Atomic Bomb did not save lives

[edwest2]

I don’t think it would be accurate to say that the use of atomic weapons is always and everywhere morally repugnant. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Soviet troops had the U.S. military base at Guantanamo targeted with tactical nuclear weapons, which the U.S. did not even realize were there. Would the use of tactical atomic weapons against a military target always be a moral evil? Not only that, there is evidence that Fidel wanted the U.S. to invade so as to force the use of the tactical nukes by the Soviets. Kruschev vetoed that idea.

That is just not factual. I lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviets had missiles on Cuba and we had photographs of their lauch sites and support facilities. A relative of mine who was in the Army was put on a train on the east coast without being told where he and the rest of the men were going. They ended up in Florida. Only then were they told what was going on. Kennedy made a deal with Khruschev. He would pull our Jupiter missiles out of Turkey.

Fidel was not in charge, Moscow was. It appears those who really wanted war were the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the US. Kennedy ordered a naval blockade of Cuba, then the Russians packed up their missiles and left.

Peace,
Ed

 

[roanoker]

Both of the atomic bombs were originally targeted for military targets, but when the bombers got there, weather nixed those, and they had to bomb alternate targets. Its really moot, however. An invasion would have cost the Japanese 10 times as many casualties, as well as devastating casualties for the U.S.

 

[rpp]

My father lived long enough to marry my mother and father me (and thus allowing me to annoy so many people here!) because of the use the atomic bombs. He was an American soldier in WWII. He saw combat in Europe from D-Day plus 14 to the end and, like nearly all troops in the European theater, was slated to fight in the Pacific.

The mother of my ex-wife lived and eventually gave birth to my ex-wife because of, according to her own words, the use of the atomic bombs. She was a 19 Japanese girl working in a Japanese arms plant near Tokyo in 1945.

My former mother in law, who is Japanese and has never lived outside of Japan, was very opinionated regarding this. She went through the forced training, she saw her co-workers hot because they went to air-raid shelters, she saw her neighbors killed because they they had small children and did not want to fight. She made it very clear to me that an invasion of the mainland would have been a bloodbath that would have lasted for years and resulted in MILLIONS of Japanese civilian casualties. As a reference, she pointed out to me how the civilians of Saipan reacted, where thousands killed themselves rather than alow the allies to occupy. And their suices, by jumping off a cliff, were defended by Japanese soldiers. One must properly undserstand Japanese culture at the time and as someone who has lived in Japan, my mother in Law is not the only one who claims this. The annual memorials at Hiroshima are as much as indictment of the Japanese government at the time as iti is a plea that these weapons never be used again. I pray that they will never, ever be needed.

Those who make such claims are, by definition, ignorant of the historical context.

By the way, the USSR cowardly declared war against Japan AFTER the Hiroshima bomb. They NEVER deployed any troops against Japanese forces.

 

[RobbyS]

Firebombing had not caused the Japanese to surrender. If the war continued there was going to be either 1) more conventional bombing of Japan (which would have caused MORE deaths than the A-bomb, as your Tokyo example shows) 2) an invasion, which would have caused MORE deaths or 3) a starvation blockade, which would have caused MORE deaths.

The shock of the A-bombs caused the surrender. The Japanese government was completely unconcerned with the lives of their citizens.

God Bless

A visit to the WWII museum in New Orleans several years ago, made me again aware of how massive was the planned American invasion of Japan. It dwarfed the Normandy invasion in men and material, but also in difficulties. The Japanese still had large armies available to meet us on the beaches. If the Russians has invaded also, the cost in lives on both sides would have been staggering. As you say, the shock was great, but as you probably know, many officers still tried to keep the emperor from ending the war. If they had know we only had the two bombs, the Japanese might not have surrendered.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Iwo Jima was a foreshawdowing of a fanatical enemy. Weeks of Allied bombardment had little effect on the embedded Imperial Japanese troops. On a spit of treeless land on the Pacific ocean Japan was facing the first foreign invasion on its soverign soil in centuries. Surrender was unthinkable. We bet that we had more bodies than they had bullets. The result was a bloodbath that few Japanese survived and many an Allied soldier died. That was Iwo Jima. Japan was next.

Initially, the Allied forces used conventional bombs from high-flying B-29’s until the “whiz kids” figured that by flying lower to increase accuracy and by using incendiary bombs to set aflame the many square miles of wood and paper structures more damage could be created. This bombing tactic created fire storms such that the heat from the flames would create even more fires. Heat from burning structures would set the hair of people aflame. In one night, seven square miles of Tokyo was set ablaze with 50,000 killed. The firebombing continued relentlessly with 50-80% of dozens of Japan’s largest cities destroyed. Imagine in the USA of Los Angeles 75%, Chicago 50%, Houston, 80% and so forth. Still no surrender. A believer would rather die than surrender – so would a fanatic.

The atomic bomb demonstrated to the fanatics that there would be no heroic death no noble last stand, just a white-hot return to dust from an opposing force they would never see and never defend against. Extermination. Genocide. This is the language of fanatics, this is why there is no negotiation.

Extermination or live to, perhaps, fight another day, someday. That was the choice presented to the Japanese. They chose life. Anything to prevent extermination. If the Allied forces were true fanatics the atomic bombs would have continued to drop because surrender by the opposing force is not enough. Extermination is the only goal of a fanatic. Despite the cruelty and horror there was no extermination. Japan and its culture survives, if somewhat compromised by western morality.

Pray that these devices are never used again. Pray for the souls that created and dropped it. Pray for the souls that died.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

As you say, the shock was great, but as you probably know, many officers still tried to keep the emperor from ending the war. If they had know we only had the two bombs, the Japanese might not have surrendered.

Even the Mayor of Hiroshima, who survived the bombing, made a public statement right after the explosion, in a fighting spirit and telling that they will and should continue the war.

A former POW in Japan who knew the Japanese culture very well and loved Japan despite the atrocities he endured, wrote a book (I don’t remember the title) about his experience. He tells, the Japanese were sustained by their religious belief that their Emperor was God and that they were a special and invincible nation. In addition, their spirit of honor and courage did not permit the shame of surrender, but made them (or most of them) fearless in the face of death. This kind of religious and psychological makeup made it practically impossible for them to surrender in the face of “mere mortal” enemies. However, the A-bomb was something beyond the ordinary (it could be considered a divinely arranged fate that they should meet an invincible enemy with a weapon against which they didn’t stand a chance), and under such conditions, they could surrender without loosing their sense of dignity.

 

[Eggnotz]

The simple fact was that American fire bombing could, and did, kill 100,000 people in Japan. In Europe, the USAAF was flying 1000 bomber raids. Back to Japan, the B-29 was coming into service. The P-80/F-80 jet fighter was coming into service.

Then the Russians entered the war against Japan. So an invasion was not required. Atomic bombs were not required.

Could be. But things are rarely that simple. Since we did drop the bomb, no one can possibly know what the death toll would have been if we hadn’t. Interesting to contemplate though albeit merely as a rhetorical exercise.

 

[LRThunder]

While use of atomic bombs would be an evil now, keep in mind we did not yet know how powerful these weapons would be, let alone rather they would work.

And we used them to try to bring the war to a quick end. An invasion would have killed millions more on both sides. Would that have been a moral thing to do as well when we could’ve ended the war sooner with fewer casualties?

 

[Cluny]

Then the Russians entered the war against Japan. So an invasion was not required. Atomic bombs were not required.

The Soviet Union declared war against Japan ONLY after the bombs had been dropped, and it was obvious that Japan was going to surrender.

In fact, the Enola Gay would have had a shorter distance to fly had she taken off from Soviet soil, but the USSR would not allow it, as it was not engaged against Japam.

 

[apriori]

Then the Russians entered the war against Japan. So an invasion was not required. Atomic bombs were not required.

The Soviet Union declared war against Japan ONLY after the bombs had been dropped, and it was obvious that Japan was going to surrender.

In fact, the Enola Gay would have had a shorter distance to fly had she taken off from Soviet soil, but the USSR would not allow it, as it was not engaged against Japam.

Something you are not bringing up is the fact that the average US soldier was tired of war and anything to speed up his return home, he was in favor of. If it meant the killing the entire Japanese race, he could care less.

I spoke to a few WW2 veterans from the Pacific theatre and they told me, though you probably won’t find it in your history books, they were about to mutiny after the War in Japan was over. They didn’t want to be stuck there for a year or so guarding the Japanese. The top brass scrambled to solve that problem and get them home.

I think that anything that would speed up the surrender was a legitimate answer to the end of the war.

 

[edwest2]

Could be. But things are rarely that simple. Since we did drop the bomb, no one can possibly know what the death toll would have been if we hadn’t. Interesting to contemplate though albeit merely as a rhetorical exercise.

A rhetorical exercise? Is that how history should be taught? As a rhetorical exercise? Or do we give our young people some truth about the past? No. I did not begin this discussion for no reason.

Real history should be a real teacher. It should mean something. Otherwise, the world can and will only repeat the past. Officers are taught the past so they can lead their troops effectively. Citizens should be taught the past so they can see their government correctly. To see their country correctly.

Things are rarely that simple? So, we shouldn’t look? We shouldn’t analyze? Nazi Germany is being analyzed to this day. Japan should be as well and the America of 1945.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

A rhetorical exercise? Is that how history should be taught? As a rhetorical exercise? Or do we give our young people some truth about the past? No. I did not begin this discussion for no reason.

Real history should be a real teacher. It should mean something. Otherwise, the world can and will only repeat the past. Officers are taught the past so they can lead their troops effectively. Citizens should be taught the past so they can see their government correctly. To see their country correctly.

Things are rarely that simple? So, we shouldn’t look? We shouldn’t analyze? Nazi Germany is being analyzed to this day. Japan should be as well and the America of 1945.

Peace,
Ed

Your statement that the atomic bombs were not required isn’t history it’s conjecture, a guess and a poor one at that. History is that the bombs were used and Japan almost immediately surrendered and WWII was over. The planned invasion of Japan wasn’t needed and an estimated millions of lives were saved.

Whether a different end to the war would have happened is not history, it’s guessing at best and revisionism at worst, and not valuable as a teaching aid.

As to your question, “shouldn’t we analyze”, my answer is an emphatic no we should not analyze in the way you imagine. Factual analysis is compulsory in order to avoid the errors of the past but guessing as to alternative outcomes based on fiction isn’t of any use at all. We simply cannot base future strategies on fictionalized possibilities.

Why not go back further and dream of ways that might have prevented WWII in the first place? That might have some minimal value although it would still be conjecture.

Better to deal with the facts as they happened.

 

[edwest2]

As a student of history, one thing I find important is to look at past events that are considered settled history. Knowing why something happened, and the decisions that led up to it, are just as important as knowing, yes, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan.

I’m not the first to bring this up and historians have been looking into the question of why it was done, why it was thought to be necessary at the time, for a while now. So it is not conjecture but a real question: Were lives saved by dropping two atom bombs on Japan?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

As a student of history, one thing I find important is to look at past events that are considered settled history. Knowing why something happened, and the decisions that led up to it, are just as important as knowing, yes, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan.

I’m not the first to bring this up and historians have been looking into the question of why it was done, why it was thought to be necessary at the time, for a while now. So it is not conjecture but a real question: Were lives saved by dropping two atom bombs on Japan?

Peace,
Ed

That’s a pretty good question but your conclusion was/is that the bombs weren’t needed. Lets see you defend that position with something other than speculation, conjecture, and guesses.

As to the actual history that we all can access, the invasion was planned and in fact soon to happen. The estimates of the military experts at the time suggested that there would be millions of casualties. The bombs precluded that invasion with the presumed saving of those casualties. Now then, those are just the bare facts of the matter, if you decided to launch an exercise into the what ifs of the matter you are welcome to do so as long as you understand that nothing you can dream up should be taken seriously. The actual history, the facts, are what matters.

 

[rpp]

Something you are not bringing up is the fact that the average US soldier was tired of war and anything to speed up his return home, he was in favor of. If it meant the killing the entire Japanese race, he could care less.

I spoke to a few WW2 veterans from the Pacific theatre and they told me, though you probably won’t find it in your history books, they were about to mutiny after the War in Japan was over. They didn’t want to be stuck there for a year or so guarding the Japanese. The top brass scrambled to solve that problem and get them home.

I think that anything that would speed up the surrender was a legitimate answer to the end of the war.

Dude. I am the nephew of one of those Pacific theater solders and the son of a European theater solder. What you have said is demonstrably false. While some of the people you talked who claimed to be Pacific theater soldiers may have been unpatriotic, disloyal goldbricks, the vast majority of the soldiers remained loyal.

 

[MJR81]

I don’t claim to be an expert on this, but I do know that direct attacks on civilian populations are **always **wrong, (see St. Thomas Aquinas, etc). It was not necessary to attack innocents, there were pleanty of military targets that could have been selected and that would have kept the intimidation factor present (both against the Japanese, and the Soviets). The bomb was political, meant to establish American power in the face of the world – especially with the Soviets who we had only a convenient alliance with. Our war was with the regime in control of Japan, not the Japanese people, but we killed them without discrimination; and with the latter suffering the worst of it. I’m almost of the opinion that Truman should have been charged with war crimes!

Please know I mean no disrespect towards people like Appleby and her father, but I do firmly disagree with anyone who believes the A-bomb was necessary, or that it saved lives.

I agree with you quite emphatically. From some articles I had come across a while back, I remember reading that the Japanese were actually negotiating surrender with the Allies through a back channel facilitated by the Vatican months before the bombing. The U.S. State Department was said to have known about these negotiations.

“…the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” --Former President (and former WWII General) Dwight Eisenhower in an interview with ‘Newsweek’ magazine

Also, according to some biographers, Gen. Douglas MacArthur was also to have reported to say that he saw no military justification whatsoever for dropping the bombs and that he was not even consulted about the decision.

And, from what I know about what kind of individual FDR was, I don’t think he would have made the decision to drop the bombs, either. I think we’ve been sold a lie about the bombings being “necessary”.

 

[rpp]

I agree with you quite emphatically. From some articles I had come across a while back, I remember reading that the Japanese were actually negotiating surrender with the Allies through a back channel facilitated by the Vatican months before the bombing. The U.S. State Department was said to have known about these negotiations.

“…the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” --Former President (and former WWII General) Dwight Eisenhower in an interview with ‘Newsweek’ magazine

Also, according to some biographers, Gen. Douglas MacArthur was also to have reported to say that he saw no military justification whatsoever for dropping the bombs and that he was not even consulted about the decision.

And, from what I know about what kind of individual FDR was, I don’t think he would have made the decision to drop the bombs, either. I think we’ve been sold a lie about the bombings being “necessary”.

I can tell you from personal knowledge that the Japanese were not going to surrender. Period, end of statement. To suggest otherwise in cannot be supported by available evidence.

 

[c659smith]

As a student of history, one thing I find important is to look at past events that are considered settled history. Knowing why something happened, and the decisions that led up to it, are just as important as knowing, yes, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan.

I’m not the first to bring this up and historians have been looking into the question of why it was done, why it was thought to be necessary at the time, for a while now. So it is not conjecture but a real question: Were lives saved by dropping two atom bombs on Japan?

Peace,
Ed

Question is to define what type of goverment was Japan at the time?

#1 There was an Emperor that was seen as a god.

#2 Kamakasi pilots were filling the air and killing themselves by slamming their aircraft into ships, planes, aircraft carriers, crowds of U.S. soldiers, etc… (boy sounds like 9-11, maybe we need another bomb)

#3 Japan would have fought till the death of the last man. Can be shown how they defended many of the Islands in the South Pacific.

#4 The Emperor was brought to his knees by the use of the Atomic bomb. Not the people of Japan. The Emperor told his people to stand down. otherwise there would have been more nukes, more deaths, and the enevitable destruction of Japan.

Remember in war there are no awards for 2nd place only death to the loser. The most important life at a time of war is the American Soldier. If we can save one by the death of a thousand of the enemy so be it.

 

[MJR81]

I can tell you from personal knowledge that the Japanese were not going to surrender. Period, end of statement. To suggest otherwise in cannot be supported by available evidence.

Well, if you can explain to me why I should trust you as an authority on this over Eisenhower and MacArthur, I’ll listen…

 

[rwoehmke]

If you are not old enough to have fought in WW II or to have memories of what was happening between Pearl Harbor and V-J Day, your knowledge and assumptions are interesting and speculative. The word “atomic” in 1945 was very strange and new. The vast majority of people, including combatants, had absolutely no idea of the destructive forces unleashed by a nuclear blast. How grateful we were when Japan surrendered. I don’t know of anyone at the time who had second thoughts about the use of those two bombs.

After the war we were so ignorant of the effects of the radiation that we were setting off nuclear devices to study the effects of the blast and particularly how they effected near-by troops. We didn’t even realize the negative impact that the fallout from above ground testing would have on our own inhabitants. It is so easy to sit back and pontificate about just wars and whether we should have used those bombs, but if you did not have direct memories of what that war was like you should not be judging those who did what they did. There has not been a war since where our entire country has been mobilized and sacrificing and working to stop such threats to our freedom and civilization…

I would fully agree that the use of nuclear weapons is so terrible and indiscriminate that we who are the nuclear powers should have destroyed them all decades ago. But as someone said, if they had not been used we can only speculate about how it would have changed the world we live in today.