Was it really necessary to bomb Nagasaki? Hiroshima?

[CatWoman]

I was channel surfing, and came across this documentary about the bombing.

Many children scarred and burnt.

Reminded me of Iraq.

[cantstandbush]

1. No. The war was already essentially over. n/t

[Endangered Specie]

2. Oh no, not this again...

btw my position is both bombs were wrong. We should have at least waited for the Russians to declare war, or drop one out at sea/in an unpopulated area before bombing a city.

[realisticphish]

7. you know

i had honestly never considered the idea of dropping it in an unpopulated area. wow, makes a hell of a lot of sense

[CatWoman]

8. I don't understand your comments

they frighten and confuse me.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

75. Grunt.

Cirroc: < stepping out> It's just "Cirroc", your Honor.. and, yes, I'm ready. < approaches the jury box > Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW.. and run off into the hills, or wherever.. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, I wonder: "Did little demons get inside and type it?" I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. But there is one thing I do know - when a man like my client slips and falls on a sidewalk in front of a public library, then he is entitled to no less than two million in compensatory damages, and two million in punitive damages. Thank you.

[CatWoman]

99. bwahahahahahaha

I was wondering when someone would acknowledge my joke :hi:

[Endangered Specie]

25. i edited it to be more clear.

[CatWoman]

36. why are you trying to deter people from discussing this?

[mattclearing]

100. A Warning Shot would have been best, I think.

Why they couldn't do this, I still wonder.

[realisticphish]

3. this question has been debated a LOT

and i really don't know. one the one hand, some claim that the war was over, and the bombing was unneccessary. i can see that. on the other hand, others claim that japan would never surrender unless we launched a full-scale land invasion, which, along with the following violent occupation, would cost many more american and japanese lives. so, i dunno :shrug:

[CatWoman]

I've never participated in a debate about it.

[realisticphish]

17. well

i mean among historians in general, not neccessarily DU

[CatWoman]

22. LOL

My bad!!

:D

[bpilgrim]

35. not nearly enough - especially today where Japan is contemplating NUKES

and we have put them back on the table.

BTW: all military leaders in theater at that time though they were UNNECESSARY.

more info on the debate...
http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

peace

[ArkDem]

101. >all military leaders in theater at that time though they were UNNECESSARY

Pretty funny, I guess Curtis LeMay wasn't a leader.....

[bpilgrim]

118. "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all" - LeMay

* On September 20, 1945 the famous "hawk" who commanded the Twenty-First Bomber Command, Major General Curtis E. LeMay (as reported in THE NEW YORK HERALD TRIBUNE):

said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry into the war. (THE DECISION, p. 336.)

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

fyi

peace

[ArkDem]

130. So you think he was against the bombing? Yeah, ol' Curtis

was a real pussycat.

[bpilgrim]

132. the BOMBINGS were BARBARIC and UNNECESSARY to end the war even he said so

it is nuts that folks still think they 'saved lives' :eyes:

if you would like to learn more go hear...
http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

peace

[ArkDem]

139. That is a pretty stupid web site. I think I'll stck with history.

[bpilgrim]

144. some can't handle the truth

i know it's hard... considering the facts.

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

peace

[ArkDem]

153. I tell you what. Stick with your one contrary source. If revisionism

is your cup of tea just go with it. In 1945 virtually every American
was happy with the action and the result. There was no debate. Nobody was happier than the men in our armed forces. I am very glad you were not and in all probability will never be in a position to make decisions that will influence our national defense.:beer:

[begin_within]

4. No.

[Bloodblister Bob]

5. The US could have A-bombed a rural area of Japan as a demo. n/t

[benburch]

6. Possibly.

At the time we thought Japan would resist to the last man, woman, and child. And we had reason to do so; The Kamakazi and Kaiten suicide attacks were most alarming.

Worse, with the war done in Europe, Stalin had moved most of his army to the East, and was preparing to enter the Pacific War. Had he done so, we would have had to parcel up Japan as we did Europe. So there was an additional motive to have the war done ASAP.

Truman acted upon the best advice he had, and I think I would have made the same choice he did were I in his place.

Hell, it still looks like a good choice from here, except for the choice of targets.

[benburch]

9. In case you were wondering what a Kaiten is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiten

Japanese suicide torpedo!

[Postman]

15. You are a scary person.

eom

[benburch]

19. Thanks for the compliment.

I work hard at that.

[CatWoman]

28. God, I love you!!!!!!!

you're just so bad!!!

Sorta like Trumad lite :D

[benburch]

46. Thanks my dear!

But honestly this is my historical opinion; I have studied that War all of my life.

I read John Hershey's "Hiroshima" at age ten.

And "How to survive a nuclear bomb."

I was a subscriber to the very anti-war anti-nuclear munitions "Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists" when I was 12.

But when I see how the world would now be different had Stalin taken much of Japan, and with the likelihood that this would have precipitated WW-III by now, I simply cannot gainsay Truman's judgement on this matter.

[bpilgrim]

23. we NUKED a DEFEATED try'n to surrender nation's CITIES CIVILIAN POPULATION

TWICE.

and ALL Truman's in-theater military leaders felt it wasn't necessary at the time.

it looks just as disgusting today as it did then.

"Hiroshima is the 2nd most HORRID word in the American lexicon succeeded only by NAGASAKI" - Kurt Vonnegut

peace

[benburch]

32. It was unclear to Truman that there was any real attempt to surrender.

It was believed by his advisors to be an attempt to buy time.

As for defeated, hardly. Had we had to take Japan by landings there would have been amazing resistance. More people (on both sides) would have died in any invasion that would have been killed in ten Hiroshimas.

[bpilgrim]

44. if you read the record that is not true since we had broken their code

& knew their true intentions and situation.

that the nation was defeated militarily by the spring of 45 is NOT debatable, that we could have SAVED LIVES by accepting their 1 condition sooner is.



Imagine how many lives would have been saved if there was no IWO JIMA or Okinawa?

* In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

(T)he use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . .

(I)n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. (THE DECISION, p. 3.)

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

that pretty much sums up my views on this horrid subject.

peace

[benburch]

52. We did not know what was being said by courier.

And at that time, much of this conversation was in person or by courier.

And we had to ask; "Do they know we can read their codes? And if so, are they saying what they want us to hear?" And that was indeed what many American military planners believed was going on.

And it cannot be doubted that the A-bomb ended that war.

What was not known then was the aftermath.

[bpilgrim]

56. we knew the situation on the ground and all military leaders in theater

at the time KNEW they were not necessary.

we should have accepted their 1 condition sooner.

NUKING a civilian population is ALWAYS WRONG.

peace

[benburch]

60. My uncle, an Army Colonel in the Pacific at the time, told me different.

He really believed that he was going to have to help take the Japanese Islands one at a time at terrific cost in lives.

And the histories I have read are divided on that issue.

[bpilgrim]

62. read what the top ranking officers with a bigger picture view thought...

http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

NUKING a CIVILIAN population is ALWAYS WRONG, imho.

peace

[benburch]

66. More wrong than firebombing Dresden?

Or merely the same? I *know* you have thought about Dresden.

[bpilgrim]

70. another war crime, imo, but yes, even worse than Dresden or Tokyo

since it is the death that keeps on giving, even reaching up into the womb to kill and cause suffering across the generations.

and we KNEW how deadly uranium and plutonium was then or none of our scientist would have lived long enough to actually finish the project.

peace

[benburch]

72. Even our bomb scientists were amazed at the devastation.

Retrospect is always 20-20.

We did not know the full effect even several years later when we sent American soldiers into newly bombed testing areas to see how quickly such areas could be occupied.

And those in charge really did not see the a-bomb for what it was.

[bpilgrim]

77. and then we did it AGAIN, 3 days later

see my original post in this thread for how i see it in a nutshell.

it can not be morally nor militarily justified or we are all doomed.

peace

[benburch]

78. Well, we had no "ground truth" three days later.

What was happening was planned long in advance.

Only through hindsight can we judge Nagasaki differently from Hiroshima.

[bpilgrim]

85. we had air truth

too bad the long term 'PLANNING' couldn't make way for the facts on the ground in the summer of 45.

only through hindsight do we learn anything at all, especially for those who were not there but that doesn't mean they will see clearly even after more than 6 decades to reflect since the very same BS propaganda from then is prevalent today, in the U.S. anyways.

peace

[Yupster]

90. Hiroshima I can justify in my mind

as a way to save more lives than invading Japan.

Nagasaki is tougher for me to rationalize. How was the Japanese government going to get the facts from Hiroshima together and make the needed political decisions to surrender in three days? I just can't see that.

Why not wait a week or two weeks?

I know the Russians had invaded two days after Hiroshima and they were probably killing tens of thousands a day, but I still don't see that as justification for another bomb three days later.

[LostinVA]

121. That's the point -- THREE DAYS LATER

Scientists knew it would be horrific, but it beat even what they thought. Okay, fine. Then why the hell did we do it THREE DAYS LATER to another CIVILIAN target? Why not wait a few more days and insist on an unconditional surrender? The Allies would have gotten it.

Neither time is excusable, although the first time can be somewhat rationalized. The second time? Cold-blooded slaughter.

[oneighty]

43. Kamikaze

and Kaiten although serious enough were targeted against our navy and had a relatively small kill area.

OTOH the atomic bombs were directed primarily at civilians. Had the bombs been used against Yokosuka, Sasebo or Yokohama it would have made more military sense.

There is no comparison between the suicide weapons and the atomic bombs.

IMHO

180

[benburch]

58. I agree with that.

And had we known what an A-bomb would do to survivors in the area, I really do believe we would have chosen a military target like a steel complex, or a shipyard.

But consider what a nation of suicide bombers would have been like to conquer "on the ground"?

[oneighty]

61. I really doubt that all of

those suicide warriors had their hearts in it. I knew the parents of a dead Kamikaze pilot and they certainly did not have their hearts in it. Not that that means any thing but I think the fanaticism of the majority of the Japanese people is highly inflated.

Of course that is just an opinion. Too.

180

[benburch]

69. They had no dearth of volunteers.

More volunteers than missions for them conduct.

[oneighty]

73. I tend to not believe that

I was in Japan 1952 to 1955 and came away with a different impression. But then again it is an opinion based on knowing quite a few Japanese.

When called upon young Japanese 'volunteers' could not refuse. It is similar to our own military.

180

[benburch]

76. In Germany in the 1950s you could find almost nobody...

who would admit to being a Nazi or to having supported Hitler in any way.

But we know that at least some of them were lying.

[oneighty]

82. maybe so

there are liars everywhere.

180

[LostinVA]

123. THey would listen to their Emperor -- they DID listen to him

A good friend of mine is Japanese, and her parents and grandparents tell how they cried when the Emperor told them the war was over, and to NOT fight those who occupied Japan. And they didn't -- they were often more hospitable than the Germans. My friend's family says they cried because they lost, and because of all they had went through for nothing -- it was a sad defeat, but mot long a bitter one.

And, I think that's why Hirohito didn't swing from the end of a rope.

[rinsd]

105. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets....

...were there possible higher priority targets? Possibly.

But they were in fact military targets especially Nagasaki.

[JJackFlash]

64. " Truman acted upon the best advice he had"

No, actually Dwight Eisenhower (the last decent R) urged him not to, sine Japan was already defeated.

[benburch]

80. Others told him differently.

He had to decide who to listen to.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. I'm not sure I will ever have the correct intellectual answer to this one.

Growing up (meaning even in my twenties) I though of course it was necessary. But then I saw the history channel documentary on it (I think it was the H.C.) and it just didn't seem like something like that could ever be justified. I see good arguments for both. In the end I guess I just will never know, though I do know that I never can stand seeing innocent people burned to dust... sighhhh

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. No. The Japanese were defeated. It was needless barbarism.

The decision was made because the American people were clamoring for "victory" and the Russians were threatening China.

[jody]

12. Hindsight produces divided opinions but at the time, Yes. Japan would not

have hesitated to use an atomic bomb on the U.S. and the Japanese military and civilian population were prepared to die for the emperor. It is a tribute to Emperor Hirohito that he realized the futility of resistance and chose to surrender.

Your question and my reply will trigger a torrent of NOs but those who grew up in WWII were glad to see the war end without further loss of life on the Allies side.

:hi: Catwoman

[CatWoman]

20. JODY!!!!!!!!

:hi:

McArthur was on last night.

Some say he tried to humiliate the Japanese.

I think that he, like most WW2 leaders, did the best he could.

[jody]

38. MacArthur was absolutely fantastic as a military commander and statesman.

I doubt if Japan would be the power it is today without him as a benevolent dictator and his knowledge of societies in the Far East.

His farewell speech at West Point is among the most stirring of all times. An excerpt oft ignored is:
QUOTE
Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory, that if you lose, the Nation will be destroyed, that the very obsession of your public service must be Duty, Honor, Country.

Others will debate the controversial issues, national and international, which divide men's minds. But serene, calm, aloof, you stand as the Nation's war guardians, as its lifeguards from the raging tides of international conflict, as its gladiators in the arena of battle. For a century and a half you have defended, guarded and protected its hallowed traditions of liberty and freedom, of right and justice.

Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government. Whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing indulged in too long, by federal paternalism grown too mighty, by power groups grown too arrogant, by politics grown too corrupt, by crime grown too rampant, by morals grown too low, by taxes grown too high, by extremists grown too violent; whether our personal liberties are as firm and complete as they should be.

These great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution. Your guidepost stands out like a tenfold beacon in the night: Duty, Honor, Country.

You are the leaven which binds together the entire fabric of our national system of defense. From your ranks come the great captains who hold the Nation's destiny in their hands the moment the war tocsin sounds.
UNQUOTE

ON EDIT ADD
Audio of speech at General Douglas MacArthur: Thayer Award Acceptance Address

[ArkDem]

154. EXCELLENT POST ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

:toast:

[CantGetFooledAgain]

13. Why not try a demonstration of the power of the bomb...

...to force a surrender?

Had that failed, why drop two bombs instead of just one?

[hyphenate]

47. There had been plenty of demonstrations

done, and yet most were oblivious to them. I think that showing the actual human toll inflicted by such a weapon was necessary.

If people really want to know the truth, we pulled some stupid shit with the a-bomb. We knew how destructive it could be, but we also were fairly ignorant to the longer lasting effects of exploding the bomb. People in areas where testing was done are still suffering from the side effects, and there will always be a higher percentage of cancers, mutancies, and illnesses.

We were irresponsible to have spent so little time on fully understanding what we were doing. But there was an urgency that dictated fast action, and we went ahead anyhow.

I agree with benburch--what was done was necessary in light of the things going on at the time. What we see upon reflection doesn't keep those set of circumstances and mindset in mind.

[Jara sang]

104. Plenty of demonstrations?

Trinity was the first, Hiroshima the second and Nagasaki the third. You are thinking of the Crossroads exercises and related tests in the Marshall Islands after the war was over.

[LostinVA]

126. Err.... there were no demonstrations

If there had been, the Japanese probably would have surrendered.

[ptolle]

95. messages

IMO from my research the principal message was for the Soviet Union. Churchill and others were already wary of their postwar aims, and I think this was principally intended as a message to Stalin saying cool your jets buddy.The residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mostly, as too often innocents in time of war are in the wrong place, wrong time.Again IMO tactically and strategically the a-bombs were unnecessary. Their military forces were pretty well destroyed we could have imposed an almost total naval blockade of the home islands quite easily. But then you get into the moral issue of whether or not it's "better" to use such a weapon on a relatively small portion of the civilian populace or to starve a larger portion.I'd not want to have to make such a decision. From my point of view the worst part of the use of the atomic weapons was that it legitimized their use and made the unthinkable thinkable.

[hyphenate]

14. In my opinion

the attack on Hiroshima was necessary--I don't think the followup on Nagasaki was.

Most of the citizens were warned and most left. But yes, there were many deaths regardless, and many people didn't understand the need to leave.

But I don't think that Japan would have backed down otherwise. Japan was quite arrogant and unwilling to give in. I doubt if conventional means would have been enough to stop them from keeping the war going in the Pacific theatre.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. Read John Hersey's Hiroshima

Leaflets were dropped before the bombing, but since Hiroshima had been purposely left unbombed to serve as a "laboratory" for the first use as a weapon, people had gotten overly confident. Besides, even though the leaflets warned of a terrible weapon, how could they possibly conceive of what was to come?

Most did not leave. The city was business as usual. I was in Japan for the 40th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, and there was a TV documentary called something like "Who Lived and Who Died, and Why." It examined the stories of people who had survived close to the epicenter.

For example, one group of survivors were attending an early morning meeting at a bank. People who sat near the windows were vaporized, while those who were away from windows and sheltered by the bank's thick walls survived, although with burns and other injuries.

The people of Hiroshima were accustomed to U.S. reconnaissance planes flying over, so when the air raid sirens went off and only a single plane could be seen, most people just shrugged it off. After all, how much damage could one plane cause?

The bombing of Nagasaki was unnecessary and partly a twist of fate. Some in the U.S. military establishment didn't want the Japanese to think that the U.S. had only one atomic bomb, so they insisted that a second bomb be dropped so that the Japanese would have no idea how many cities could be vaporized.

The original target was Kokura, a city on the east coast of Kyushu, now incorporated into the metropolitan area of Kita-Kyushu. However, Kokura was clouded over, so the pilots were ordered to head to the first alternate target, Nagasaki. It was Nagasaki's sad fate to have beautiful blue skies that morning.

However, fewer people were killed at Nagasaki than at Hiroshima, because unlike Hiroshima, which was built on a flat river delta, Nagasaki is hilly like San Francisco. The bombs in those days were small enough that being behind one of the hills offered significant protection.

Nagasaki was one of the most historic cities in Japan, and for over 200 years, it was the only Japanese city where foreigners were allowed.

[liberalpragmatist]

16. I don't know completely - there's one interesting argument out there...

... that bears considering. Basically, the argument was that Japan was not willing to surrender and that, rather than the US rejecting an invasion in favor of dropping the bombs, the US had to drop the bomb because the proposed invasion of Japan had become thoroughly inconceivable.

Actually, the best article on this was in The Weekly Standard. But it's worth a read nonetheless. By a historian, not some right-wing hack (although he may be a RW-historian for all I know, I'm not familiar with his work). Still, do read it. It is a good article.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/894mnyyl.asp

Personally, I'm really unsure about Nagasaki - was that really necessary? I can buy that Hiroshima might well have been, but was Nagasaki really?

Also, I think Hiroshima obscures a larger issue, perhaps more troubling. The fact is the allies had already chosen to disregard civilian casualties through firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden and other places. And perhaps the most troubling argument about that is this: was terrorizing the civilian population the only way to end the war? Would the US and the Allies have been able to successfully rebuild Germany and Japan without completely breaking the will of the civilian population?

[enigma000]

45. Good question

Would the US and the Allies have been able to successfully rebuild Germany and Japan without completely breaking the will of the civilian population?

The people involved in the use of the 2 A-bombs were no more different than you or I. Four years of war, for the US, 400,000 dead and a chance presented itself to end it.

The German and Japanese people's wills were broken. That made it so much easier to rebuild their societies to our specifications. Considering these nations have been nothing but peaceful for 60 years, I guess it worked.

[Erika]

18. No. We hit innocent population centers with a new weapon

Never should have happened. It was totally immoral on our part.

[benburch]

26. More immoral than the firebombing of Toyko and Dresden?

Or merely done at less cost?

I think you have to read a really complete history of WW-II (Or several as I have) before you can see this in light of what we knew then; To American military planners, an A-bomb was just a really, really, really big bomb. No different from having 20,000 B-17s loaded with firebombs from their point of view.

We did not know then of the long term effects of a nuclear munition. But - had we known we would likely have chosen something like a fleet anchorage or steel mill complex for a target. We pretty much had to do something to make the Japanese high command capitulate before Stalin could enter the war.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

84. The firebombing of Tokyo was a war crime

I'm not talking about hitting industrial plants. The bombing in March 1945 specifically targeted not only a civilian area of the city with no heavy industries, but an old and crowded part of the city, where wooden houses were crowded together, separated in some areas only by alleyways so narrow that you could touch the houses on both sides as you walked down the street.

A firestorm was inevitable, and it is estimated that 100,000 people were burned to death in a single night.

Survivors of that nightmare feel, with some justification, that they've been neglected in favor of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

When people look at Tokyo and wonder why it has so few historic buildings and neighborhoods, the answer is March 1945.

[LostinVA]

124. Both were war crimes, and are inexcusable

Both in hindsight and in "foresight." Especially Tokyo.

[rinsd]

107. Again...Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.

Hiroshima was a staging point for the defense of Southern Japan and Nagasaki was a huge port and industrial military complex.

[DearAbby]

21. This question will be asked and be debated for many years to come.

In light of the current intelligence, and what the public is told and what is kept from them, we may never know.

The argument is that it had saved a costly invasion of the island by allied troops. (Cost in lives.)

I don't really think they understood the devastation of this weapon. Also I believe that it was used, BECAUSE IT WAS THERE. They wanted to use it, to test it in effect on the battlefield.

Would the Japanese surrendered with just a demonstration of the weapon, detonated in an unpopulated area? I don't know. Plus it should be noted that we only had two of these bombs ready to deploy. I do believe that the second bombing was not necessary.

[Spinzonner]

24. Things are perfectly clear in retrospect

after all uncertainties have been resolved and all alternatives fixed.

[goclark]

27. After I visited the schools in Nakasaki

and took a tour of the Nakasaki museum, my answer is NO, we should not have done it.


I am haunted by the experience of that visit.

I was ashamed to be an American.

[bpilgrim]

29. for a good source with up-to-date analysis on this topic check here...

http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

the record clearly shows it certainly was NOT militarily necessary and ironically we probably could have SAVED LIVES if we would had accepted Japans 1 condition for surrender, sooner.

:hi:

peace

[CatWoman]

33. thanks, BP

:hi:

[MichaelHarris]

30. It was really all about

science in the end. When a nation spends billions of dollars, as we did towards the end of WWII, building a weapon they thought it was important to use as well as show the world we had it. They wanted statistics as to it's effectiveness, that is why Nagasaki was chosen. Nagasaki is in a valley between two mountains and it was chosen because the blast at a 1000 feet above the city could be the most effective.

It really boils down to mass murder in the name of science, surrender terms had been offered from Japan keeping an Emperor, the Allies wanted nothing less than unconditional surrender, creating a democracy.

There were two types of bombs, the first was an implosion type made up of a ball of Uranium wrapped with plutonium. The explosive charge is timed in such a way that the two compress. The second bomb was a gun type where a radioactive material was "shot" down a barrel into another radioactive material, creating a critical mass. Two groups of scientists basically raced each other to come up with the best design. These two types had to be tested on a population to prove their effectiveness, this test was at the cost of hundred's of thousands of people.

So what it really means is that one, we had to show the world our penis, and two, we had to test the effectiveness of the two types.

Robert Oppenheimer said it best when he tested at the Trinity site, "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

[NNN0LHI]

31. We had to because they hated us for our freedoms n/t

[CatWoman]

34. but ya gotta admit, we did spread an awful lot of freedom

:hi:

[brentspeak]

37. One thing is for certain: bombing Nagasaki was unnecessary

Research has shown that the Japanese were frantically trying to negotiate a surrender immediately after the Hiroshima bombing. But Truman just went ahead and bombed Nagasaki anyway. I think it was because he feared that the Soviets would otherwise occupy Japan, and he wanted to prevent that.

[benburch]

42. Truman didn't trust the surrender negotiations.

His advisors told him they were merely buying time.

Had there been a broadcast from Toyko - "Attention Americans - We unconditionally surrender Japan." things would have been different, but they wanted. terms. By then we were unwilling to negotiate terms with the Japanese Government.

[brentspeak]

48. Truman comes out looking bad over this

when maybe it wasn't really all his fault.

[benburch]

54. He was new in the job.

And the whole atom bomb situation was a new factor to him.

I think he did what any rational leader would have done.

The thought of conquering a nation of suicide bombers was too terrible to contemplate. (And look at our current situation for perspective on that!)

[bpilgrim]

86. "I think he did what any rational leader would have done." - GROSS

why couldn't he accept their 1 condition SOONER as he was advised to do in order to SAVE LIVES?

or drop it on a uninhabited place to demonstrate it's power?

or keep them CONTAINED like we did SUCCESSFULLY with the soviets & iraq.

what he did to a defeated nations civilian population that was suing for peace is worse than anything UBL has done, so far, imho & it saddens me to my core every-time i think about how many americans are ready to use this WMD for 'PEACE' or to 'SAVE LIVES', again :cry:

peace

[bpilgrim]

51. we demanded UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, when we finally accepted their 1

condition, keeping the SYMBOLIC institution of emperor, the war ended.

we should have accepted it sooner.

fyi: we were reading all their diplomatic & military communications and knew full well the current state of mind and affairs of imperial japan by the summer of 45.

peace

[benburch]

55. Actually, we never really accepted that condition.

We took surrender unconditionally, and GRANTED that point because we thought that otherwise occupation of Japan would be too difficult.

[bpilgrim]

59. The longest unbroken hereditary monarchy in the world remains to this day

as witness to that 1 condition & they NEVER would have surrendered unless it was met and we would probably still be fighting their today if it wasn't.

just think how many lives would have been saved if it was met sooner :cry:

peace

[rinsd]

108. Should the US have believed these negotiations?

Seriously, why should the US have believed the negotiators when Japan's previous overtures at peace and negotiation covered up the Pearl Harbor strike?

[LostinVA]

127. Because we were translating and reading their messages

[rinsd]

136. Because radio traffic can be falsified....

...c'mon that was one of the key points in keeping Operation Overlord secret.

You are looking at it from hindsight.

If you are setting up conditions that should have lead away from the bombing you also have to give context of how the information is received.

[The Jacobin]

39. It doesn't matter

It's history. The question is how to stop our government from nuking anyone else.

[Jacobin]

40. It meant my father didn't have to storm the shores of Japan

He was in Burma for two years before the war ended and was slated to help with the invasion of Japan had it been necessary.

[NNN0LHI]

53. My dad was on Okinawa and Iwo Jima and was slated for the invasion too

When he went into Japan as part of the occupation force he realized all the Japanese pretty much had left to fight with was pointed sticks.

Don

[Quixote1818]

96. This is the reason I think it should have been done

Hell, we even had to drop two before they got the point. It saved a ton of American lives including many of our grandparents. DU would have a lot fewer members had we not drooped those bombs. It was a lose, lose situation and if we hadn't dropped the bomb and Americans had found out we had that capability Truman never would have been forgiven for all the extra loss of American lives.

It was a tough call but if I had been Truman, I think I would have reluctantly made the same decision.

[LostinVA]

128. How do you know "they didn't get the point" after Hiroshima?

Watch the films. Read what the survivors wrote. They got the point. And the Japanese leadership did, too, after they saw the devastation.

[upi402]

41. In history course in college I learned about the embargo

that made them trapped and desperate. And loss of face brought heightened nationalism too.

Good thoughts O/P! Still, I'm fully aware of the Japanese committing immense brutality.

[CatWoman]

49. yes, my father told me some real horror stories

about them bayoneting babies, etc.

And let's not forget about Bataan.

[benburch]

67. My Uncle told me things that I'll never forget.

Like dying Japanese whose last act was to pull the pin on a grenade and then lay on it so the handle would only release when their body was moved by Americans looking for survivors.

[leftchick]

50. No. This makes me sad on a personal level because those are my birthdays

Two birthdays you ask? Yes.Strange I know and I will explain if you want but August 9 and August 6 I ccelebrate as my two birthdays and they are the dates for the bombings. It bothers me every year. Those poor souls who did not need to suffer and die.

:(

[uppityperson]

57. It has been debated many many many times.

Either answer, it was horrific. Peace.

[rockymountaindem]

63. I think an interesting aside to this question is

what would have happened if the US did not use the bombs in Japan, and in 1962 the USSR and America went to war with our whole nuclear arsenals not knowing what a nuclear weapon could to do a city.

In the long run, I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unfortunate test beds that may have saved the whole world from nuclear annhiliation later on.

[bpilgrim]

68. i think it simply started the nuclear arms race & put us all on highAlert

ever since... look were we are today, nukes on the FIRST STRIKE table, again, aggressively invading other countries on the pretext that they simply posses these weapons.

i fear they WILL be the death of us all with our glib attitude and ignorance about them.

peace

[dionysus]

93. ding ding ding!!!!

we have a winner!!!

[JWS]

97. I think we could've learned the devestating affects of nuclear power

that killed 360,000 people -most of which were civilian. Over time, The Soviet Union and the United States would figure on their own how devestating a short term and long term affect of the bomb will be if initiated on either one.

[Fescue4u]

65. Would have been a good question to ask the Japanese

on December 6th, 1941

[bpilgrim]

71. nominated

as the LAMEST response, EVER, to the Hiroshima/Nagasaki debate ;->

peace

[Fescue4u]

87. Fine. Heres a better response.

"Was it necessary?

YES

[CatWoman]

102. that's just plain stupid

[Fescue4u]

111. Yes war is stupid. And it would have been immoral NOT

to end the war as soon as possible.

[King Coal]

114. Well, Cat, since you already have everybody here and got their attention

we might as well have a safety meeting, while we're at it.

:hi:

[CatWoman]

115. LOL

A safety meeting? :D

:hi:

[JVS]

74. .

:popcorn:

[Generic Other]

79. Miss Catwoman you are only supposed to ask this ? every August 6

You musta been watching a re-run. This is not the time of year to argue about collateral damage on a nuclear scale. This is Pearl Harbor weather. Pie season. Time to talk about sneak attacks.

:rofl:

[Hippo_Tron]

83. I don't think that Harry Truman was prepared to be commander in chief

Especially when the US military was making the most dramatic and unprecedented changes in history.

I would like to see what somebody like say Jimmy Carter would've done in Truman's place.

[FVZA_Colonel]

88. Perhaps not.

Had we been more willing to compromise on the "unconditional surrender" terms issued at Potsdam, mainly in assuring them that the sovreignty of the emperor would not be threatened, we might have been able to get them to surrender with out the bombings. However, in the situation we were in, facing X-Day, which would have very likely led to many more deaths than occured on August 6th, August 9th, and afterwards, it is possible they were necessary; but that doesn't mean that I have to like it.

[Massacure]

89. We could have firebombed them. The result wouldn't have changed much.

Most Japanese houses were built of wood.

Hiroshima was a headquarters for one of Japan's army divisions. The bomb dropped on Nagasaki was supposed to be dropped on an industrial center; unfortunately it missed by over a mile.

[JWS]

92. The US reasoning for the bomb was in order to avoid an invasion.

According to our military leaders at the time, an invasion was not necessary because the Japanese military was in complete disarray and they were prepared to surrender under the condition of up-holding the Emperor. The ambassador to Japan strongly encouraged we accept those conditions. General Eisenhower also argued the bombing unnecessary.

[Massacure]

120. Hirohito should have gone the way of Hitler.

It would have saved us a lot of trouble. Either way, war criminals do not deserve to rule a country.

[JWS]

91. No. The Japanese military was in disarray and they were prepared

to surrender. There was no way they could possibly be a threat to us. I'm reading Howard Zinn's book and it states that almost every military leader including Eisenhower argued against it. The reason we didn't aaccpept their surrender(which the US Ambassador to Japan enouraged) was because it wasn't condidtional. They still wanted the emperor to be of some status there. He argues the action was completely unnecessary and very Machievellian -to flaunt our ability in front of the Soviet Union.

[Xithras]

147. That's actually incorrect.

A few senior people in the Japanese civilian government wanted to surrender, but the Japanese military was dead-set against it, and the military answered to the emperor, not the lower government. You have to remember that in pre-surrender Japan the emperor was the ruler, not a figurehead, and he could overrule the will of the civilian government with a word. Until he was willing to surrender, the war would have continued...only he could order the military to stop fighting.

The Japanese wanted the emperor to remain the ruler of Japan after the war. The United States insisted that the nation be ruled by an elected government. The failure of the Japanese governments surrender actually underscores the importance of the US position on their surrender proposal. The very fact that the Japanese civilian government would WANT to surrender, and yet the nation continued to fight because one man had the power to overrule them, shows how unworkable the imperial system was.

We were correct not to accept their conditional surrender. I don't think we were correct to nuke those cities first though...there was an idea at the time that we detonate one off the coast of Tokyo first as a warning. Had we done that and they still refused the unconditional surrender order, we would have been in a better moral position to take the actions that we did.

[neverforget]

94. Right on time! Two months (or so) since the last thread about

nuking Japan. I'm staying out of this one......
:popcorn:

[bpilgrim]

98. neverforget

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[Greyhound]

103. Probably not militarily necessary, but we forget 60 years later

how badly we hated the Japanese. They attacked without warning, they carried out atrocities that made the Germans look like Mother Theresa, they began a war of naked aggression against their defenseless neighbors for no purpose other than seeing an opportunity to establish an empire while the world was busy in Europe. They were the worst sort of scum, antithetical to the very concepts that our country was founded on. Given the opportunity, the American citizens would have killed every last Japanese on earth, wiped out the people, culture, language, everything.

[Hobarticus]

106. We're still issuing Purple Hearts that were made for the invasion of Japan

The decoration, which goes to American troops wounded in battle and the families of those killed in action, had been only one of countless thousands of supplies produced for the planned 1945 invasion of Japan, which military leaders believed would last until almost 1947.

-snip-

Remarkably, some 120,000 Purple Hearts are still in the hands of the Armed Services and are not only stocked at military supply depots, but also kept with major combat units and at field hospitals so they can be awarded without delay.

-snip-

In all, approximately 1,506,000 Purple Hearts were produced for the war effort with production reaching its peak as the Armed Services geared up for the invasion of Japan. Despite wastage, pilfering and items that were simply lost, the number of decorations was approximately 495,000 after the war.

By 1976, roughly 370,000 Purple Hearts had been earned by servicemen and women who fought in AmericaÕs Asian wars, as well as trouble spots in the Middle East and Europe.

http://hnn.us/articles/1801.html

I don't think DUers really grasp the full nature of the planned invasion of the Japanese islands. Planners had anticipated MILLIONS of US and Japanese casualties. They made enough of these to last for over fifty years, through every military action since. What does that tell you about the fight we faced on the islands?

War's a brutal reality, folks. We can rehash the moral debate about using the first atomic bomb, but the war had to be won quickly and decisively. Sherman marched to the sea to end the war quickly by cutting off supply routes in the Confederate's rear, and he burned and pillaged as he went. I sure don't hear a lot of hand-wringing over ending that war in that fashion, unless you're south of the Mason-Dixon line.

The point is, no one is thrilled about bombing women and children, but we were a nation at war, and we had a moral obligation to finish it quickly. Unlike Iraq, we couldn't just cut and run...Japan's war machine had to be cleared out of their occupied territories and soundly defeated. You win wars by striking deep behind the lines, cutting off supply lines and reducing the enemy's will to fight. Otherwise you're squandering lives on both sides of the fight. And Japan was a nation fully mobilized for war. Every city had factories and assembly plants. They had planned to use willing civilians to repel invaders on the beachheads...where's your moral outrage about that? Did we not have a responsibility to avoid shooting women and children on the beaches, as they came running at us with sharpened bamboo?

Yes, thousands died by fire and radiation sickness, and it's a tragedy, as is WAR, but countless lives, both Japanese and American, were saved. It's the nature of war, and either way it's an affront to humanity.

[noonwitch]

109. We killed a lot of people in Dresden, too, with convential bombs

I'm not going to judge the actions Truman took in 1945 by 2005 standards. The war had to be ended, and this decidedly ended it.

[ArkDem]

110. My dad was a B-29 pilot in the 40th bomb group, 25th squadron.

He says that, to a man, they were ecstatic. That pretty much went for the whole country.

[Loonman]

112. Jesus, how many times do we have to go over this?

Yes. It was. It happened, it won't happen again.

[bpilgrim]

116. neverforget

peace

[Fescue4u]

113. It would have been IMMORAL not bomb them

It would have been a virtual war crime if we had the means to end the war and save millions of lives, and choose not to do it.

Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a humane and moral thing to do when compared to allowing the war to wage on, and end millions more lives.

Thank God that Truman had the courage to do the right thing.

[bpilgrim]

117. are you channeling bin laden?

they were militarily defeated, suing for peace & we knew it.

it was GROSS.

peace

[ArkDem]

122. Yes, like on Okinawa where they were giving themselves up without a fight.

[bpilgrim]

125. what would you do if our enemy was coming down broad street?

it was GROSS what we did to a defeated nation's civilian population and can NEVER be justified.

peace

[ArkDem]

129. Without the bombs they would have been coming down the

street. I love the smell of revisionist history in the morning!
:toast:

[bpilgrim]

134. they didn't surrender until their 1 condition was met

fyi

http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

peace

[LostinVA]

131. They stood down in the rest of Japan when Hirohito told them to

[Fescue4u]

141. Then they should have surrendered. Its that simple

They were not defeated until they stop fighting.

They didnt stop fighting until they surrendered.

Japan is entirely responsible for the entire loss of life in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Pearl Harbor and every other battle in the Pacific.

Thank God Truman did the right thing.

[Lannes]

119. I grew up thinking that it was necessary

After seeing "The fog of war" I started having doubts.

What I do have a problem resolving is that they didnt surrender after Hiroshima.Would a million Allied soldiers storming the Japanese main islands have made them surrender faster when a nuke hiting one of their major cities didnt?I dont know.

[Fescue4u]

142. So did I. Because otherwise, I wouldnt exist

Because my grandfather would have proably died invading Japan.

[JVS]

133. I'd hate to have to break it to all those bright-eyed scientists that...

all their hard work would not be used.

[dr.strangelove]

135. What does "necessary" mean anyway?

Did it accomplish several goals, yes. Was it immoral, yes. Did it save american lives, yes. Would I have done it if I knew the end result, no. Would I have done it if I were Harry T, yes.

This is a debate about life and its value, and the horrors of war. There is no answer. I think we can all agree that WWII was a horrible time for too many reasons to list and the use of this weapon resulted in the loss of innocent lives. Beyond that, let the debate rage on forever, but may a weapon like this never be used again.

[bpilgrim]

137. to end the war

thats the traditional context and comes from the propaganda sold to us for over 6 decades now that has been proved to be false as documented here..
http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

peace

[Fescue4u]

152. Using that definition, it was not necessary to bomb H. & N.

All Japan had to do was surrendar to avoid the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Japanese made a poor choice.

[mikelewis]

138. A better question... Why was it necessary to bomb Japan twice?

I believe that nuclear bombs are evil. Their inherent nature is to destroy human life and cause as much collateral damage as possible. Using a weapon that obliterates possibly millions of people in a flash of light seems unfathomable and evil. I could only imagine the devastation that must have been wrought on those two cities and could never make the decision to do that to anything.

But here's the question, why, after witnessing the complete destruction of one of their cities did they not concede. There could have been no doubt we would do exactly what we said we would do and drop a bomb on every major city until they gave up the fight. There could be no doubt that we had the capabilities to wipe them off the face of the earth. What possible reason could they have for not capitulating? The first bomb is on our head but the second bomb is on the head of those who led the people of Japan in war.

We may have been wrong not to fire a warning shot across their bow or drop a nuke on a more fitting military target but hitting a city brings the war home like nothing else. It slices through all of the propaganda and speaks directly to the people of that nation. It meant all those supporting the warmongers were now in the direct line of fire. It meant that all those who "innocently" sat back and allowed their government to wage a war of aggression against another sovereign nation were now going to pay for the sins they allowed to be committed in their name. It meant that America demanded that the country of Japan had better stop trying to kill anymore Americans or we would eradicate them from the face of the earth.

I think it is a terrible tragedy that we nuked Japan. I think it's a sin that will stain us forever no matter how "justifiable" our homicide. But I also believe Japan had succumbed to an evil idea and only death could scare them back from the brink of insanity. God forbid, we have to be brought back in such a manner.

[ulysses]

140. just a thought

Had we not, we most certainly have continued firebombing population centers and then invaded, at a much greater cost in civilian lives than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[bpilgrim]

148. they were suing for peace

lets not forget that fact.

peace

[ulysses]

150. actually, those who ran the country weren't.

Japan during WWII was controlled by a military junta nominally headed by an emperor who possessed no precedent on which to take part in the daily affairs of government. The warlords who actually ran the country and its involvement in the war were *not* suing for peace.

Was the dropping of the bombs immoral? Yes. I just have a hard time saying that it was any more immoral than any other part of that, or any other, war.

[bpilgrim]

151. I'll take the word of OUR leaders who were there...

(C) Other important evidence cited in THE DECISION adds to the picture of a President fully aware that Japan was trying to get out of the war. For instance, on July 18 the President referred to the latest intercepted message in his diary, characterizing it as the "telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace. . ." Even more revealing is a diary entry by Walter Brown (assistant to Secretary of State James F. Byrnes). The entry reports on a meeting aboard the Augusta concerning new intelligence information received just after the close of the Potsdam Conference. It offers the following insight into how President Truman, Secretary James F. Byrnes, and Admiral Leahy viewed the situation three days before Hiroshima was bombed:

Aboard Augusta/ President, Leahy, JFB agrred Japas looking for peace. (Leahy had another report from Pacific) President afraid they will sue for peace through Russia instead of some country like Sweden. (THE DECISION, p. 415.)

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga2.htm

peace

[slackmaster]

143. Probably not, but it can't be un-done

The best thing we can do is to learn the lessons of history and not repeat our mistakes.

[Ignacio Upton]

145. Yes

For three reasons:

1. The talks of overtures were exaggerated. Many of the experts, including Eisenhower and Nimitz, who allegedly said that the bomb was unnecessary, were taken out of context in their quotes. Ike himself said that he wasn't sure what the military picture was in the Japan (and how could he be considering that he field of expertise was in Europe?) Nimitz (I think it was Nimitz) wanted to initiate a Naval blockade around Japan similar to what Britain did to Germany in World War I. This would have led to mass starvation and probably more Japanese killed than with the bomb.

2. Casualties would have been enormous on both sides. There are some who argue that Japan would only have lost 100,000+ people, but this estimate of their will to fight was based on how their will was in defending the Philipines. Okinawa, where they went suicidal and fought to the death, is a better indicator, and in a culture where suicide and fighting to the death before surrender is stressed, is it not imaginable to think that mroe Japanese (military and civilian) would have died in an invasion of the islands?

3. Stalin. There are some who cynically believe that Truman used the bomb as a way of scaring off the Soviets. I don't know whether or not this was true, but if we had worked with the Soviets in a "rush to Tokyo" similar to the run to Berlin, the Soviet sphere of influence could have covered ALL of Korea, Manchuria, and part of all of Japan.

In regards to fear of Soviet occupation, there were attempts to limit it even during the war. During most of the war, there was a big fear on the part of Roosevelt and Churchill, Churchill especially, that the Soviets would move for nothing but sheer expansion in the countries that they moved their troops through. Churchill was right in this regard, and even met with Stalin to make sure that he would not occupy Greece (if not for this meeting, then the Greeks would have been under the Iron Curtain too.) The British also wanted to land in Yugoslavia after going into Italy as, partly as a deterant to Stalin. Patton also thought of the idea of sending troops across southern Germany and into Czechoslavokia. This wasn't explicitly a move to stop the Soviets, but people speculating believe it was. Roosevelt's concession to Stalin at Yalta, unfortunately, was because we would not have been able to dislodge the Soviets from their present positions in Eastern Europe without a conflict. But luckily we managed to keep them from expanding even more than they were already

[bpilgrim]

149. link

http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

peace

[boobooday]

146. I read a book about this

It was a history of the development of the bomb. They had already destroyed Tokyo with fire-bombing. They had many more nukes lined up, and were planning to drop something like 50 until they realized what they had done.

It didn't sound like it was necessary.

[The Magistrate]

155. Unfortunately, Ma'am, It Was