Cruel and unusual or settin an example?

the atomic bomb was a very effective tool no doubt, but in using it America killed hundreds of civilians and ruined many generations of life. I understand that we needed to save the many American lives that would have been lost inland against the Japanese but should the bomb have been dropped on a military installation or demonstrated before the Japanese government, such as the recording of Trinity, before destroying innocent lives. On the other hand, America had to end the war, which was getting old and the public tired of the death, did they resort to means that extreme for the publics satisfaction or to end the war and a get rich quick scheme? I am American myself and do no inujustice to my country but I wonder if that was the best thing we could have done?

 

Onthefield, Ill throw you the can opener, for that little can of worms you have there.

Just to point out though, thousands not hundreds, and I expect to see the comparison on casualties in relation to Dresden bombings etc, which will make Martin stand up and groan out loudly.

One thing I will say is that I hope Stefan still has his book, I forget the title Stefan, the one with the Brit soldier fighting Japanese you talked me into borrowing from local library.

Damn I'm hoping Stefan still has it, because in last chapter, there is a great personal explanation whereby an ex soldier is listening in to a guy in a pub in UK giving his own feelings on the use of the bombs on Japan, the ex soldier, gives in my view the best explanation on a personal level that I have ever seen. Stefan hope you can remember the book Im on about and dont mind looking???? at last chapter?

 

There are manydiscussions on what could or should have been done but none ahave the end-all answer. The first thought was to end the war the with the fewest Allied casualties as possible. As to the idea of demonstrating it to the Japanese government before its use consider the time and materials involved in the construction of the bomb. Now dont get me wrong , ending the war without it would have been prefered by almost everyone. As to bombing a military installation just remember that Japan was not a card carrying member of the Geneva Convention and its rules of war. The Allies had tried to fight the "proper" way early in the war and found out the hard way that Japan had its own rules so we played by their rules and beat them at their own game. The theory that the government applied to Germany now also applied to Japan. At the end of WW1, Germany had not seen combat on its own soil but that changed in WW2 when the Allies overran Germany. The thought was that if Germany's citizens saw war first hand they would be less likely to start another one. This theory was also to be applied to Japan. After everything that they had inflicted on the world they would now be on the receiving end of horror. Until recently the Japanese government had blamed the US for the atomic destruction and cleared themselves of any wrong doing during the war. According to them everything they did was in self defense. The bomb did exactly what it was designed to do, end the war with the fewest Allied casualties.

 

Urqh, yup, I still have it but not with me at the mo, tomorrow I will type it here. The book is 'Quartered Safe Out Here' by McDonald-Fraser (I cant remember his christian name for the life of me at the mo). I seem to remember one of his section explaining why he didn't want the bomb to be dropped, but I am not sure if this is a different book and I am totally confused. I think Urqh is referring to the bit where the bloke says basically that yeah, we can condemn the dropping of the bomb in our nice safe homes, but from the point of view of a squaddie in Burma it could be nothing but a good thing simply because it meant no more war. I have to say, I find that very hard to argue with, though I disapprove of the use of the bomb I can say for a fact that if on that fateful day I had been fighting for months and heared it was over, no matter how many of the enemy it killed I would be happy to be safe...

 

Thats the one Stefan, and you rightly quote a paragraph from the correct section, but it goes on quite a bit more, its after the war and hes thinking of his old section while he berates the civvy, and he was not too proud about the berating but none the less felt it needed saying.

He goes on about yes many killed in one go, and many more to die from the effects later.

But also goes on to state, he has children himself now, his old section, unit, regiment, army also have children now, would you deny them the right to their life a life they wouldnt have been born into if the war had gone to its ultimiate invasion conclusion. Yes many died, and many Japanese would not be born, but that is the same in all wars, do you begrudge my children the right to be born, would you rather the enemy lived and their families rather than your own, a hard question, but one which I know my answer would be to.

Or along those lines and in a much more eloquant way than I can write here.

 

u guys make a good point. although the bomb was a tremendously horrible thing and its affects unbearable for some, it saved many lives of many different Americans. Many possibly great men wouldn't be alive today to see this world we live in if that bomb ahdn't been dropped. Although their were many innocent Japanese that died and many babies that wouldn't be born, rather the enemy than me. "There are three elements to war; audacity, audacity and audacity." General Patton

 

If you want my opinion I believe Japan got off very EEEAAASSSSYYYYY in WWII. We should have saturated them with A-bombs!!! It's too bad that "Little Boy" didn't do what it was meant to.......

 

I hate to be blunt here, but wilconqr try not to sound so much like an idiot. It is not clever to be racist, but are you seriously saying you wished more people had been killed in ww2? The most destructive war in human history and you wish it was more so? I am sorry, if you were a vet I could understand but nope, I dont think you are (if you served in the Pacific or Burma my apologies). Sorry, its statements like that that make me sick.

 

My opinion still stands. Japan should have been completely destroyed. If this makes you sick then I am sorry for you. What makes me sick is all of the pussillanimous bastards that think America should apologize for dropping the two bombs on Japan and how the people of Japan have the audacity to say that America was wrong in unleashing this hammer of war that was so justifiable. The government and people of Japan brought this on themselves and deserved everything that happened to them.

 

wilconqr, the war had to be ended, as we discussed previously, with minimum American casualties; in light of that fact, i think that is the reason we dropped the atomic bomb. If the United States went to war with Japan earlier on in the war, things would maybe have been different, being that the US was not fed up with the war by then. Although I believe this had to be done to save many American lives, some that weren't begun yet, I don't believe it justifies thousands of innocent Japanese for dying. Every Japanese soldier I believe should have been "hung in the village square" for what they did, but look at the "rules of war", it is obvious that people don't crash their planes, with them inside, into the side of aircraft carriers, battleships, etc., but isn't it also common to achieve minimum civilian casualties possible. As to dropping more bombs, I think we would have if we had them. Little Boy and Fat Boy were at the time the only intact A-bombs we had, although more could have been created of course. Two was enough for the Japanese government to see and they were done with their innocent people being killed, otherwise, why would they have signed an unconditional surrender.

[ 16. September 2003, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Onthefield ]

 

Onthefield, just a little comment, it might be wise when you speak of war against Japan or in fact any other Axis nation, not to forget this was not just about American lives.

Many nations fought ww2, many fought the Japanese in different theatres and countries.

 

Hmm, wilconqr, you are saying then that more bombs should have been dropped for revenge? The reason the bomb was dropped (ok, I am holding back my cynical side) was to save American lives (yes, the BRITISH were fighting in the east, in fact they had been since BEFORE the US even got involved, but I will not believe that the bomb was dropped to save lives other than American). Hense the first bomb was dropped, the Japanese were offered the chance to surrender, they didnt thus the second was dropped and they did. Only the number of bombs necessary were dropped. actually there was a reason for this, the US government wanted to be able to re-build Japan to provide a buffer against Russia (I am sure you will agree with me thats a good reason for the nation not to be flattened).

Anyhow, personally I see lots of irony in this, I mean an American advocating mass destruction for purposes of revenge, ironic....

 

Stefan, Ill agree with you, I doubt very much Trueman had British soldiers in Burma, as one of his top priorities when it came to a decision to drop the bombs, but none the less both you and I know, the ending of the war with the Japanese at this time, saved many British lives, the war in the far east was still ongoing, British, Dutch, Indian, Nepalese, African, French, Chinese Phillipino Anzac you name it, were all still fighting and dying. The bombs brought an earlier than hoped for conclusion, and saved their lives as well as any American future invasion forces.

T

 

Sorry didnt get to finish.

Its an emotive subject, bringing emotive responses.

Some have reason to be extremely vocal, whether they served themselves against the Japanese or not, some have seen their relatives suffer and still suffer.

Yes we can bring in the Germans and the Russians and ask what was the difference.

But there was a difference, and to some whether they served or not, may have surviving relatives that served, and unfortunately the stories are passed on and are horrific in most part.

Ill say from my own point of view, I have a living relative that fought the Japanese, he has passed his experiences and those of his mates I have met in the past, down to me, that cant be helped. I know no one who fought on the OST front so I cannot compare on a personal basis althouGh I wouldnt deem the experiences suffered there to be on anything other than a similar or numerical wise bigger emotional nightmare.

I know no Jewish camp sufferers so cant compare there either and wouldnt deem their suffering and experiences as any lesser matter.

I do know there is a good chance if the war carried on, I wouldnt be here today, and for that I am grateful, for my life that of my brothers and that of my own sons.
Yep its emotional from that point also.

The bombs were a terrible weapon, and the casualties were horrendous and multipled throughout later years.

One thing I will ask, is how can we can look at this in an unemotional way, when we compare the number of just the Chinese civilans killed in ww2 mostly but not only, by the Japanese, and then how many Japanese civilians died in ww2?

Then maybe look at the numbers in other countries of civilians and lets even leave out Russian and Germany, and Poland. And just look at the civilian death numbers in France or other European countries.

Is it the fact that we the human race produced and used such a horrific weapon that killed so many at one time the problem here, would it have been better to hold off and bomb them conventionally, and kill same number or more before an invasion, would that have been better in any way?

My view, is the majority of us are horrified at what we unleashed, but at the end of the day, the casualty numbers would have been any different on the Japanese side if we had conventionally fire bombed the place before invasion?

Is the problem the weapon and not the casualty figures here?

 

Stefan, and you know me well enough to know Im not being demeaning in any way, but take a look again at the first quoataion of your signature, it has an awful lot of reasoning alone.

 

Urqh, I agree 100% with what you are saying about dropping the bomb, I think that basically it was necessary. My Grandfather was about to be sent to Burma when the bomb was dropped and so I am damned gladd teh war ended when it did. However, what I take issue with is the pointless, racist and irrational views being expressed here, how can ANYONE, after the most destructive war in History incist that the destruction was NOT ENOUGH??? Particularly someone from a nation that has no idea what the bombing of population centres means.

As for the issue of the 'weapon or the casualties', well the way I see it the casualty figures are not the issue because actually conventional bombing had caused more casualties (in the short term at least) than 'the bomb'. The way I see it is that the only reason the A-Bomb ended the war was because it showed the Japanese the horrific casualties that could be caused by a single bomb rather than a huge raid. From this point of view it was more consideration of the effect of moral. The Japanese people had taken bombing of a scale incomprehensible to almost any of us, the number of casualties that had been caused were huge. The importance of the bomb was that people saw a city vapourised and a huge cloud appear above it and then more people die even after the bomb had gone off. That is what persuaded Japan to give in, that and the treat that it may happen again.

Changing the subject ever so slightly, what do you guys think of the theory that the bomb was dropped as a 'warning' of sorts to the Soviets?

Edit: Urqh, I know what you mean, actually it comes from Star Trek, but I do agree with it, however I am not arguing with the dropping of the bomb, just the notion that MORE should have been dropped and the Japanese annhialated after the war. That is what sickens me.

[ 16. September 2003, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Stefan ]

 

For a veterans' perspective ; some years back I went on an Arnhem battlefield tour which stopped at the German War Cemetery at Ijsselstein.

The guide told me how he'd been there with a 30 Corps vet a couple of years previously. Looking out over the huge graveyard, the guide said ;
'That's an awful lot of crosses'
With no emotion, the vet replied :
'Not enough'
and turned away.

A story that stuck in my mind.

 

Stefan, then at least we two are in agreement on the whys and the whats. I didnt think we wouldnt be.

On the kill all and not enough stuff, we are in agreement too.

My own views will stick just to the view that it was the right thing to do form my personal view.

The world is a better place today with the the present Japanese generation, Ill say no more than that, the Japanese are today a member of the civilised world, whatever that is, and thanks there are due to the way they were handled after world war 2, Mcarthurs fines hour if you ask me was post war Japan and not on the Far eastern battlefilds.

Yes they were handled differently from Germany, to some including my own relation and his mates, that was one of the biggest problems they had after the war, but they were not Germany, they were not Italy, and at the end of the day it has worked to the wests and Japans advantage, I will though say what Ive always said and wont make any apologies, I still have nothing but contempt for the Japanese serviceman of ww2. Efficeint in field craft though he was.

As to the example to the Russians, you would have to look at the Intelligence services around at the time of Los Almos etc, the fact we had ant they had agents and double agents at various levels at the project etc, Id have thought Ivan knew full well what the Americans had and how it could be used. I cannot imagine it came as any surprise to them.

Yes, an example to stop the Ivan thinking he could go on to overun Europe in the short term with his massive armies, while he knew our societies would be demanding the boys come home, future planning for the next war is something always on the books and plans prepared for.

The Russian may not have thought we had the gumption to actually use it though, so yes it may well have been a perfect kill 2 birds with one stone issue, but then as another poster, maybe yourself has said, if that was the case why not just explode it in a blaze of publicity on an island somewhere?

If the Japanese would be impressed by this why not the Russians too? But lets face it the Japanesse didnt surrender immediately anyway after bomb one, so an examplle would most likely be futile, the means is one thing the gumption to use it another.

As we know now, even later on in the fifties even with our nuclear superiortity, the Ruskie would still push us even though he knew we had it and would use it as we had used it in the past, as a deterrent in the cold war I personally think it was useless. War didnt come becuase even Ivan didnt want a world in turmoil afterwards that it could not control, it was content to push the periphials and not go that step to all out war, in sixties, seventies or eightees, knowing full well even without their use, a full scale ww3 on a conventional basis would probably still mean the end of Soviet Union as they knew it even with a victory on the field, which I stll hold to this day would not have happened even conventionally.

 

Bang on Urqh, its all about gumption (reminds me of that hymn with the line 'give me umption in my gumption, keep me serving').

As for the Vets pov, well I have to say that whilst I will support views based on the idea of preserving ones life (drop the bomb so that I and my children can live kinda thing) but I will NOT support views based on revenge. I can understand people having them, I can tolerate their expression, however I WILL NOT agree with them.

 

you guys have presented some good stuff here but concerning if the bomb was dropped to "kill 2 birds with one stone" referring to Russia and Japan if that was the case, to show the Russians what America had, then why was the Bikin Atoll done in 1978. The nuclear test in the South Pacific was in my opinion the test to "demonstrate" our nuclear capability and show off our bomb and make sure the Russians knew we still had it. http://www.bikiniatoll.com/repar.html There is a good point raised as to if it was done for that reason or not but i don't think it was because of Bikini Atoll. I by no way put this post up to offend or show disrespect to anyone or their country. If I have done this, forgive me. I simply was wondering many things which I think all men interested in WW2 would think at one point or another about several situations, "Did this have to be done"; but I think it boils down to one situation, our boys coming home.