Atomic bomb

sorry I fumbled, my post in on previous page

 

One thing that should be considered is that the rules change as societies change. Many people have little problem with needless slaughter of covilians. Look at the Middle East and Africa for prove of that. Others have a large repulsion for civilians deaths and consider any as reprehensible. This is an advantage for the former group in a conflict. Win the political war by targeting non-military targets. Of course, this can backfire. Dresden's destruction was in large part, payback for Hitler's decision to target London.

Back then, the lack of accuracy of any weapon was reason enough to accept most civilian deaths. Besides, if a civilian was working at a munitions plant or submarine pen, is he any less a target thatn a soldier or sailor? During the war, almost every civilian was involved in some way with supporting the war effort.

From a argumentive perspective, if a soldier is a target, is a recruit in boot camp? An army induction center? A school with potential future soldiers? Or a mother's womb?

 

Your last paragraph is how the Japanese viewed their enemies during the war. During the last part of the war it was how the Russians viewed their enemies.
In the early part of the war, the RAF attempted to bomb just naval ports but it did not work out for them.

In the 80's they invented the nuetron bomb. Kills people but leaves the infrastructure intact.

 

In response to chocapic:

You say its all speculation. So how would you have handled it? Invade. Then halfway through the invasion you say the causualties are too high? then what? drop the nukes?

While speculation is incorrect sometimes. The "speculation" of the military commanders in the 1940's was that an invasion of japan would be too costly. While we wanted to end the war in the quickest, least deadly way possible (for both sides). We were more than willing to use a weapon that would inflict tremendous damage and that limited the risk of our own troops. In war you try to win with minimum casualties on both sides. However, the safety of your men comes before the safety of the enemy.

Invasion of Japan: we'd lose alot and so would they

Atomic bomb: They'd lose alot and we risk a B-29 and it's crew.

While you may argue that all this is speculation. Well speculation and judgement is what drives nations to do what they do. And this so-called "speculation" was made by Truman, Churchill, Nimitz, and others. So I think their "speculation" is credible/believable as probable fact.

Would you have been happier if we invaded, pulled out, then dropped the bomb?

 

Quote by Ted
________________________________________________

So how would you have handled it? Invade. Then halfway through the invasion you say the causualties are too high? then what? drop the nukes?

_________________________________________________

If I handled it, I wouldn't drop the bombs, and neither would Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, or General Douglas MacArthur, Fleet Admiral William Leahy, General Carl Spaatz, Brigadier General Carter Clarke, Major General Curtis LeMay, Admiral Ernest King, plus General Dwight Eisenhower, virtually every top commander in the U.S. military.

Even Trumans advisor Harry Stimson said it was wrong to drop the second bomb, as the Japanese hardly had time to evaluate the affects and draft a surrender.

And I wouldn't invade either.

If the Russian entry into the war and further diplomacy didn't do the job, then you could think about either using the bombs,[mainly to show the Soviets what we had] or continue with the fire bombing.

To Invade, if quoted casualties were close, [and ive seen much lower estimates] defies logic.

 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II

... After 2 hours of bombardment, Tokyo was engulfed in a firestorm. The fires were so hot they would ignite the clothing on individuals as they were fleeing. Many women were wearing what were called 'air-raid turbans' around their heads and the heat would ignite those turbans like a wick on a candle. The aftermath of the incendiary bombings lead to an estimated 100,000 Japanese dead. This may have been the most devastating single raid ever carried out by aircraft in any war including the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Around 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city were destroyed in the fire storm...

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_War_II

The Battle of Hamburg codenamed Operation Gomorrah was a series of air raids ...

The bombings culminated in the spawning of the so-called "Feuersturm" (firestorm). Quite literally a tornado of fire, this phenomenon created a huge outdoor blast furnace, containing winds of up to 240 km/h (150 mph) and reaching temperatures of 800°C (1,500°F). It caused asphalt on the streets to burst into flame, cooked people to death in air-raid shelters, sucked pedestrians off the sidewalks like leaves into a vacuum cleaner and incinerated some eight square miles (21 km²) of the city.

Sorry for yhe long quotes. Anzac, you seem to find fire bombing preferable than atomic bombs? Why?

 

And is Nimitz credible and believable when he says, 2 months after the bombings :

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. . . .The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . . "

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, in a public address at the Washington Monument [THE DECISION, p. 329; see additionally THE NEW YORK TIMES, October 6, 1945.]

"...I felt that it was an unnecessary loss of civilian life......We had them beaten. They hadn't enough food, they couldn't do anything."
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, quoted by his widow.

"Nimitz considered the atomic bomb somehow indecent, certainly not a legitimate form of warfare."
E. B. Potter, naval historian.

 

Parts of the "US Strategic Bombing Survey (Pacific War)." a detailed study ordered by Truman on August 15, 1945 and completed in 1946 :

"Early in May 1945, the Supreme War Direction Council began active discussion of ways and means to end the war, and talks were initiated with Soviet Russia seeking her intercession as mediator. . . .The timing of the Potsdam Conference interfered with a plan to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special emissary with instructions from the cabinet to negotiate for peace on terms less than unconditional surrender, but with private instructions from the Emperor to secure peace at any price. . . . it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. . . .Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

General Dwight D. Eisenhower:

"I voiced to him [Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum of loss of 'face'. . . . It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

 

this one, because I've always been a fan of the Flying Tigers

Major General Claire Chennault, founder of the Flying Tigers, and former US Army Air Forces commander in China:
"Russia's entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so even if no atomic bombs had been dropped..."

 

I believe what Chennault said. The Japanese had plans for those units for defense of Japan proper.
To as many say, make the cost too horrible to make an invasion. Once done, that option no longer existed.
As to these surveys, we should consider that they were being made not just with hindsight, but by Departments (Defense) blowing their own horns (exaggeration capabilities/effectiveness) to get more funding. Maybe even a promotion.
Also, Political ambitions by individuals warrant an apologetic/sympathetic/caring attitude. According to polls, of course.
For all the bombing/shelling of islands like Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Saipan the Japanese presence was still formidable, and very much devoted/unshaken, and did not surrender (in any numbers). Some (more than a few) killed themselves first.

 

If the atomic bomb had not been used against Japan, I believe that the temptation would have been too great and we would have used it during the Korean war. If not the U.S. then eventually some nation would have done it.

 

It’s easy while sitting in our comfortable houses with all the modern conveniences one can imagine, to make comments about a time and era that some apparently know very little about. Most of the world had experienced war for the better part of a decade, and wanted an end as soon as possible, anyway possible.

The Japanese were not as defeated as revisionists would like to believe. They still had more than 2 million men in the home defense forces. These troops were well armed, well trained, and well rationed. In support were over 2 million more army workers and over a million naval workers. On top of that were 28 million armed civilians with training in beach defense and guerilla warfare.

The battle for Kyushu could have been a disaster. The Japanese had rightly determined our landing sites, and had 100s of 1000s of troops ready and waiting. The beaches were ranged and targeted. On top of the men, the Japanese had over 12,000 planes available; almost half already converted to kamikazes. They had 100s of 2 man mini subs and 100s of 5 man mini subs, armed with mines and torpedoes. They still had 38 regular subs, including giant plane carrying subs. They had very large, 60 foot, manned kamikaze torpedoes capable of sinking even the largest of our ships. They had almost 6000 fast attack boats ready to ram ships and landing barges. They had 1000s of divers with mines to explode landing craft. On top of that, all the approaches and the beaches themselves were heavily mined.

The first days of the attack could have cost 100s of 1000s of lives, outside the invasion area. The Japanese had been ordered to kill all allied prisoners, military and civilian, at the onset of any invasion of the Japanese Islands.

Let’s look at Okinawa. The kamikazes there sank or damaged 100s of ships and killed or wounded 12000 men. At Okinawa, the Japanese pilots had to fly 100s of miles, and pass through pickets of ships and planes prior to getting to the fleet. Not an easy feat for new, inexperienced pilots. Still, they had a very damaging effect on men and material. At Kyushu, the kamikaze pilots would have only miles to fly to get to the fleet and more importantly, 100s of troop ships and landing craft. They would not have to fly through a defensive perimeter a 100s miles wide. Again, they had more than 5000 planes ready as kamikaze weapons.
Even in WWII, the Japanese planners were counting on the massive loss of American lives to cause the US to capitulate and end the war on Japans terms.

Next on the list, let’s assume we made it to the Nov 1st invasion date. If you know anything about the importance of the term ‘divine wind’ you’d know that the Japanese fervently believed in divine intervention to occur on their behalf. In mid October, just weeks before the planned invasion, a typhoon of massive proportions stuck the staging area at Okinawa. 100s of ships still there were sunk, damaged, or left for salvage. All the stores on the island were totally destroyed. Now, imagine the scenario if we still had 1000s of ships, and a million men there. The destruction that would have occurred would have inflamed a new wave of fanatical patriotism in the Japanese. They would have seen this as a sign that all they had to do was hold off the invaders. That is, if we even had an invasion force left.

As to the Japanese industrial output, there were nowhere near out of the picture. The last air raids over Japan were not the A-bomb attacks. We were still targeting, and bombing refineries after the a-bombs. There were Naval and Army Arsenals and railroad yards that had yet to be successfully attacked. Even the month of July, before the a-bombs, aircraft production was 100s of planes. Material production by category was not eliminated. Aircraft production was down 57% from peak. Army ordnance was down 54%. Naval ordnance was down 56%. Hardly a defeated and out of material enemy.

 

Quote
-------------------------------------------------
The battle for Kyushu could have been a disaster.
-------------------------------------------------

So why invade?

 

For one reason, the one i gave in the first paragraph. the world was weary of war and wanted it ended. the mood wasn't to 'wait out' the Japanese. Despite hindsite, the belief that they were on their last legs was not necessarily the case. The logistics involved in maintaining a standing army at the ready, and not being used would not have been tolerated by the US populace.

 

Your saying that the world was weary of war and wanted it ended, so the invasion goes ahead and the Americans take a million casualties vs practically zilch casualties by waiting, and how long do you think it would take to subdue the Japanese fighting on the mainland?

 

In official internal military interviews, diaries and other private as well as public materials, literally every top U.S. military leader involved subsequently stated that the use of the bomb was not dictated by military necessity.

It’s easy while sitting in our comfortable houses with all the modern conveniences one can imagine, to make comments about a time and era that some apparently know very little about, and say the bombS were necessary.

 

In official internal military interviews, diaries and other private as well as public materials, literally every top U.S. military leader involved subsequently stated that the use of the bomb was not dictated by military necessity.

It’s easy while sitting in our comfortable houses with all the modern conveniences one can imagine, to make comments about a time and era that some apparently know very little about, and say the bombS were necessary. </font>[/QUOTE]Subsequently is the key word. At the time the view by military planners was that the Japanese were not going to surrender soon. A review of planes produced in '44 led to this conclusion in 45.
'...It implies that it is quite possible to defeat Japan without an invasion. We consider this to be an overly optimistic attitude. While the bombing and blockade of japan will have a considerable effect upon Japanese morale and their ability to continue the war, there is little reason to believe that such action alone is certain to result in the early unconditional surrender of Japan...'


Now, as to your projection, where have I stated that I believe the bomb was necessary? I'm merely reporting what was being said and planned AT THE TIME.
Again, it's easy to ignore now the impact that the Typhoon in Oct would have had, or the following one in Apr '46 that occured at the time the mainland invasion was planned for. I look at what was happening then, what the fellings were on both sides, and state my opinions of what happened. You can continue to pretend that all was peaches and cream, and that the bombs and/or invasion were not necessary, but the reality of the time was not that way.

 

Months... Projections at the time for waiting them out went to years. Again, the time was far different from now. And, we would not have just sat twidling our thumbs. The blockade and conventional bombings would have continued. They had already killed 100s of 1000s and rendered millions homeless. But, that said. Did the bombing of london cause the British to surrender? Did the Germans surrender because of bombing cities? Nope. In fact, it rallied many and turned them into hardcore fanatics bent on resisting even more and to their deaths.

 

QUOTE]Originally posted by rick:
Subsequently is the key word. At the time the view by military

planners was that the Japanese were not going to surrender soon. A review

of planes produced in '44 led to this conclusion in 45.[/QUOTE]

They subsequently STATED : stated is also the key word. It is understandable why they didn't expressed themselves against Truman's decision at the time it was taken, but if you read what they said or wrote, you'll understand their opinion was based on facts they already knew for the most when the bombs were dropped.

And none of them even mention the usual theories about war lasting for months, house to house Japanese fanatical resistance etc etc, sorry about this

Therefore I consider it is just plain wrong to say the necessity of nuking Japan was obvious at the time the decision was taken, and can only be reconsidered if you're an armchair general talking about this 60 years after the facts (which is more or less what you implied).

For example, Nimitz's quote above is dated 2 months after the facts...who is the guy knowing very well the subject and reasoning upon what he knew and felt AT THE TIME : you or him ?

But don't get me wrong, I believe it was a murderous mistake, based on a bad appreciation of the overall strategic situation (thanks maybe to some politicians wanabee generals ), and some pre-cold war considerations may have also weighted in the decision .

The kind of thing you can get sued for if you loose the war, just like Germans were sued at Nuremberg about the starving of Leningrad for example.

But in no way I consider this the same as a deliberate crime committed by fanatics considering civilians from some enemy country's lives were worthless (which was the case of Japan btw).

I mean : the fact this decison was debated in US at the time, and is still debatable today among civilized people, proves US cared and we care about civilian lifes.

[ 24. November 2006, 02:29 AM: Message edited by: chocapic ]