surrender - on the very same [url="http://www.anesi.com/bomb.htm"]page [/url]as your quote and nowhere does it suggest the atomic bomb should not have been deployed.

Second is from Ike's memoirs, published some time afterwards. Ike at the time was SHAEF commander and not in any position to exercise judgement on the decision to drop the bomb one way or the other.

Nimitz is conflating the July overtures with a determined effort to sue for peace (they weren't) and is right - from a purely military point wiping out two more small cities was not going to bring Dai Nippon Tekoku to its knees - the geostrategic implications and psychological shock to the War Cabinet were its primary effect.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='arya_underfoot' post='1616997' date='Dec 12 2008, 00.51']what i dont understand is this: the allies were isolating and annihilating groups of japanese soldiers throughout south-east asia and the pacific islands. the soviets were advancing on japanese positions in mainland east asia. so if all the territory the japanese gained was taken away from them, all their soldiers outside of japan killed, all their big cities and factories in smoking ruins, and them being completely surrounded and cut off from vital resources, what hope did japan have of sustaining the war effort. [b]shouldnt it have been simple enough to wait it out.[/b][/quote]

Losing was pretty inevitable for Japan by 1943, if not immediately after Midway in 1942. They lost 4 carriers in that battle, too many trained, experienced aircrews, and thus destroyed much of their offensive capacity in the Pacific. By 1943 US productive capacity was reaching full force, pumping out ships, carriers and planes in numbers the Japanese couldn't hope to match, submarines were strangling Japanese shipping, they were facing critical shortages of oil, raw materials, and trained pilots. By '43 the US had effective dominance of most of the seas.

But as Horza notes Japanese land forces were still dug in throughout mainland Asia and countless islands in the Pacific. The incredibly bloody and costly battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa (early 1945) foretold the type of resistance allied forces could expect with a mainland invasion.

* The Battle of Iwo Jima (16 February to 26 March): Of approximately 21,000 Japanese defenders, only 216 survived the battle.
* The Battle of Okinawa (1 April to 21 June): Of approximately 100,000 Japanese defenders, only 24,455 survived the battle.

Most of their troops were effectively cutoff. From rescue. From supply. Even some from communication. But many were still ready and willing to fight to the last man. Even short on supplies, ammunition, near starvation...didn't matter. It would've taken years to dig them all out if we went that route.

Throughout late 1944 and 1945 the blockade around mainland Japan became a stranglehold. Japan was short on planes and (especially) trained crews, so our bombers leveled the mainland with relative impunity for months. About half of the built up areas of 64 cities were completely destroyed by allied bombing raids, including over half of Tokyo...leveled. (at a cost of many more lives than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined)

But still they would not surrender. As Horza (I think) noted earlier, the more moderate factions within the military (which essentially ran things) had long since been purged. Those in power were still under the delusion that they could inflict enough casualties on the allies to force us to grant more advantageous peace terms. (no occupation, perhaps even maintaining the empire, no war crimes tribunals by the allies, etc) And some were willing to see the utter destruction of the country rather than surrender.

To the bolded part of your quote, waiting things out was in effect their strategy. They couldn't mount an offensive. They could only offer token defenses to sea or air attacks. Their plan at that point was to wait for us to land (whereever we did land) and hope to inflict enough causalities in each engagement til we got cold feet and offered better terms. They were hoping that we lacked the will to fight on. If the mainland of their country got completely devastated and people began starving during the interim, apparently that was a price worth paying. This was an extremely determined enemy.

Also to be noted is that the Russian invasion of Manchuria began August 9th (Nagasaki day) and many accounts suggest, played a significant factor in the Japanese decision to surrender a few days later. It is quite possible that the members of the leadership that wished to fight on may have won out even after the 2 nukes without the Soviets baring down on them as well.

Why did they fight on? Pride. Honor. Preserving the emperor. Delusions. Irrationality. Wishful thinking. Bad intelligence. A fatalistic and militaristic culture that placed death and glory before dishonor. Who knows. Something along those lines I'm sure. They had no hope really, but would not surrender.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote]The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.[/quote]

The Japanese were sending out feelers and pursuing terms that wouldn't have been acceptable to a powerless halfwit. No occupation, keeping parts of the empire, remaining militarized. In other words, they were seeking a ceasefire of equals, not a peace and sure as hell not surrender. They were not serious about pursuing peace on real terms. Even til the end much of their leadership didn't seem to grasp the precariousness of their position. They sure as fuck were not in a position to negotiate anything. They failed to grasp that.

Horza addressed the other stuff well enough. Though on the November surrender suggestion, I'm curious what would've made them more amenable to the suggestion than they were in February, March, April, May, June and July? Their cities were being destroyed one by one during this period. Their shipping decimated to nothing. Supplies cut to almost nothing. Japan was a castle under siege and constant bombardment at this point, desperately short on the necessities of life and suffering massive destruction each and every day. How exactly would another 2 months made all the difference without something any change? Without something a tad bit more decisive...like the annihilation of 2 cities and Russia conquering Manchuria within a matter of days.

[quote]the geostrategic implications and psychological shock to the War Cabinet were its primary effect.[/quote]

[arya_underfoot]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1617022' date='Dec 12 2008, 19.02']Also to be noted is that the Russian invasion of Manchuria began August 9th (Nagasaki day) and many accounts suggest, played a significant factor in the Japanese decision to surrender a few days later. It is quite possible that the members of the leadership that wished to fight on may have won out even after the 2 nukes without the Soviets baring down on them as well.[/quote]

that's very interesting. so the japanese surrendered at that point in time when it became a real possibility that they could be invaded by the soviets and end up a part of the soviet union?? better surrender to whatever terms the americans offerred than to be enslaved by the russians.

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1617022' date='Dec 12 2008, 19.02']Why did they fight on? Pride. Honor. Preserving the emperor. Delusions. Irrationality. Wishful thinking. Bad intelligence. A fatalistic and militaristic culture that placed death and glory before dishonor. Who knows. Something along those lines I'm sure. They had no hope really, but would not surrender.[/quote]

i guess this isnt exactly surprising

[litechick]

Tzanth, I don't necessarily disagree with your points but I still see the use of the A-bombs as a horrible, sad necessity.

I don't want to argue with you but I would like to suggest that if one looks at what the Russians were all about at the time and what they did in regards to forming the Iron Curtain and how people fared under that system, there was some justification for the sense of urgency which would not wait for Japan's conventional surrender and sought to curtail any claim by Russia on occupation of that territory.

In other words, if Japan's surrender had been delayed by even a month we might have ended up with a North Japan and South Japan and we can see the potential results of that in today's Korea.

If you think my opinion on that is insubstantial--so be it. I can't cite any sources to substantiate it. All I can really say is no matter how sad it makes me that my country perpetrated such a horror, I believe in the ham-handed idealism of America and that Truman took on the onerous responsibility of giving that order for the greater good.

Pro: protect Americans from slaughter in invading Tokyo; protect Japan from Russian occupation; make it clear to the world that we have the technology and we are not fucking around; give an object lesson that attacking the US = serious consequences.

Con: horrible destruction of human life; bearing the responsibility for same; never ending grief for having done it.

I think it may be easier for Japan to forgive us than for us to forgive ourselves.

Speaking as someone who regularly eats meat but has never killed for it, I can only be thankful that such tasks do not fall to me. I don't know that I would have the courage to give that order (dropping the bomb) even if I knew it was the better choice.

Who knows? Maybe Truman was a Christian and believed he was putting his immortal soul at jeopardy by giving that order. It seems unlikely to me that he was a simpleton, giving the big 'fuck you' to the world just because he could.

Simon, it's OK to be conflicted. We should be conflicted. We just can't let that conflict lead to bitter cynicism. We can't give up on trying to do the right thing even if we can't be sure what that is. We can't let that conflict sap us of our resolve to make the best decision we can and execute a plan accordingly.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='arya_underfoot' post='1617028' date='Dec 12 2008, 02.18']that's very interesting. so the japanese surrendered at that point in time when it became a real possibility that they could be invaded by the soviets and end up a part of the soviet union?? better surrender to whatever terms the americans offerred than to be enslaved by the russians.[/quote]

It wasn't exactly fear of being at the mercy of the Soviets, but more along the lines of what Horza suggested. 3 major blows almost at once turning their situation from bleak to absolutely hopeless even in the minds of the most optimistic and delusional generals. Two cities wiped out with the promise of more, a mainland invasion by the Americans on the horizon, and their forces suddenly facing a new enemy on top of that, it became too much. Its much as Horza's line suggests:

[quote]the geostrategic implications and psychological shock to the War Cabinet were its primary effect.[/quote]

And remember what I said about their 'bleed the allies til we offer better terms' strategy. All well and good, but now you've got a new army you've got to bleed and after the sacrifices they made on the Eastern front, they could seemingly lose a million in Japan and not flinch. Part of the calculation was the Japanese view of the Americans as 'soft'. That perception did not apply to the Russians. At that point it was clear that even their desperate, hopeless strategy would fail completely.

And still there was an attempted coup by some military leaders so that they could fight on.

[Malatesta]

Dropping atomic bombs on Japan is probably the greatest crime in history and the idea that it saved lives, is morally and ethically justifiable in anyway or that an invasion of the country was the only alternative is a capitalist fantasy.

[Horza]

It's important as well to understand that no one factor - conventional defeat, strategic bombing, nukes or fear the Russians was predominant - the decision by the War Cabinet to acceed to the Potsdam terms of surrender was a product of all of them, cumulatively and the salience of each factor is open to speculation and debate (see: this thread). Ultimately, it was the War Cabinet's call to surrender, and that it took so long at such cost for them to see reason is perhaps more damning than any blindness or recklessness on Truman's part.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Malatesta' post='1617037' date='Dec 12 2008, 02.34']Dropping atomic bombs on Japan is probably the greatest crime in history and the idea that it saved lives, is morally and ethically justifiable in anyway or that an invasion of the country was the only alternative is a capitalist fantasy.[/quote]

About as worthwhile as all of your contributions. Go play in traffic.

[Malatesta]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1617039' date='Dec 12 2008, 16.37']About as worthwhile as all of your contributions. Go play in traffic.[/quote]

Keep on crying little buddy - The US bombing of Japan was one of the greatest crimes in history and the hegemonic U.S intellectual discourse about having to do it is pure fantasy.

[Horza]

[quote name='Malatesta' post='1617043' date='Dec 12 2008, 19.45']Keep on crying little buddy - The US bombing of Japan was one of the greatest crimes in history and the hegemonic U.S intellectual discourse about having to do it is pure fantasy.[/quote]

I've always believed when you can't be bothered to actually make an argument the best thing to do is sling around 'hegemonic US intellectual discourse' until everyone is awed into silence by your arsenal of syllables. :thumbsup:

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Malatesta' post='1617037' date='Dec 12 2008, 02.34']Dropping atomic bombs on Japan is probably the greatest crime in history[/quote]

Even if we accept the premise that using the nukes was an unforgivable crime against humanity...I can think of 3-4 of them in that war alone that were worse. Greatest crime in history? You either know very little history or you're trolling.

[quote]and the idea that it saved lives[/quote]

Its a perfectly debatable point with a decent amount of evidence suggesting it did. Some of which has been mentioned already in thread. Again, its subject to argument, but calling it fantasy (capitalist or otherwise) is ridiculous. And adds yet another reason not to take you seriously.

[quote]is morally and ethically justifiable in anyway[/quote]

If it did in fact save lives, its at least mathematically justifiable. And there are more than enough moral/ethical justifications that could be argued. Your opinion no doubt differs on the strength of those arguments, but simply saying it don't make it so.

[quote]or that an invasion of the country was the only alternative is a capitalist fantasy.[/quote]

I don't think anyone has said this was the only alternative. But it probably was the most likely one.


Actually, now that I think about it, 'Go play in traffic' was a much more deserving response.

[Malatesta]

[quote name='Horza' post='1617044' date='Dec 12 2008, 16.48']I've always believed when you can't be bothered to actually make an argument the best thing to do is sling around 'hegemonic US intellectual discourse' until everyone is awed into silence by your arsenal of syllables. :thumbsup:[/quote]

I can sling it around because it fits perfectly the model of internet arguments about this when U.S citizens are involved.

[quote]At this point, why is it incumbent on the United States to wait any longer? Why is the onus not on the Imperial War Council to save their citizens and put an end to an utterly futile war, in which all hope of Japanese victory had vanished three years earlier at Midway?[/quote]

To wait for what? Eagerly test new weaponry on innocent people?

The onus is not on the Imperial War Council to save their citizens for the same reason it is not the role of any other fanatical center of power and you can choose the historical comparison. Their role is to hold on to power not give a shit about their own people.

None of this is the primary issue however because the serious part is the delusion that the only alternative was main land invasion of Japan - which is not to say it wasn't a plan. Funnily this discussion usually has attached to it somewhere 'saved many [i]American[/i] lives'.

As we all agree from page one - Japan was stuffed. The US could have approached the situation anyway they wanted to including very easy economic and geographic sanctioning until the fanatics were internally or otherwise dealt with. A mainland invasion of Japan like stated would have been on a scorched earth level - The US fought the war in the pacific to ensure that Japan would not become the center for an Asian economic region that it would dominate (without US control) - full scale invasion would be the complete opposite to their efforts.

The argument that you can test a bomb on unpopulated ground is best viewed along side the internal record - they were dropped to test them on people.