Atomic Bomb In WWII

[GKC]

"Once the war has started, it is the responsibility of the government to conclude the war favorably with as little loss of life and suffering as possible. Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima contained legitimate military targets: troops, headquarters, war industries, etc. In fact, the Japanese were intentionally dispersing war industries among the civilian population to make them harder to destroy."

Little loss of life? So if I use your train of thought, after 911 we could have nuked Iraq? According to the President today, Iraq was involved with the World trade towers destruction and as we know now, that was not true. See this is what I fear the most, frightened people resorting to desperate measures. Taking an advantage from tradgedy.

Looking at the situation today, a response was required after Pearl Harbor, however dropping 2 Atom bombs on two populated cities with civillians was grossly innappropriate and not a level response. Old men, women, and children were approximately over 50 percent of the casualties. This is not a measured response. Collateral damage are not words to use instead of old men, women, and children.

This is exactly the point we should learn from. As you can see today, the President didn’t get it either. In fact he populated Iraq with terrorrists by pulling the trigger on the wrong people at the wrong time. You don’t have to use nukes to screw it up. At least we did not bomb Canada in response to Pearl Harbor.

As I said before, to learn the lessons, you must learn the history. Therein lies your problem. Again, I recommend a little reading, starting with Frank’s DOWNFALL. The use of the two bombs, of all possible measures in August 1945 (except perhaps if we had decided to surrender to Japan) resulted in the least number of lives lost, and ended the war.And that includes all lives at risk in the Pacific theater: military, civilian, Japanese, American, other Allied, colonial peoples of the occupied terrritories, POWS, and miscellaneous. By a factor of 10, at least. And that was the goal: the end of the war, and of the killing. Not a response to Pearl Harbor. That was the war itself.

Knowledge of history is a great help discussing the matter. If Frank’s book is too long, Newman’s TRUMAN AND THE HIROSHIMA CULT is fairly short and to the point. As is Maddux’s WEAPONS FOR VICTORY. To name only two.

But try something on the subject.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Well,WW2 started with the peace pact between communist Russia and Socialist Germany…the reds and nazis!..in 1939…so that they could slaughter in Poland…Japan was moving in the Pacific.TR warned the nation in 1909 about the military imperialists in Japan that they would attack America in 30 years unless they were stopped! When the Nazis attacked Russia ,Japan had to be nudged into the fight to save Russia…until then movies and shows…like Cagneys “Johnny did get his gun” pushed isolationism…after Germanys attack into Russia it was wave the flag and over there,over there…finally with an oil embargo against Japan and some very poor advice they attacked our vulnerable fleet at Pearl…FDR sent the other half to england breaking the neutrality act law!..so Japan attacks America and three quarters of the war is waged ,not against Japan but Germany to punish it for attacking Russia…they would have had to be defeated eventually,anyway,the concentration camps of both sides were horrible…but the jap ones seem to have been the worst…of course the Germans were murdering some 6 million innocent Jewish citizens in the mean time and FDR was silent over that atrocity also…as to the ‘bomb’ I also have seen documents that Japan was trying to surrender in 1944…either way it or they should have been dropped on a small island to show its strenght…as it was both cities destoryed were centers of Christian worship and the main churchs were at ground zero. War cant be refined and monday morning quarterbacking is no big deal and easy to do…by the way…at Normandy it was the liberation of Europe not an invasion…and TRJunior saved thousands of lives on Utah beach ,died a few weeks later ,buried in a simple grave with his brother Quentin …a vet recently came back and gave me some soil from their graves…Americas unknown hero TRjunior,winner of every medal the US Army has…

And, shamefullly, sacked from the Ist Division , on Sicily, by Bradley.

Japan was not trying to surrender, in 1944 or 1945. Again, I recommend the titles I listed above. Absolutely no one, with authority to negotiate or to surrender, ever made the slightest move to do so at any time before the acceptance of the Potsdam Statement after the 2nd bomb. That power resided solely in the Committe on the Direction of the war, and it was under the control of the hardliners. Until the Emperor was asked, on 10 Aug, for his decision. Which resulted in the surrender.

Add JAPAN’S LONGEST DAY to the recommended reading. Knowledge is good.

GKC

Man, I swore I wasn’t going to do the details again. I know it’s a long thread, but it’s all in there. All the myths.

 

[bobzills]

Japan was not trying to surrender, in 1944 or 1945. .

Not ture according to the follwoing article: Japan Tried To Surrender After Midway Defeat
rense.com/general72/jee.htm
and please see the above discussion by Catholic theologians on CAF as to why dropping the A-Bomb was a grave violation of God’s Law.

 

[JimG]

We were successful but America did risk an all out nuclear war and the response we thank God, did not recieve. If other countries did have a nuclear response, they though more of survival on the planet than retaliation.

Do mean in WW-II? We didn’t risk all out nuclear war in WW-II because nobody else had atomic weapons, and in any case, there were not enough atomic weapons in existence at the time for their use to have constituted all out nuclear war.

We did risk all out nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis. The USSR was not only moving IRBM nukes into Cuba—which could be used as strategic first strike weapons against the U.S.; the USSR ground forces also apparently had tactical nuclear weapons available, which might have been used in the event of a U.S. invasion of Cuba. And that was certainly an option which had been discussed.

We risked nuclear war at that time by ensuring that Khrushchev was well aware of our recently activated Minuteman ICBM wings capable of retaliation against the USSR. Robert Kennedy called in the Soviet ambassador to forcefully make this point. It is my opinion that absent U.S. nuclear deterrence, the USSR would not have backed off during that crisis.

And if they had not backed off due to our nuclear retaliatory threat, that would have increased the chances of nuclear war—because it would make U.S. invasion or bombing of Cuba more likely, and Soviet retaliation more likely.

And had we left the Soviet missiles in Cuba, we would have lost the Cold War and had to back off from Soviet expansionism all over the world.

 

[GKC]

Not ture according to the follwoing article: Japan Tried To Surrender After Midway Defeat
rense.com/general72/jee.htm
and please see the above discussion by Catholic theologians on CAF as to why dropping the A-Bomb was a grave violation of God’s Law.

You need to be more carefully in your googling. You’ve offered up the equivalent of Jack Chick. It is, from start to finish, hogwash.

Do, please, if the actual historical facts are of the slightest interest to you, read some of the scholarly works on the matter. If you have to read something that makes you feel better, pick up Gar Alperovitz’s THE DECISION TO DROP THE ATOMIC BOMBS. Or, if something a little more respectable would suit you, Hasegawa’s RACING THE ENEMY. If you want to see what’s wrong with that mention of the Strategic Bombing Survey (the words cited are Paul Nitze’s), read Newman’s TRUMAN AND THE HIROSHIMA CULT. Or about 10 others I can cite you. Googling is not the way to knowledge, esp. when you turn up something like this. Didn’t anything tip you off? The reference to the CFR? The mention of Major Jordan’s diaries? The use of the term Zionists, as responsible for 9-11? Marshall turning China over to the Communists? Anything? You know how some prots will google around and come up with Hislop or Boetnerr? That’s what you just did. You’re swimming in a sewer there. Please, if you want to play this game, read a book. I can recommend many, not all on my side.

No one in Japan, at any time, who was in a position to make or negotiate a surrender, made the slightest overtures before 15 August. If you were knoeldeable about the Japanese state at the time, you would understand. Only the members of the Committee for the Direction of the War had that authority. As I said before.

Come to think of it, read a good general history of the war. Hoyt’s JAPAN’S WAR, or Spector’s EAGLE AGAINST THE SUN. But please, google (if that’s all you can do) more carefully. That stuff is not only rancid, it’s embarassing. If nothing else, Frank’s DOWNFALL would save you from offering up this sort of thing.

And no, Japan did not try to surrender a long time before the bombs were “gratuitously” dropped on them.Or a short time, either.

As to the RC position on the morality of the use of the bombs, is it possible you still don’t grasp that it isn’t part of my discussion, and why? And why, when you try to use any of the mythical “and anyway…” reasoning, it is part of my discussion? Try glancing over our previous exchanges.

GKC

 

[Steve40]

I heard that one of them went off right over a group of Catholics sacrificing Mass during the Consecration and they were unharmed. Is this story true? I also heard that Heroshima and Nagasakie were very Catholic areas. I pray the cities were not chosen for this reason.

 

[GKC]

I heard that one of them went off right over a group of Catholics sacrificing Mass during the Consecration and they were unharmed. Is this story true? I also heard that Heroshima and Nagasakie were very Catholic areas. I pray the cities were not chosen for this reason.

The story is not true. . AFAIK, the reference was to the Nagasaki bomb The Cathedral was severely damaged, with a number of parishioners killed. I don’t have my references at hand (I recall a mention of the number of fatalities in the church), but that’s how I remember it.

Nagasaki had a particular connection with Christianity in Japan, yes.

GKC

 

[Steve40]

The story is not true. . AFAIK, the reference was to the Nagasaki bomb The Cathedral was severely damaged, with a number of parishioners killed. I don’t have my references at hand (I recall a mention of the number of fatalities in the church), but that’s how I remember it.

Nagasaki had a particular connection with Christianity in Japan, yes.

GKC

Maybe it was the priest and the Sanctuary that were spared harm or damage. I forget where I heard it or read it. I have a Eucharistic Miracles book but I couldn’t find it in there.

 

[RWMorris]

Not ture according to the follwoing article: Japan Tried To Surrender After Midway Defeat
rense.com/general72/jee.htm
…

You read and believe that drivel? That stuff will rot your brain, Bob.

 

[GKC]

Maybe it was the priest and the Sanctuary that were spared harm or damage. I forget where I heard it or read it. I have a Eucharistic Miracles book but I couldn’t find it in there.

I would be interested in learning more of it. As I said, the story is usually told of Nagasaki, and isn’t correct. I checked RAIN OF RUIN last night, and the Cathedral of Our Lady was destroyed, all parishioners inside killed.

GKC

 

[bilop]

"Once the war has started, it is the responsibility of the government to conclude the war favorably with as little loss of life and suffering as possible. Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima contained legitimate military targets: troops, headquarters, war industries, etc. In fact, the Japanese were intentionally dispersing war industries among the civilian population to make them harder to destroy."

Little loss of life? So if I use your train of thought, after 911 we could have nuked Iraq? According to the President today, Iraq was involved with the World trade towers destruction and as we know now, that was not true. See this is what I fear the most, frightened people resorting to desperate measures. Taking an advantage from tradgedy.

Looking at the situation today, a response was required after Pearl Harbor, however dropping 2 Atom bombs on two populated cities with civillians was grossly innappropriate and not a level response. Old men, women, and children were approximately over 50 percent of the casualties. This is not a measured response. Collateral damage are not words to use instead of old men, women, and children.

This is exactly the point we should learn from. As you can see today, the President didn’t get it either. In fact he populated Iraq with terrorrists by pulling the trigger on the wrong people at the wrong time. You don’t have to use nukes to screw it up. At least we did not bomb Canada in response to Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese had no intention of surrender prior to the A-bombs.

Our other alternatives were invasion or blockade. In either case millions would die; men, women, children. With a blockade, they would die slowly through starvation.

The A-bombs provided the only hope to end the war without millions of additional deaths. As long as they were used against military targets (and both Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained plenty of military targets), the resulting civilian deaths were not murder.

There was no need to use nukes in Iraq b/c we were able to defeat them conventionally. Nukes are of no use in an insurgency, obviously.

Use of nuclear weapons coould be justified against a rogue regime possessing nuclear weapons, if that was the only way to neutralize their nuclear weapons.

Today, the U.S. has much more accurate weapons with very small payloads that could destroy such a target while limiting collateral damage.

Would you argue that if North Korea or Iran had nuclear weapons, and was threatening to incinerate cities (killing millions) the U.S. would be wrong in destroying those weapons with our own, even if some thousands of civilians died as a secondary result?

God Bless

 

[GKC]

The Japanese had no intention of surrender prior to the A-bombs.

Our other alternatives were invasion or blockade. In either case millions would die; men, women, children. With a blockade, they would die slowly through starvation.

The A-bombs provided the only hope to end the war without millions of additional deaths. As long as they were used against military targets (and both Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained plenty of military targets), the resulting civilian deaths were not murder.

There was no need to use nukes in Iraq b/c we were able to defeat them conventionally. Nukes are of no use in an insurgency, obviously.

Use of nuclear weapons coould be justified against a rogue regime possessing nuclear weapons, if that was the only way to neutralize their nuclear weapons.

Today, the U.S. has much more accurate weapons with very small payloads that could destroy such a target while limiting collateral damage.

Would you argue that if North Korea or Iran had nuclear weapons, and was threatening to incinerate cities (killing millions) the U.S. would be wrong in destroying those weapons with our own, even if some thousands of civilians died as a secondary result?

God Bless

There was another facet to what we would have done in Japan, absent the nuclear bombs, but it only makes the potential butcher’s bill even greater. In addition to both blockade and invasion, we were planning to continue conventional bombings, with a vastly increased fleet of bombers, including some British, and some transfered in and war-weary ETO B-24s and B-17s. The number of B-29s would have soared. I provided the figures in the thread, before.

The single largest conventional bombing raid on Japan occurred the week before Hiroshima. LeMay’s plan for the next phase, of bombing all cities above (IIRC) 35,000 population (around 800 such, I think) would have continued through the invasion. The deaths, from all causes, would have been unimaginable. And those occuring throughout occupied SE Asia would likewise have continued.

Instead, two planes, two bombs, no more war. No more war is always good.

GKC

 

[joe_clark]

The Japanese had no intention of surrender prior to the A-bombs.

Our other alternatives were invasion or blockade. In either case millions would die; men, women, children. With a blockade, they would die slowly through starvation.

The A-bombs provided the only hope to end the war without millions of additional deaths. As long as they were used against military targets (and both Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained plenty of military targets), the resulting civilian deaths were not murder.

There was no need to use nukes in Iraq b/c we were able to defeat them conventionally. Nukes are of no use in an insurgency, obviously.

Use of nuclear weapons coould be justified against a rogue regime possessing nuclear weapons, if that was the only way to neutralize their nuclear weapons.

Today, the U.S. has much more accurate weapons with very small payloads that could destroy such a target while limiting collateral damage.

Would you argue that if North Korea or Iran had nuclear weapons, and was threatening to incinerate cities (killing millions) the U.S. would be wrong in destroying those weapons with our own, even if some thousands of civilians died as a secondary result?

God Bless

I admire how nice and neat death is packaged here is. Well, if we didn’t nuke em, we would have starved em to death anyway. Good luck with finding this fact. No one really will know what could have happened, had we tried an alternative, will we?

Pushing a button is a monkey’s job, human beings are supposed to be on a higher level than that.

I don’t believe the only options left to the U.S consisted of : How should we kill them? We were not going to lose the war. Japan was not going to win the war and we both knew that. Maybe with a blockade, they would slowly come to the realization that defeat was imminent, before starving. At least it would be by their own decision. War does not and should not include win at any cost, by including the intentional killing of innocent elderly and children, which by the way is a big no according to the Geneva Convention. This could have been handled differently, and that is the only message from me.

 

[GKC]

I admire how nice and neat death is packaged here is. Well, if we didn’t nuke em, we would have starved em to death anyway. Good luck with finding this fact. No one really will know what could have happened, had we tried an alternative, will we?

Pushing a button is a monkey’s job, human beings are supposed to be on a higher level than that.

I don’t believe the only options left to the U.S consisted of : How should we kill them? We were not going to lose the war. Japan was not going to win the war and we both knew that. Maybe with a blockade, they would slowly come to the realization that defeat was imminent, before starving. At least it would be by their own decision. War does not and should not include win at any cost, by including the intentional killing of innocent elderly and children, which by the way is a big no according to the Geneva Convention. This could have been handled differently, and that is the only message from me.

My primary message is that your knowledge of the historical circumstances is deficient.

Reading is a good remedy. I’ve suggested a few books on the period. Not optimistically, but still…

GKC

 

[Al_Masetti]

I admire how nice and neat death is packaged here is. Well, if we didn’t nuke em, we would have starved em to death anyway. Good luck with finding this fact. No one really will know what could have happened, had we tried an alternative, will we?

Pushing a button is a monkey’s job, human beings are supposed to be on a higher level than that.

I don’t believe the only options left to the U.S consisted of : How should we kill them? We were not going to lose the war. Japan was not going to win the war and we both knew that. Maybe with a blockade, they would slowly come to the realization that defeat was imminent, before starving. At least it would be by their own decision. War does not and should not include win at any cost, by including the intentional killing of innocent elderly and children, which by the way is a big no according to the Geneva Convention. This could have been handled differently, and that is the only message from me.

OK.

I believe you.

“This could have been handled differently.”

Now … tell us the specifics of how “this could have been handled differently”.

Granted: we have the benefit of perfect 20/20 hindsight. Nevertheless, please tell us the very specific details … day by day … following the battle of Okinawa … with a million or more U.S. troops on the troopships, trained and ready to land on the beaches of the Japanese homeland, and with a couple of thousand B-29 bombers on Tinian [and with one nuclear weapon becoming available every ten days], and with the largest fleet in world history gathering … you are now in charge … what would you do?

 

[bobzills]

I admire how nice and neat death is packaged here is. Well, if we didn’t nuke em, we would have starved em to death anyway. Good luck with finding this fact. No one really will know what could have happened, had we tried an alternative, will we?

Pushing a button is a monkey’s job, human beings are supposed to be on a higher level than that.

I don’t believe the only options left to the U.S consisted of : How should we kill them? We were not going to lose the war. Japan was not going to win the war and we both knew that. Maybe with a blockade, they would slowly come to the realization that defeat was imminent, before starving. At least it would be by their own decision. War does not and should not include win at any cost, by including the intentional killing of innocent elderly and children, which by the way is a big no according to the Geneva Convention. This could have been handled differently, and that is the only message from me.

Of course you are absolutely right and those who are supporting nuclear retaliation are absolutley wrong. And all we have to do is to take a look at what Catholic theologians have declared on the issue: The dropping of the A-Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was contrary to God’s Law.

 

[GKC]

OK.

I believe you.

“This could have been handled differently.”

Now … tell us the specifics of how “this could have been handled differently”.

Granted: we have the benefit of perfect 20/20 hindsight. Nevertheless, please tell us the very specific details … day by day … following the battle of Okinawa … with a million or more U.S. troops on the troopships, trained and ready to land on the beaches of the Japanese homeland, and with a couple of thousand B-29 bombers on Tinian [and with one nuclear weapon becoming available every ten days], and with the largest fleet in world history gathering … you are now in charge … what would you do?

And include in the given that for every month the war continues, at the level of Aug 45, approx 100,000 war related casualities occur, in the entire Pacific theater, and will until it all ends.

GKC

 

[JimG]

I might add that that there was a tremendous national popular desire for this war to be over. If the answer to what to do next is “wait,” I’m not sure what the outcome would have been or how long we could have kept the troops waiting.

Truman ended up being a reasonably popular postwar president into his subsequent years. There are many who fault him for the use of the atomic bombs. I do suspect, though, that if he had not used them, and it later became apparent to the nation that Truman had possessed the atomic weapons and had not used them, he would have been one of the most vilified of presidents, especially after the war, and even to this day. He would have been blamed for every war death subsequent to the time the bomb was available but not used.

 

[Al_Masetti]

And include in the given that for every month the war continues, at the level of Aug 45, approx 100,000 war related casualities occur, in the entire Pacific theater, and will until it all ends.

GKC

And, the United States had broken some of the Japanese codes and we knew from reading their radio communications that the Japanese military had figured out which beaches we would be landing on, and had heavily reinforced their defending forces. So, that instead of our landings being merely difficult, our landings would be heavily opposed.

So far, we’re still hearing that using the atomic bomb would be immoral. So we’re hearing what we should not do (or have done). But we’re not hearing what the United States should do / have done.

We’re waiting.

 

[JimG]

Of course you are absolutely right and those who are supporting nuclear retaliation are absolutley wrong. And all we have to do is to take a look at what Catholic theologians have declared on the issue: The dropping of the A-Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was contrary to God’s Law.

As well as the conventional bombing of Japanese cities. Which was more wrong?