Countdown to Hiroshima 66 Years Ago: Was the Bomb Necessary?

[Dan]

why didnt they drop it on the palace or goverment buildings.thats what grinds my gears

[PestiRed]

I dont think it was required for the Japanese but more of a warning for Stalin

 

I'd agree, I think the USA were already looking towards the Cold War. The Cuban Missile Crisis may also have turned out differently if the world had not already witnessed just how horrific these weapons are.

[Section_31]

Gene knows.

 

[YOUTUBE]y2AR1on_R2E[/YOUTUBE]

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

These are people who flew piloted bombs. A nation of complete fanatics. "Surrender" isn't in their vocabulary.

 

Apart from, of course, when they surrendered. I don't know how much you know about WWII - some people are not that interested - but they were talking for some time about a peaceful resolution.

[Strontium]

Apart from, of course, when they surrendered.

 

 

Yeah, we put the word into their vocabulary, oddly enough.

 

I don't know how much you know about WWII - some people are not that interested - but they were talking for some time about a peaceful resolution.

 

 

I know that the Japanese killed more people than the Nazis, that they routinely executed prisoners of war, strung up living skeletons by their thumbs, buried prisoners alive and performed medical experiments that Mengele would have baulked at.

 

Dennis Tooth might approve of that sort of thing, but frankly I think they're lucky we stopped at two atom bombs.

[Section_31]

I'm not sure if all of them had the bushido ideal completely ingrained. Some of them, yes, but an elite group within their society. When they charged the enemy seemingly without care it was because they knew the officers with swords behind them definitely would kill them.

 

I don't think that's strictly true mate. I'm no expert on Japanese culture by any means, but I do know that nationalism and personal pride are a part of their culture. Their industrial complex seems to be driven by a desire to make the state strong, rather than by individuals looking to aquire personal wealth as is the western way. Those men went to their deaths more than likely because to do anything else was to be disobediant and thus a source of great personal shame and failure.

 

And tooth, can we quit the personl attacks on SD? It's really, really tiresome. People have the right to express their opinions.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

frankly I think they're lucky we stopped at two atom bombs.

 

That's fairly disturbing, Stronts. That's indiscriminate killing of civilians that you're talking about.

[Kevin D]

As I see it, the savagery of the bombing had an immense and profound demonstration effect on the world's population. That, in my opinion, was key to a solution being brokered in the Cuban missile crisis.

[Guest The Big Green Bastard]

Yes. They were the extremist element at that time and needed to be quelled.

The prison camps where the chinese were held became schools of torture for young japanese cadets.

They used every method they could think of at that time to inflict as much pain as conceivable.

They're still extreme today, not in war, but everything else in their society. Just look at the porn they produce! a dead octopus up the clout does fuck all for me...and scat, i mean wtf gets these jap guys off? there horror movies are extreme also, i just don't understand why you can't show the pubes when you are wiiling to do every other extremity known to man.

 

Extreme.

[Gym Beglin]

The dropping of an atomic bomb definitely stopped the War, but the War would still have stopped soon after had it not been used.

Dropping it on Japan wasn't necessary.

 

 

People talk about the cessation of the war like it was a good vs evil battle, and good triumphed.

But the reality of it is that America scared the shit out of every nation on Earth when they dropped that bomb, and doubly shitted everyone up when they dropped another one.

Evil won that war, it's just that America didn't realise they had it in them until then.

Ever since then it's been the same, the threat of America using another bomb.

I'm not worried about anyone else using one, nobody else has a track record of using one in anger.

America have used it twice, on innocents.

[Pidge]

Stronts - "Gōbuku"

 

and I'm not sure how fair it is to form a holistic view of a whole nation from an extreme sample of an extreme minority. Especially to draw a moral picture of a nation from it's military (If that's fair then I guess we're all fucked). I'd kind of consider it an overly simplistic and borderline ignorant way of evaluating matters. But hey, broad strokes over sensitive matters. It's a good way to allow yourself to sideline any need to question one of the most complicated moral quandries of modern history.

 

After all, in the Great War thousands of Britons and Allied forces knowingly sacrificed themselves in good faith of their commanders and for the love of their country. Bloody fanatics eh?

 

It's true that the nationalistic culture in Japan at the time was a real threat. Especially as the USA was commited to an invasion. It was clear from the island invasions that assault on the mainland was impractical (it's always confused me why this data was not used to show how the invasion of Vietnam - and the rest of the countries with a grounded homeland force - would also be fairly impractical, maybe the overuse of this fanatical national character of Japan stopped people from considering the Japan invasions as an effective example. Of course they were probably just so arrogant that they thought it would be easier and that they would be better at it next time around). So a surrender was vital. The US couldn't feasibly attack on land. The distances involved were too great for sustained air attack at the time. A siege approach would drain US resources (financial at least) more than Japan's. The bomb was cheaper, more convenient and a deterrent to the Soviets. I believe these factors were much more important to the decision making process than the "complete fanatics".

[Section_31]

Nobody knows how the alternative solution would have played out, but one thing is indisputable - the bombs left Japan a broken nation that had nothing left to bargain with. If the yanks had not dropped the bomb, it's a very real possibility that the Russians would have invaded the north island (as they were preparing to do) and the cold war would have developed in Tokyo the way it had in Berlin. What's more, I personally believe a great many of Japan's forces and especially its remaining naval vessels would have continued fighting even if their homeland was defeated by conventional means.

 

In that set of circumstances, IF the allies had the means to bring the war to an end - and they didn't do so, and another British ship was sunk, or another squadron of aircraft were lost, how could that be justified? You're basically weighing the lives of civilians in an enemy country against the lives of your own people, far fewer in number perhaps, but it still comes down to them or you.

[Magellan06]

The Americans used two bombs, because they only had two ready in time. What would have happened had they not used them? If they had waited until they had hundreds years later, then unleashed them; possibly during the Cuba crisis. At least those two showed the true power of the thing, and stopped them being used again, so far.

[ChrisM]

One thing I've never got my head around was the argument that the Yanks could have simply demonstrated the power of the bomb and got the Japanese to surrender. At the time EVERYONE was trying to develop the weapon, and although it was based on theory EVERYONE knew what the capabilities of such a weapon would be.

 

They could just as easily have dropped it in a sparsely inhabited area as a demonstration of power and might, with a formal warning that the next one was landing on Tokyo.

It would without doubt have had the exact same outcome; the Japanese surrender a few days later.

 

So lets say the Yanks dropped it in a sparsely populated area, or out to sea, to demonstrate just how ridiculously powerful this weapon was. The argument is that the Japanese would say 'fuck me, best call it quits in case they drop it on a major population centre'. But in reality they DID drop it on a population centre, and still no surrender came, hence the second bomb three days later.

 

To say a demonstration would have garnered the same result is simply ignoring the facts of what actually transpired.

[robslappa]

I remember reading in a book about British POW's that Japan was running out of food and other essential items and had sustained some heavy air raids prior to the bombs being dropped. They were losing the war anyway and would have been defeated. Dropping the bombs just expedited it.

 

My Granddad was 30 miles from Nagasaki when the bomb went off, he was a POW, and said it was frightening to witness. He reckoned that the bomb going off was the reason that they surrendered and he had very little sympathy for the Japanese, in fact he had none. After reading what he and his fellow POW's suffered and witnessed at the hands of the Japanese I can understand why he felt they way he did, but I suspect the Americans did what they did to see how effective the bombs were rather than force Japan's hand into surrender.

[Guest San Don]

I must have a fucking premonition cos I imagined a thread like this would come up.

 

It seems to me that before people start asking 'was the bomb necessary,' they first investigate the war in the Pacific. Without that simple basic fact, any discussion about the bomb really is out of context.

 

People need to understand the mentality of the japanese from the time of Pearl Harbo(u)or and what they intended for that part of the world. You could if you wanted, even expend it to the Japanese occupation of China but I think that's a moot point.

 

It cannot be underestimated the level of intensity the Japanese were under orders to fight. The Emporer was their eartly god. And if he said fight to the death, then that is what the vast majority did even to the extent of ritually slicing their own belly open and disemboweling themselves rather than be captured bring dishonour to themselves, their country and their emporer.

 

Doesnt seem such an easy question now does it 'was the bomb necessary?' And that is before you see the bloody, self sacrifice many japanese did. Was their sacrifice should be asked by the OP, wonder if he ever does in that ivory tower he seems to populate?

 

Fighting in the Pacific was extreme and like nothing seen in the European theatre. The Japanese would literally fight to the death and not surrender. Watch some of the stuff about the Pacific on the Military channel. That's if you can stomach the sheer brutality of it all.

 

Millions of lives were lost in the inch by inch 'capture' of Japanese territory. It was clear that to defeat Japan, an invasion of the mainland would be needed and the cost of human lives on all sides would have been immense. Japanese civilian population had been instructed to defend their homeland, told they would be murdered, mutilated and eaten by the invaders.

 

The war in the Pacific would have looked like a tea party compared to an invasion of th Japanese mainland.

 

So, was dropping the bomb necessary?

 

Well the answer is in the fact that one bomb didnt bring Japan to the armistice table. It needed a second bomb before the emporer could see the devistation his country would suffer as a mainland invasion would surely follow.

 

War is a disgusting thing. Afterwards, you can taste the futility of it all. But was the bomb necessary?

 

As unsavioury as it was subjecting civilians to two bombs, consider the bloodbath an invasion of Japan would have been for everyone.

 

Some people will never agree that dropping the bomb was the right thing to do (and I use the term 'right' loosely). But they wont consider the wider picture.

 

Nearly all historians agree that an actual invasion of Japan would have cost far more lives, would have been far bloodier and, would have prolonged the war in the Pacific.

 

It is against that context people should ask 'was the bomb necessary?' not some ideological wide eyed simple question taken out of context and time.

[Pidge]

I remember reading in a book about British POW's that Japan was running out of food and other essential items and had sustained some heavy air raids prior to the bombs being dropped. They were losing the war anyway and would have been defeated. Dropping the bombs just expedited it.

 

My Granddad was 30 miles from Nagasaki when the bomb went off, he was a POW, and said it was frightening to witness. He reckoned that the bomb going off was the reason that they surrendered and he had very little sympathy for the Japanese, in fact he had none. After reading what he and his fellow POW's suffered and witnessed at the hands of the Japanese I can understand why he felt they way he did, but I suspect the Americans did what they did to see how effective the bombs were rather than force Japan's hand into surrender.

 

Good points, especially regarding air-raids. Parts of Tokyo's residential areas had taken a very heavy toll in firebombing raids I believe. Maybe it was less the civilians fanaticism and more the government's inability to admit defeat that forced such extreme measures being taken. Certainly another factor.

 

I can't possibly bring myself to condone the act, but there were so many factors that led to it even being considered. I really want to get hold of Oppenheimer's autobiography someday and read into his take on it.

[Guest San Don]

One thing I've never got my head around was the argument that the Yanks could have simply demonstrated the power of the bomb and got the Japanese to surrender. At the time EVERYONE was trying to develop the weapon, and although it was based on theory EVERYONE knew what the capabilities of such a weapon would be.

 

 

 

So lets say the Yanks dropped it in a sparsely populated area, or out to sea, to demonstrate just how ridiculously powerful this weapon was. The argument is that the Japanese would say 'fuck me, best call it quits in case they drop it on a major population centre'. But in reality they DID drop it on a population centre, and still no surrender came, hence the second bomb three days later.

 

To say a demonstration would have garnered the same result is simply ignoring the facts of what actually transpired.

 

Utter BS Im afraid. Just how were the yanks going to contact the Japanese who were intent on wiping them out and say 'come over to nevada. we've thins new weapon we want to show you. And once we've shown you, you will surrender immediately, wont you?'

 

Just WTF are people on? This was war people, not a nice war game ove saki.

[Phoenix]

The Americans used two bombs, because they only had two ready in time. What would have happened had they not used them? If they had waited until they had hundreds years later, then unleashed them; possibly during the Cuba crisis. At least those two showed the true power of the thing, and stopped them being used again, so far.

 

I think it would have been a lot harder for them use Nuclear weapons at time of Cuba missle crisis. They would both have been aware of mutually assured destruction without Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[Sloan]

Yes, it was justified. It ended the war, after all. Otherwise the allies would have been forced to just fire bomb the crap out of Japan which would have ended up killing more Japs. And an invasion of Japan would have cost a catastrophic number of lives on both sides. Besides, Japan started the damn war in the first place, can't very well have too many complaints about how it was ended.

[Guest San Don]

why didnt they drop it on the palace or goverment buildings.thats what grinds my gears

 

There are a couple of reasons for this, some ideological and some practical.

 

What would have been the effect of dropping the bomb on the Japanese emporer? Would it make the people more inclined to fight to the bitter end or throw in their lot? My guess is it would have made them fight and virtually never surrender.

 

The practical reasons are they didnt have pin point accuracy to drop a bomb from such a height so as the plane couldnt be shot down and hit a specific target such as a palace. Plus dropping a bomb from such height leaves if subject to wind drift and targeting drift.

 

In any event, a nuclear weapon is devastating and because it is an air burst detonation, contributes for flattening such a wide area that 'normal' bombs couldnt.

[ChrisM]

There are a couple of reasons for this, some ideological and some practical.

 

What would have been the effect of dropping the bomb on the Japanese emporer? Would it make the people more inclined to fight to the bitter end or throw in their lot? My guess is it would have made them fight and virtually never surrender.

 

The practical reasons are they didnt have pin point accuracy to drop a bomb from such a height so as the plane couldnt be shot down and hit a specific target such as a palace. Plus dropping a bomb from such height leaves if subject to wind drift and targeting drift.

 

In any event, a nuclear weapon is devastating and because it is an air burst detonation, contributes for flattening such a wide area that 'normal' bombs couldnt.

 

Also, allegedly potential targets were chosen with regards to the psychological effect they would have - Hiroshima is surrounded by hills, Nagasaki is spread between two valleys - which would result in the shockwaves reverberating and causing much more widespread damage, thus demoralising the Japanese people further.

[Sloan]

People pitying Japan should realise just how ruthless they were during the war. They would have stopped at nothing to achieve their aims of total domination in Asia. They slaughtered millions of civilians across Asia. They had no regard for human life. If they had the atom bomb they would have no qualms about using it against any or all of their enemies.

It might not be a PC thing to say but the world has turned out a better place for it. Or would you have preferred Japan to prevail in this conflict?

Japan has done alright since the end of the war, so things have turned out okay for the Japs, and the world at large.

[Strontium]

That's fairly disturbing, Stronts. That's indiscriminate killing of civilians that you're talking about.

 

 

I'm not saying I would have approved of that at all, no way; two was what it took to get them to see sense, and maybe even the second was overkill, people still debate that today. In the context of Japanese conduct during the war, though, two bombs was relatively restrained. If roles had been reversed, I couldn't have seen the Japanese stopping at two (assuming they had more, of course).

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I'm not saying I would have approved of that at all, no way; two was what it took to get them to see sense, and maybe even the second was overkill, people still debate that today. In the context of Japanese conduct during the war, though, two bombs was relatively restrained. If roles had been reversed, I couldn't have seen the Japanese stopping at two (assuming they had more, of course).

 

We don't judge ourselves on what our enemies might have done. I get the vibe from your posts that they kind of got what was coming to them, is that fair to say?