Did the US nuke Japan
- Thread starter WriterDom
- Start date
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
Of course we did. That was part of the reason.
You're watching the same show on the History channel I am, aren't you Dom?
You're watching the same show on the History channel I am, aren't you Dom?
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
Re: We did it cuz we could
Save money on the war? pffft. Why not just stay out of it altogether then? War is a money making business, that's why.
You don't think the half million plus lives that would have been lost during an invasion of Japan might have had anything to do with it, or the fact that we had been at war for four long years and were getting pretty sick of it had anything to do with it?
You don't think the fact that we had an intense hatred of the Japanese at the time and wanted some payback for Pearl Harbor and the thousands of lives lost in the Pacific campaign to a fanatical enemy that wouldn't surrender under any circumstances had anything to do with it?
Money was the least of our concerns at the time. If we were concerned about money we would have tried to prolong the war, not end it quickly.
Siren said:
Save money on the war? pffft. Why not just stay out of it altogether then? War is a money making business, that's why.
You don't think the half million plus lives that would have been lost during an invasion of Japan might have had anything to do with it, or the fact that we had been at war for four long years and were getting pretty sick of it had anything to do with it?
You don't think the fact that we had an intense hatred of the Japanese at the time and wanted some payback for Pearl Harbor and the thousands of lives lost in the Pacific campaign to a fanatical enemy that wouldn't surrender under any circumstances had anything to do with it?
Money was the least of our concerns at the time. If we were concerned about money we would have tried to prolong the war, not end it quickly.
fgarvb1
We are in for it now.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2000
- Posts
- 12,730
it was a different world then...
and i for one am not about to second guess them. i can't do anything about now anyway.
Also something i did not know until just a couple weeks ago. Japan had one log range bomber that could have bombed the U.S. and returned to japan for another load and were building more.
and i for one am not about to second guess them. i can't do anything about now anyway.
Also something i did not know until just a couple weeks ago. Japan had one log range bomber that could have bombed the U.S. and returned to japan for another load and were building more.
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
Siren
Perhaps you could give me a credible source for this theory. I've never heard it before.
If it's true in any way, then why did we jump into a war less than five years later on the Korean peninsula, and fight that one for another three years. Was our economy no longer important then? Why didn't we nuke the Chinese when they crossed the Yalu and very nearly pushed US out of Korea? We could have won the war and had our boys back home quickly to man the factories and gas stations.
U.S doctrine at the time was that we had to invade Japan to make them surrender. Most experts felt this would result in the deaths of between 500,000 to 1,000,000 lives both American and Japanese. Would it have been better for say 800,000 Japanese to die in bombing raids and and flamethrowers than for the 180,000 that did die from the bomb?
We were out to impress the Russians, try and save some lives in the long run, get a little revenge, and justify the time and expense we had poured into the Manhattan project. If money had any bearing at all on it, that is the only area I where I can see it.
Perhaps you could give me a credible source for this theory. I've never heard it before.
If it's true in any way, then why did we jump into a war less than five years later on the Korean peninsula, and fight that one for another three years. Was our economy no longer important then? Why didn't we nuke the Chinese when they crossed the Yalu and very nearly pushed US out of Korea? We could have won the war and had our boys back home quickly to man the factories and gas stations.
U.S doctrine at the time was that we had to invade Japan to make them surrender. Most experts felt this would result in the deaths of between 500,000 to 1,000,000 lives both American and Japanese. Would it have been better for say 800,000 Japanese to die in bombing raids and and flamethrowers than for the 180,000 that did die from the bomb?
We were out to impress the Russians, try and save some lives in the long run, get a little revenge, and justify the time and expense we had poured into the Manhattan project. If money had any bearing at all on it, that is the only area I where I can see it.
Thumper
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2000
- Posts
- 4,184
For various reasons.
I think te decision to use nuclear weapons was made to shorten the war.
It was terrible and wrong.....but necessary.
Wrong but necessary may sound like a contradiction, but who can reasonably say anything about war is "right"?
The biggest casualty of war is civility. The civilized must put aside their compassion and restraint and return to barbarism. You can't win without shedding some innocent blood. our side just tried to do it on a lesser scale.
Whether or not we did it to send a message to the Soviets is a matter of conjecture. We may have struck a fear in them that led to the cold war. Then again we may have given the world a horrifying glimpse of what such weapons could do if used. It may just have led to a bit of hesitation on both sides to use such weapons. If not for the horrifying images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki we or the Soviets may have just been a little quicker on the trigger.
You can't win a nuclear war if both sides have parity. They built them because they feared us and we did likewise...
Fear is a dangerous thing....
I think te decision to use nuclear weapons was made to shorten the war.
It was terrible and wrong.....but necessary.
Wrong but necessary may sound like a contradiction, but who can reasonably say anything about war is "right"?
The biggest casualty of war is civility. The civilized must put aside their compassion and restraint and return to barbarism. You can't win without shedding some innocent blood. our side just tried to do it on a lesser scale.
Whether or not we did it to send a message to the Soviets is a matter of conjecture. We may have struck a fear in them that led to the cold war. Then again we may have given the world a horrifying glimpse of what such weapons could do if used. It may just have led to a bit of hesitation on both sides to use such weapons. If not for the horrifying images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki we or the Soviets may have just been a little quicker on the trigger.
You can't win a nuclear war if both sides have parity. They built them because they feared us and we did likewise...
Fear is a dangerous thing....
p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
I read a document once...
...which stated that Japan (after the fire bombing of Tokyo) was already seeking ways to surrender before the Hiroshima bomb. Once that was dropped they actively sued for peace but the Nagasaki bomb was used anyway.
The conclusion was that as the war was over in all but name it was unnecessary to use either bomb it was a question of:
a) observing the effects of nuclear devestation in a built up urban area
b) warning the Soviets (as they were then) the type of weapon that America held in it's arsenal.
...which stated that Japan (after the fire bombing of Tokyo) was already seeking ways to surrender before the Hiroshima bomb. Once that was dropped they actively sued for peace but the Nagasaki bomb was used anyway.
The conclusion was that as the war was over in all but name it was unnecessary to use either bomb it was a question of:
a) observing the effects of nuclear devestation in a built up urban area
b) warning the Soviets (as they were then) the type of weapon that America held in it's arsenal.
If we build it, it will come. Once we had new military technology, we had to use it. Israel wasn't around yet to do our weapons testing for us so dropping the big ones on Japan was the only logical course. The more curious argument is why were all plans made to use the bombs on Japan and never considering using it on Germany. There are some stories that Einstein and others lobbied to spare Germany and there is an equally compelling argument that Americans could cotton easier to annihilating the Japanese who had been demonized as a people by propaganda. The propaganda aimed at Germany always focused on individuals (Hitler, Goerring, etc.) rather than the German people.
I would tend to believe that US policy still viewed Stalin as more crude and laughable than a global threat. The negotiations over settling Europe show a US that consistently underestimated the Soviets. I don't think we really took the Russians seriously until the Rosenbergs were caught and executed, forever adding the M to MAD.
I would tend to believe that US policy still viewed Stalin as more crude and laughable than a global threat. The negotiations over settling Europe show a US that consistently underestimated the Soviets. I don't think we really took the Russians seriously until the Rosenbergs were caught and executed, forever adding the M to MAD.
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
RonG said:
The simple fact is that there was no Bomb to be used on Germany, and it was not projected to be ready before Germany surrendered. The first test at Los Alamos took place at the same time as the Potsdam Conference, and Germany was clearly defeated long before then -- we weren't projected to lose 750,000 to 1,000,000 men finishing the job either.
Truman's decision to use the bomb was the best decision he could make with the information at his disposal. I'm sure the impression it would make on the Soviets was part of what he considered. Having the Soviets partition Japan the way Germany and Eastern Europe were was another big factor.
However, it is generally accepted that the primary consideration for Truman, was the projections of American losses if we invaded the home islands. Politics and economics were distant seconds to saving GI lives.
p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
[QUOTE
However, it is generally accepted that the primary consideration for Truman, was the projections of American losses if we invaded the home islands.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Generally accepted but not necessarily the truth. See my post above.
However, it is generally accepted that the primary consideration for Truman, was the projections of American losses if we invaded the home islands.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Generally accepted but not necessarily the truth. See my post above.
You guys are all so funny, you really are.
I post a political thought thread like this and what do you say?
"Your a canadian that doesn't matter to you."
or
"Thats old history you can't do anything to change that now"
or
"This is a porn board there is no need for politics here"
So I pose this question, How come nobody is complaining about this being a politics thread, or it be irrelevant now that it is in the past, or that it happaened over there its of no concern to us? Might it be because you are all biased to who's post qualify as good even if it is the same material?
The mysteries of life and living
I post a political thought thread like this and what do you say?
"Your a canadian that doesn't matter to you."
or
"Thats old history you can't do anything to change that now"
or
"This is a porn board there is no need for politics here"
So I pose this question, How come nobody is complaining about this being a politics thread, or it be irrelevant now that it is in the past, or that it happaened over there its of no concern to us? Might it be because you are all biased to who's post qualify as good even if it is the same material?
The mysteries of life and living
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
p_p_man said:
Generally accepted but not necessarily the truth. See my post above. [/B][/QUOTE]
So, what you are saying is that Truman didn't really care less if he could save a million lives...all he wanted to do was find out what a nuke would do to a populated city, and scare the Commies?
I think you're selling the man very short. He later expressed regret over having to drop the bomb. It was something he felt he had to do to save lives and shorten the war. It's true that the Japanese were making peace overtures, but we insisted on unconditional surrender, and they would not agree.
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
Re: I read a document once...
This is mostly true.
Some factions within the Japanese Heirarchy approached Stalin to mediate a surrender with (generous) terms as early as late 1944. There were sporadic attempts thereafter until the end of the war, mostly looking for a "surrender in place" that would allow them to keep their conquests in China, Manchuria, and Korea.
The bomb was dropped on Nagasaki at about the same time that the government in Tokyo realized exactly what happened to Hiroshima -- the first bomb disrupted communications so badly, that they knew Hiroshima had been destroyed, but not how. By the time their suit for peace had been carried to Moscow and relayed to the other allies, the second bomb had already been dropped.
Hindsight is always 20-20, but seeing things in focus doesn't always mean understanding what you see. It most definitely does not mean that those who saw things once in real time see as much as the slow-motion replay.
Modern anti-nuclear historians are convinced that Truman knew more than he did. I tend to side with Truman historians who have studied what Truman said about the decision to use the bomb and discount all those who claim he MUST have had other reasons.
p_p_man said:
This is mostly true.
Some factions within the Japanese Heirarchy approached Stalin to mediate a surrender with (generous) terms as early as late 1944. There were sporadic attempts thereafter until the end of the war, mostly looking for a "surrender in place" that would allow them to keep their conquests in China, Manchuria, and Korea.
The bomb was dropped on Nagasaki at about the same time that the government in Tokyo realized exactly what happened to Hiroshima -- the first bomb disrupted communications so badly, that they knew Hiroshima had been destroyed, but not how. By the time their suit for peace had been carried to Moscow and relayed to the other allies, the second bomb had already been dropped.
Hindsight is always 20-20, but seeing things in focus doesn't always mean understanding what you see. It most definitely does not mean that those who saw things once in real time see as much as the slow-motion replay.
Modern anti-nuclear historians are convinced that Truman knew more than he did. I tend to side with Truman historians who have studied what Truman said about the decision to use the bomb and discount all those who claim he MUST have had other reasons.
The eventual timing of Germany's surrender made the argument moot but from the git-go, it was never projected to be deployed in Europe. The original letters from Einstein led to Roosevelt's authorization of the Manhattan Engineer District, created curiously enough on December 6, 1941. Surely FDR was surprised by the events of the next day . . .
Obviously, from late 1944 on it would have been impossible to go after Germany due to the large amount of Allied forces that would have been collaterally damaged. But from 1941 through the eventual drop, the target always was Japan.
From a realistic military standpoint, Truman absolutely did the right thing. As George C. Scott so eloquently stated, " . . . The purpose of war is to make some other poor bastard die for his country." The net cost of American lives was sharply reduced and the rest is history.
Obviously, from late 1944 on it would have been impossible to go after Germany due to the large amount of Allied forces that would have been collaterally damaged. But from 1941 through the eventual drop, the target always was Japan.
From a realistic military standpoint, Truman absolutely did the right thing. As George C. Scott so eloquently stated, " . . . The purpose of war is to make some other poor bastard die for his country." The net cost of American lives was sharply reduced and the rest is history.
Re: Well since you asked Todd....
Ah yes 20 bitch about the trolls threads
10 flirtfest threads
10 jokes threads {well actually those are nice}
20 respond to and encourage the trolls threads
26 letters of the alphabets thread
25 numeric threads
all that is so much better than 5 threads on current issues within our back yard, that incites thoughtful discourse.
thanks for the heads up on that
Siren said:
Ah yes 20 bitch about the trolls threads
10 flirtfest threads
10 jokes threads {well actually those are nice}
20 respond to and encourage the trolls threads
26 letters of the alphabets thread
25 numeric threads
all that is so much better than 5 threads on current issues within our back yard, that incites thoughtful discourse.
thanks for the heads up on that
p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
What I was saying PC...
...is that it has to be questioned that the accepted fact of saving American lives was the prime consideration for using the bomb. Of course it was a factor and it makes the decision to use nuclear weapons against a much hated enemy more palatable to people world wide. Especially after the death and destruction caused, people being vapourised where they stood and so on, became more widely known.
Truman may well have seen a possible backlash once things had normalised and made the prime reason for using the bomb the life saving contribution it made to the war.
The other point related to this is that one bomb would have done the trick, there was no need to use two, unless it was for reasons other than saving lives.
...is that it has to be questioned that the accepted fact of saving American lives was the prime consideration for using the bomb. Of course it was a factor and it makes the decision to use nuclear weapons against a much hated enemy more palatable to people world wide. Especially after the death and destruction caused, people being vapourised where they stood and so on, became more widely known.
Truman may well have seen a possible backlash once things had normalised and made the prime reason for using the bomb the life saving contribution it made to the war.
The other point related to this is that one bomb would have done the trick, there was no need to use two, unless it was for reasons other than saving lives.
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
Re: Well PC the main reason we went into war in Korea was...
Siren- what do the Russians have to do with Korea? We were fighting the North Koreans and the Chinese. If you want to say that it was a war against the monolithic Communist way of life, OK, but the main reason is that the North invaded the South and the Chinese rushed in support soon afterward. The Russians really had very little to do with it.
Maybe the bombing was unnecessary now that we look back on it with the hindsight of fifty years. Maybe if we had just waited them out for a few months, they would have given up. But you have to look at the facts of the time. We had just battled the Japanese all the way across the Pacific. In every battle they fought to the death and never surrendered. Japanese army regulations forbade surrender under any circumstances. On Iwo Jima we killed over 25,000 Japanese. I think the number that surrendered was less than 100. U.S. popular opinion and military opinion was that they would never surrender, at least under our terms. Our mindset at the time was that the bomb was the fastest way to end the war
I still say the bombing had nothing to do with economics in any major way, and you haven't given me any reason to change my mind. If you want to say that we dropped the bomb to end the war quickly, and that getting back to a normal life was a benefit of that I'll agree. But regular folks or politicians alike did not want the war to end so their economic lives could improve. They wanted it to end because they were sick of their husbands and sons and fathers getting killed in the Pacific.
Siren- what do the Russians have to do with Korea? We were fighting the North Koreans and the Chinese. If you want to say that it was a war against the monolithic Communist way of life, OK, but the main reason is that the North invaded the South and the Chinese rushed in support soon afterward. The Russians really had very little to do with it.
Maybe the bombing was unnecessary now that we look back on it with the hindsight of fifty years. Maybe if we had just waited them out for a few months, they would have given up. But you have to look at the facts of the time. We had just battled the Japanese all the way across the Pacific. In every battle they fought to the death and never surrendered. Japanese army regulations forbade surrender under any circumstances. On Iwo Jima we killed over 25,000 Japanese. I think the number that surrendered was less than 100. U.S. popular opinion and military opinion was that they would never surrender, at least under our terms. Our mindset at the time was that the bomb was the fastest way to end the war
I still say the bombing had nothing to do with economics in any major way, and you haven't given me any reason to change my mind. If you want to say that we dropped the bomb to end the war quickly, and that getting back to a normal life was a benefit of that I'll agree. But regular folks or politicians alike did not want the war to end so their economic lives could improve. They wanted it to end because they were sick of their husbands and sons and fathers getting killed in the Pacific.
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
RonG said:
According to Dr. E. Teller, "Father of the Hydrogen Bomb" on the History Channel program on right now in the Pacific time zone:
"At Los Alamos, we were intent on producing a bomb before Germany"
"The bomb was not ready when Germany surrendered, but we could still direct it towards our other enemy in the east."
(The quotes aren't exact because I don't have TIVO to play them back off the air. <G>)
Also from the Narration of that same program: "In spring of 1945 they knew the bomb was possible."
The special bombardment group was formed shortly after the top brass were informed that a bomb would be made, and it's approximate characteristics. (That's from an Air Force history class, not from the History Channel program.)
There was certainly a predisposition to use anything and everything against the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. I'm sure those who knew of the atomic bomb were simply salivating over the chance to use such a weapon against the hated Japs.
Re: Korea and the Russians
At the time of the invasion of South Korea, North Korea was a Soviet Puppet State, and China was part Ally and part client state to the USSR. The USSR also had tested their own A-bomb the preceding year.
The Korean Conflict began after North Korea got "permission" from Stalin -- Actually a response more akin to "whatever."
China entered the war as a safe haven for Russian (and chinese) piloted Mig-15s which were a serious threat to the slow and vulnerable nuclear capable bombers of the day. The intervened in the ground war after Gen McArthur publicly advocated crossing the Yalu river and continuing on into China, using Nukes on Chinese soil to take out the MiG airfields, and numerous other antagonistic public statements and plans.
Truman refused to use atomic bombs in Korea for several reasons.
First and foremost, the US only had about ten nukes in the inventory. (Ten more than Stalin thought we had when he allowed the invasion.) Those we had were deployed in defense of Europe from the perceived Soviet threat.
The Soviets had atomic bombs and he feared the conflict would escalate into WWIII when the soviets retaliated in kind.
We had five years data on the after effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki plus other bomb tests. The consequences were better understood.
Nukes weren't needed to win in Korea. (Better equipment and leadership was needed to win, but again that's in hind-sight and not obvious to those making the decisions then.
Similar threads
