Jump to content

August 6, 1945


psionic11
 Share

Recommended Posts

You folks who think the decision to drop atomic weapons on Japan was "terrorism" and not a legitimate use of force really need to consider the context.

 

Before I continue, it is useful to remember two things when considering historical events (not just this one):

 

(1) Personalities matter. If you want to understand the decision making, you must understand the personalities of the leaders involved.

 

(2) People do the things they do and make the decisions that they make for what, to them, are good reasons at that time.

 

========================================================================================================

 

The casualties from invading Japan would have been far greater than those that occurred with the dropping of the atomic weapons (civilians and combatants both). We are talking millions of casualties. In a conventional invasion, the Japanese would almost certainly have fought to the death ... to the very last man, woman, or child.

 

To those who say, "We should have just dropped the bomb on a tactical target so they could see how awful it is, and they would have conceded." Wrong. And the problem is ... we only had two! We didn't have an unlimited supply of enriched uranium lying around -- and the Japanese had an opportunity to surrender after "Little Boy", the first nuclear weapon, was dropped on Aug 6, 1945. How long would it take for them to see how awful an atomic bomb detonated offshore is and surrender? They had 3 days before Fat Man (the second atomic bomb) was dropped on Nagasaki. They weren't even convinced after an entire city was literally flattened! By dropping a second weapon on Nagasaki, we were able to create the impression that we had an unlimited supply of nukes -- THAT is why the Japanese surrendered.

 

The Planned Invasion: The first invasion would be called Operation Olympic, commencing Nov 1st, 1945. Fourteen divisions (each around 15,000 men) of army and marine combat troops would conduct an amphibious assault (following an unprecedented naval and aerial bombardment) on the southern-most Japanese home island of Kyushu. Operation Olympic was expected to take four months to subdue Kyushu, leading to the invasion of Honshu and the Tokyo Plain in Operation Coronet commencing March 1, 1946. Operation Coronet would include at least 22 divisions. With the exception of part of the British Pacific Fleet, both operations would be American-only operations and would include more than 40% of the troops still in uniform in 1945.

 

Expected Casualties: Casualties were expected to be very, very high. General Charles Willoughby, who was General Douglas MacArthur's intel chief, expected American casualties alone to be well over 1 million men by the fall of 1946 (Willoughby's own staff believed one million was a conservative estimate). Estimated Japanese deaths -- military and civilian -- would have been far higher.

 

Had the invasion come about, the Japanese civilian population, inflamed by a national slogan - "One Hundred Million Will Die for the Emperor and Nation" - were prepared to fight to the death. Twenty Eight Million Japanese had become a part of the National Volunteer Combat Force. They were armed with ancient rifles, lunge mines, satchel charges, Molotov cocktails and one-shot black powder mortars. Others were armed with swords, long bows, axes and bamboo spears. The civilian units were to be used in nighttime attacks, hit and run maneuvers, delaying actions and massive suicide charges at the weaker American positions.

 

Timeline

 

May 25, 1945: The Joint Chiefs of Staff issued orders to General MacArthur (overall commander), Admiral Nimitz (naval commander), and General Arnold (airpower commander) to prepare for the invasion of Kyushu, commencing after typhoon season in November.

 

July 24, 1945: President Truman approved the plans for the invasion.

 

July 26, 1945: The United Nations issued the Potsdam Proclamation, which called upon Japan to surrender unconditionally or face total destruction.

 

July 29, 1945: the Japanese governmental news agency broadcast to the world that Japan would ignore the proclamation and would refuse to surrender. During this sane period it was learned -- via monitoring Japanese radio broadcasts -- that Japan had closed all schools and mobilized its schoolchildren, was arming its civilian population and was fortifying caves and building underground defenses.

 

August 6, 1945: The atomic bomb, nicknamed "Little Boy", was dropped by the B-29 Enola Gay on Hiroshima.

 

August 8, 1945: The Soviet Union declares war on Japan and invades Manchuria.

 

August 9, 1945: The atomic bomb "Fat Man" was dropped by the B-29 Bockscar on Nagasaki.

 

August 14, 1945: Japan surrenders unconditionally, thus ending World War II.

 

As a side note, I once had a long conversation with an Army vet from World War II. He was in the 25th Infantry Division, and he had been in combat in the Pacific since January 1943. On August 14th, 1945, he and some of his buddies were on liberty at a USO show -- the Andrews Sisters were performing, and then someone came out on stage and handed a note to one of the sisters. She stopped the song and said into the microphone that she had an announcement to make: "The Japanese have surrendered, and World War II is over." He said that the party that erupted was unlike any you can imagine: These men were enjoying their last day of liberty before returning to their unit for the beginning of preparations for what they were sure would be the invasion of the Japanese home islands -- and they knew many of them would be dead soon. It was as though they were all on death row, and the Governor had just called to commute their sentence.

 

I second the recommendations for Countdown 1945 -- it contains new scholarship, and goes in depth into the decision-making involved in dropping the bomb. Highly recommended.

Edited by capoetc
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I say to those saying A-bombs were the only choice: Consider the other side.

Visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and the nearby museum. Visit the Atomic Bomb Museum in Nagasaki. Talk to some Hiroshima survivors who were kindergarten and elementary school age at the time about their experience. These things will make you consider much more than it being about numbers and it being “a legit use of force”.

 

My mom was a little little kid when she was in hiding due to the Japanese invading her home country of the Philippines. Given her own deeply affected life experience, it’d be easy to understand why she’d consider the use of atomic bombs being the right choice. But she never thought as much.

 

I grew up in the U.S. but have been in Japan for nearly two decades now. There’s so much more than there being no other choice but to drop atomic bombs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s so much more than there being no other choice but to drop atomic bombs.

 

Thanks to 75 years of government/media propaganda, which has become quasi-religious dogma, many millions of people in the USA will never even consider any other point of view or even factual evidence that challenges the dogma. They're just too brainwashed to accept the possibility that the USA could have done something morally wrong during the War.

Edited by Principled Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s so much more than there being no other choice but to drop atomic bombs.

 

Thanks to 75 years of government/media propaganda, which has become quasi-religious dogma, many millions of people in the USA will never even consider any other point of view or even factual evidence that challenges the dogma. They're just too brainwashed to accept the possibility that the USA could have done something morally wrong during the War.

 

Yeah I can’t really disagree with that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s so much more than there being no other choice but to drop atomic bombs.

 

Thanks to 75 years of government/media propaganda, which has become quasi-religious dogma, many millions of people in the USA will never even consider any other point of view or even factual evidence that challenges the dogma. They're just too brainwashed to accept the possibility that the USA could have done something morally wrong during the War.

 

Yeah I can’t really disagree with that

I can. Saying the people here making the case for dropping the bomb are just brainwashed is pretty chicken shit.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s so much more than there being no other choice but to drop atomic bombs.

 

Thanks to 75 years of government/media propaganda, which has become quasi-religious dogma, many millions of people in the USA will never even consider any other point of view or even factual evidence that challenges the dogma. They're just too brainwashed to accept the possibility that the USA could have done something morally wrong during the War.

 

Yeah I can’t really disagree with that

I can. Saying the people here making the case for dropping the bomb are just brainwashed is pretty chicken shit.

 

That’s fine. I’m disagreeing about it being the only choice. The brainwashing bit is another discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s so much more than there being no other choice but to drop atomic bombs.

 

Thanks to 75 years of government/media propaganda, which has become quasi-religious dogma, many millions of people in the USA will never even consider any other point of view or even factual evidence that challenges the dogma. They're just too brainwashed to accept the possibility that the USA could have done something morally wrong during the War.

 

Yeah I can’t really disagree with that

 

I can. Saying the people here making the case for dropping the bomb are just brainwashed is pretty chicken shit.

 

Would it make you feel better if I use the word "programmed" or the phrase "culturally indoctrinated"?

 

I'll tell you what is really "chicken shit": generations of people being too afraid to even consider the factual evidence regarding the Truman administration's decision to use the atomic bombs.

 

People just can't risk going against the great patriotic myth. As a result, they keep spewing the same irrelevant BS about hypothetical casualty numbers in a hypothetical invasion of Japan. Rather than talk about what Truman and his staff actually said and did, rather than research the real reasons for dropping the bombs, they blindly follow the propaganda.

 

Culturally indoctrinated cowardice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s so much more than there being no other choice but to drop atomic bombs.

 

Thanks to 75 years of government/media propaganda, which has become quasi-religious dogma, many millions of people in the USA will never even consider any other point of view or even factual evidence that challenges the dogma. They're just too brainwashed to accept the possibility that the USA could have done something morally wrong during the War.

 

Yeah I can’t really disagree with that

 

I can. Saying the people here making the case for dropping the bomb are just brainwashed is pretty chicken shit.

 

Would it make you feel better if I use the word "programmed" or the phrase "culturally indoctrinated"?

 

I'll tell you what is really "chicken shit": generations of people being too afraid to even consider the factual evidence regarding the Truman administration's decision to use the atomic bombs.

 

People just can't risk going against the great patriotic myth. As a result, they keep spewing the same irrelevant BS about hypothetical casualty numbers in a hypothetical invasion of Japan. Rather than talk about what Truman and his staff actually said and did, rather than research the real reasons for dropping the bombs, they blindly follow the propaganda.

 

Culturally indoctrinated cowardice.

Your posts come across as arrogant contrarianism. Your opinion seems to rest solely on a rejection of predictions for a hypothetical invasion, which is fine. But there are a host of other considerations around the larger context of Japanese atrocities that add support the A-bomb decision. To ignore that context belies your own indoctrination.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People just can't risk going against the great patriotic myth.

Which is why Dick Cheney walks around free, and very wealthy.

And Obama's drone and other hawkish policies went largely uncriticized.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People just can't risk going against the great patriotic myth.

Which is why Dick Cheney walks around free, and very wealthy.

And Obama's drone and other hawkish policies went largely uncriticized.

Absolutely true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I say to those saying A-bombs were the only choice: Consider the other side.

Visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and the nearby museum. Visit the Atomic Bomb Museum in Nagasaki. ...

 

I have visited both.

 

I'm a retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel (now a pilot for a major airline), so my service afforded me the opportunity to spend a decent amount of time in Japan.

 

I visited Hiroshima first, and I was a bit reticent because I was concerned how I might be viewed by the people who live there. Based upon my haircut and dress, there was no way to hide the fact that I was an American, and likely a service member.

 

I never even detected a sideways glance from people there. And it was a very moving experience -- it would be wise for all policy makers to visit at least once to inform any decisions they might have to make in the future.

 

1945 was a very different time. There was a 0.0% chance that Japan would respond against the US with nuclear weapons ... no one else had them. So the decision was: Is it worth taking the lives of a large number of civilians, not unlike the fire bombing campaign in Tokyo, to enhance the possibility that Japan might surrender and avoid another 1 - 1 1/2 years or more of fighting, resulting almost certainly in far more death and destruction?

 

Let he or she who has been in a similar position [to make a decision where, no matter what you decide, hundreds of thousands of people will die] cast the first stone.

 

The Japanese were planning to fight to the very end, all the while thinking if they could just inflict enough punishment on the US we might sue for peace.

 

Finally, it is also useful to consider this: More often than not in the field of international geopolitics (and war is nothing more than politics by other means), the decisions at hand are not "right or wrong". The decisions presented are often, "Bad, worse, or catastrophic" ... choose wisely.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I say to those saying A-bombs were the only choice: Consider the other side.

Visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and the nearby museum. Visit the Atomic Bomb Museum in Nagasaki. ...

 

I have visited both.

 

I'm a retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel (now a pilot for a major airline), so my service afforded me the opportunity to spend a decent amount of time in Japan.

 

I visited Hiroshima first, and I was a bit reticent because I was concerned how I might be viewed by the people who live there. Based upon my haircut and dress, there was no way to hide the fact that I was an American, and likely a service member.

 

I never even detected a sideways glance from people there. And it was a very moving experience -- it would be wise for all policy makers to visit at least once to inform any decisions they might have to make in the future.

 

1945 was a very different time. There was a 0.0% chance that Japan would respond against the US with nuclear weapons ... no one else had them. So the decision was: Is it worth taking the lives of a large number of civilians, not unlike the fire bombing campaign in Tokyo, to enhance the possibility that Japan might surrender and avoid another 1 - 1 1/2 years or more of fighting, resulting almost certainly in far more death and destruction?

 

Let he or she who has been in a similar position [to make a decision where, no matter what you decide, hundreds of thousands of people will die] cast the first stone.

 

The Japanese were planning to fight to the very end, all the while thinking if they could just inflict enough punishment on the US we might sue for peace.

 

Finally, it is also useful to consider this: More often than not in the field of international geopolitics (and war is nothing more than politics by other means), the decisions at hand are not "right or wrong". The decisions presented are often, "Bad, worse, or catastrophic" ... choose wisely.

 

Right - I’m not surprised nobody gave you a second look when you were at the Hiroshima Peace Museum. By chance, did you get any opportunity to speak with anyone who lived through either of the bombs? Or even just any civilian who lived in Japan during WW2? Those are some gut wrenching experiences if you did get the chance. It’s been good for me to have been been fortunate enough to hear my mom and grandfather’s WW2 experiences in the Philippines, Japanese civilians speaking of theirs here, and plenty of Americans (civilian and military) relaying their experiences too. These personal stories can’t help but influence my thoughts on the war and the choices made by leaders.

 

I totally agree with your last paragraph - every decision is going to be a bad one due to the nature of war. But I just can’t help to think that there must have been another (less horrendous) decision to make other than the ones that actually were made on those two August dates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I say to those saying A-bombs were the only choice: Consider the other side.

Visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and the nearby museum. Visit the Atomic Bomb Museum in Nagasaki. ...

 

I have visited both.

 

I'm a retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel (now a pilot for a major airline), so my service afforded me the opportunity to spend a decent amount of time in Japan.

 

I visited Hiroshima first, and I was a bit reticent because I was concerned how I might be viewed by the people who live there. Based upon my haircut and dress, there was no way to hide the fact that I was an American, and likely a service member.

 

I never even detected a sideways glance from people there. And it was a very moving experience -- it would be wise for all policy makers to visit at least once to inform any decisions they might have to make in the future.

 

1945 was a very different time. There was a 0.0% chance that Japan would respond against the US with nuclear weapons ... no one else had them. So the decision was: Is it worth taking the lives of a large number of civilians, not unlike the fire bombing campaign in Tokyo, to enhance the possibility that Japan might surrender and avoid another 1 - 1 1/2 years or more of fighting, resulting almost certainly in far more death and destruction?

 

Let he or she who has been in a similar position [to make a decision where, no matter what you decide, hundreds of thousands of people will die] cast the first stone.

 

The Japanese were planning to fight to the very end, all the while thinking if they could just inflict enough punishment on the US we might sue for peace.

 

Finally, it is also useful to consider this: More often than not in the field of international geopolitics (and war is nothing more than politics by other means), the decisions at hand are not "right or wrong". The decisions presented are often, "Bad, worse, or catastrophic" ... choose wisely.

 

Right - I’m not surprised nobody gave you a second look when you were at the Hiroshima Peace Museum. By chance, did you get any opportunity to speak with anyone who lived through either of the bombs? Or even just any civilian who lived in Japan during WW2? Those are some gut wrenching experiences if you did get the chance. It’s been good for me to have been been fortunate enough to hear my mom and grandfather’s WW2 experiences in the Philippines, Japanese civilians speaking of theirs here, and plenty of Americans (civilian and military) relaying their experiences too. These personal stories can’t help but influence my thoughts on the war and the choices made by leaders.

 

I totally agree with your last paragraph - every decision is going to be a bad one due to the nature of war. But I just can’t help to think that there must have been another (less horrendous) decision to make other than the ones that actually were made on those two August dates.

 

Well, we could have just sued for peace.

 

What do you think the odds are that a "victorious" Japan that still retains firepower would quit menacing its neighbors?

 

Sometimes the "do nothing" option is the most expensive one of all.

 

And, on the issue of talking with survivors -- yes, I have spoken to several. Have you ever spoken to Pearl Harbor survivors? The ones who were at peace on the morning of Dec 7, 1941, up until the Japanese sneak attack that killed literally thousands of Americans?

 

I have spoken to them too.

 

And the end result of WWII, as terrible as it was, left Japan as a world economic powerhouse (thanks to the American decision to help our defeated enemies rather than punishing them further as ALL previous victors have done throughout history) and no threat whatsoever to their neighbors.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I say to those saying A-bombs were the only choice: Consider the other side.

Visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and the nearby museum. Visit the Atomic Bomb Museum in Nagasaki. ...

 

I have visited both.

 

I'm a retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel (now a pilot for a major airline), so my service afforded me the opportunity to spend a decent amount of time in Japan.

 

I visited Hiroshima first, and I was a bit reticent because I was concerned how I might be viewed by the people who live there. Based upon my haircut and dress, there was no way to hide the fact that I was an American, and likely a service member.

 

I never even detected a sideways glance from people there. And it was a very moving experience -- it would be wise for all policy makers to visit at least once to inform any decisions they might have to make in the future.

 

1945 was a very different time. There was a 0.0% chance that Japan would respond against the US with nuclear weapons ... no one else had them. So the decision was: Is it worth taking the lives of a large number of civilians, not unlike the fire bombing campaign in Tokyo, to enhance the possibility that Japan might surrender and avoid another 1 - 1 1/2 years or more of fighting, resulting almost certainly in far more death and destruction?

 

Let he or she who has been in a similar position [to make a decision where, no matter what you decide, hundreds of thousands of people will die] cast the first stone.

 

The Japanese were planning to fight to the very end, all the while thinking if they could just inflict enough punishment on the US we might sue for peace.

 

Finally, it is also useful to consider this: More often than not in the field of international geopolitics (and war is nothing more than politics by other means), the decisions at hand are not "right or wrong". The decisions presented are often, "Bad, worse, or catastrophic" ... choose wisely.

 

Right - I’m not surprised nobody gave you a second look when you were at the Hiroshima Peace Museum. By chance, did you get any opportunity to speak with anyone who lived through either of the bombs? Or even just any civilian who lived in Japan during WW2? Those are some gut wrenching experiences if you did get the chance. It’s been good for me to have been been fortunate enough to hear my mom and grandfather’s WW2 experiences in the Philippines, Japanese civilians speaking of theirs here, and plenty of Americans (civilian and military) relaying their experiences too. These personal stories can’t help but influence my thoughts on the war and the choices made by leaders.

 

I totally agree with your last paragraph - every decision is going to be a bad one due to the nature of war. But I just can’t help to think that there must have been another (less horrendous) decision to make other than the ones that actually were made on those two August dates.

 

Well, we could have just sued for peace.

 

What do you think the odds are that a "victorious" Japan that still retains firepower would quit menacing its neighbors?

 

Sometimes the "do nothing" option is the most expensive one of all.

 

And, on the issue of talking with survivors -- yes, I have spoken to several. Have you ever spoken to Pearl Harbor survivors? The ones who were at peace on the morning of Dec 7, 1941, up until the Japanese sneak attack that killed literally thousands of Americans?

 

I have spoken to them too.

 

And the end result of WWII, as terrible as it was, left Japan as a world economic powerhouse (thanks to the American decision to help our defeated enemies rather than punishing them further as ALL previous victors have done throughout history) and no threat whatsoever to their neighbors.

 

Yes I’ve spoken to Pearl Harbor survivors too. My family’s military (and all old and retired) and we’ve had some family and friends in Hawaii too so that explains a lot of those conversations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I say to those saying A-bombs were the only choice: Consider the other side.

Visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and the nearby museum. Visit the Atomic Bomb Museum in Nagasaki. ...

 

I have visited both.

 

I'm a retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel (now a pilot for a major airline), so my service afforded me the opportunity to spend a decent amount of time in Japan.

 

I visited Hiroshima first, and I was a bit reticent because I was concerned how I might be viewed by the people who live there. Based upon my haircut and dress, there was no way to hide the fact that I was an American, and likely a service member.

 

I never even detected a sideways glance from people there. And it was a very moving experience -- it would be wise for all policy makers to visit at least once to inform any decisions they might have to make in the future.

 

1945 was a very different time. There was a 0.0% chance that Japan would respond against the US with nuclear weapons ... no one else had them. So the decision was: Is it worth taking the lives of a large number of civilians, not unlike the fire bombing campaign in Tokyo, to enhance the possibility that Japan might surrender and avoid another 1 - 1 1/2 years or more of fighting, resulting almost certainly in far more death and destruction?

 

Let he or she who has been in a similar position [to make a decision where, no matter what you decide, hundreds of thousands of people will die] cast the first stone.

 

The Japanese were planning to fight to the very end, all the while thinking if they could just inflict enough punishment on the US we might sue for peace.

 

Finally, it is also useful to consider this: More often than not in the field of international geopolitics (and war is nothing more than politics by other means), the decisions at hand are not "right or wrong". The decisions presented are often, "Bad, worse, or catastrophic" ... choose wisely.

 

You could choose not to murder women and kids by the 10s of thousands. The Russians did. The Nazis did. The Japanese did. They had their nationalistic justifications too.

 

I appreciate your service to our country, but you’ve simply offered excuses. The US is supposed to value innocent human life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I say to those saying A-bombs were the only choice: Consider the other side.

Visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and the nearby museum. Visit the Atomic Bomb Museum in Nagasaki. ...

 

I have visited both.

 

I'm a retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel (now a pilot for a major airline), so my service afforded me the opportunity to spend a decent amount of time in Japan.

 

I visited Hiroshima first, and I was a bit reticent because I was concerned how I might be viewed by the people who live there. Based upon my haircut and dress, there was no way to hide the fact that I was an American, and likely a service member.

 

I never even detected a sideways glance from people there. And it was a very moving experience -- it would be wise for all policy makers to visit at least once to inform any decisions they might have to make in the future.

 

1945 was a very different time. There was a 0.0% chance that Japan would respond against the US with nuclear weapons ... no one else had them. So the decision was: Is it worth taking the lives of a large number of civilians, not unlike the fire bombing campaign in Tokyo, to enhance the possibility that Japan might surrender and avoid another 1 - 1 1/2 years or more of fighting, resulting almost certainly in far more death and destruction?

 

Let he or she who has been in a similar position [to make a decision where, no matter what you decide, hundreds of thousands of people will die] cast the first stone.

 

The Japanese were planning to fight to the very end, all the while thinking if they could just inflict enough punishment on the US we might sue for peace.

 

Finally, it is also useful to consider this: More often than not in the field of international geopolitics (and war is nothing more than politics by other means), the decisions at hand are not "right or wrong". The decisions presented are often, "Bad, worse, or catastrophic" ... choose wisely.

 

You could choose not to murder women and kids by the 10s of thousands. The Russians did. The Nazis did. The Japanese did. They had their nationalistic justifications too.

 

I appreciate your service to our country, but you’ve simply offered excuses. The US is supposed to value innocent human life.

When you spend more on "national defense" than the next 10 countries in the world combined, do you really value human life?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I say to those saying A-bombs were the only choice: Consider the other side.

Visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and the nearby museum. Visit the Atomic Bomb Museum in Nagasaki. ...

 

I have visited both.

 

I'm a retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel (now a pilot for a major airline), so my service afforded me the opportunity to spend a decent amount of time in Japan.

 

I visited Hiroshima first, and I was a bit reticent because I was concerned how I might be viewed by the people who live there. Based upon my haircut and dress, there was no way to hide the fact that I was an American, and likely a service member.

 

I never even detected a sideways glance from people there. And it was a very moving experience -- it would be wise for all policy makers to visit at least once to inform any decisions they might have to make in the future.

 

1945 was a very different time. There was a 0.0% chance that Japan would respond against the US with nuclear weapons ... no one else had them. So the decision was: Is it worth taking the lives of a large number of civilians, not unlike the fire bombing campaign in Tokyo, to enhance the possibility that Japan might surrender and avoid another 1 - 1 1/2 years or more of fighting, resulting almost certainly in far more death and destruction?

 

Let he or she who has been in a similar position [to make a decision where, no matter what you decide, hundreds of thousands of people will die] cast the first stone.

 

The Japanese were planning to fight to the very end, all the while thinking if they could just inflict enough punishment on the US we might sue for peace.

 

Finally, it is also useful to consider this: More often than not in the field of international geopolitics (and war is nothing more than politics by other means), the decisions at hand are not "right or wrong". The decisions presented are often, "Bad, worse, or catastrophic" ... choose wisely.

 

You could choose not to murder women and kids by the 10s of thousands. The Russians did. The Nazis did. The Japanese did. They had their nationalistic justifications too.

 

I appreciate your service to our country, but you’ve simply offered excuses. The US is supposed to value innocent human life.

I think you might consider that the nations you listed murdered by the millions, which certainly played into the calculus. Weigh that with the courageous ferocity we'd seen from Japanese soldiers throughout the Pacific theater, the ramping up of Japanese suicide attacks as we closed in on mainland Japan, Japan's refusal to surrender in the face of and end to European hostilities, and the number of US troops already lost during the war, and the decision to drop seems more reasonable, albeit tragic.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I say to those saying A-bombs were the only choice: Consider the other side.

Visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and the nearby museum. Visit the Atomic Bomb Museum in Nagasaki. ...

 

I have visited both.

 

I'm a retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel (now a pilot for a major airline), so my service afforded me the opportunity to spend a decent amount of time in Japan.

 

I visited Hiroshima first, and I was a bit reticent because I was concerned how I might be viewed by the people who live there. Based upon my haircut and dress, there was no way to hide the fact that I was an American, and likely a service member.

 

I never even detected a sideways glance from people there. And it was a very moving experience -- it would be wise for all policy makers to visit at least once to inform any decisions they might have to make in the future.

 

1945 was a very different time. There was a 0.0% chance that Japan would respond against the US with nuclear weapons ... no one else had them. So the decision was: Is it worth taking the lives of a large number of civilians, not unlike the fire bombing campaign in Tokyo, to enhance the possibility that Japan might surrender and avoid another 1 - 1 1/2 years or more of fighting, resulting almost certainly in far more death and destruction?

 

Let he or she who has been in a similar position [to make a decision where, no matter what you decide, hundreds of thousands of people will die] cast the first stone.

 

The Japanese were planning to fight to the very end, all the while thinking if they could just inflict enough punishment on the US we might sue for peace.

 

Finally, it is also useful to consider this: More often than not in the field of international geopolitics (and war is nothing more than politics by other means), the decisions at hand are not "right or wrong". The decisions presented are often, "Bad, worse, or catastrophic" ... choose wisely.

 

You could choose not to murder women and kids by the 10s of thousands. The Russians did. The Nazis did. The Japanese did. They had their nationalistic justifications too.

 

I appreciate your service to our country, but you’ve simply offered excuses. The US is supposed to value innocent human life.

This is parody, right?

 

The Holocaust never happened? The Rape of Nanking and other Japanese atrocities on civilian populations never happened? And the Russians just coincidentally happened to stop and resupply and so were unable to assist in the Warsaw Uprising? Probably just a coincidence since the Purges and Holomodor never happened, either.

Edited by laughedatbytime
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I say to those saying A-bombs were the only choice: Consider the other side.

Visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and the nearby museum. Visit the Atomic Bomb Museum in Nagasaki. ...

 

I have visited both.

 

I'm a retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel (now a pilot for a major airline), so my service afforded me the opportunity to spend a decent amount of time in Japan.

 

I visited Hiroshima first, and I was a bit reticent because I was concerned how I might be viewed by the people who live there. Based upon my haircut and dress, there was no way to hide the fact that I was an American, and likely a service member.

 

I never even detected a sideways glance from people there. And it was a very moving experience -- it would be wise for all policy makers to visit at least once to inform any decisions they might have to make in the future.

 

1945 was a very different time. There was a 0.0% chance that Japan would respond against the US with nuclear weapons ... no one else had them. So the decision was: Is it worth taking the lives of a large number of civilians, not unlike the fire bombing campaign in Tokyo, to enhance the possibility that Japan might surrender and avoid another 1 - 1 1/2 years or more of fighting, resulting almost certainly in far more death and destruction?

 

Let he or she who has been in a similar position [to make a decision where, no matter what you decide, hundreds of thousands of people will die] cast the first stone.

 

The Japanese were planning to fight to the very end, all the while thinking if they could just inflict enough punishment on the US we might sue for peace.

 

Finally, it is also useful to consider this: More often than not in the field of international geopolitics (and war is nothing more than politics by other means), the decisions at hand are not "right or wrong". The decisions presented are often, "Bad, worse, or catastrophic" ... choose wisely.

 

You could choose not to murder women and kids by the 10s of thousands. The Russians did. The Nazis did. The Japanese did. They had their nationalistic justifications too.

 

I appreciate your service to our country, but you’ve simply offered excuses. The US is supposed to value innocent human life.

This is parody, right?

 

The Holocaust never happened? The Rape of Nanking and other Japanese atrocities on civilian populations never happened? And the Russians just coincidentally happened to stop and resupply and so were unable to assist in the Warsaw Uprising? Probably just a coincidence since the Purges and Holomodor never happened, either.

 

I acknowledged those atrocities above.

 

Are you having trouble acknowledging Hiroshima and Nagasaki as atrocities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I say to those saying A-bombs were the only choice: Consider the other side.

Visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and the nearby museum. Visit the Atomic Bomb Museum in Nagasaki. ...

 

I have visited both.

 

I'm a retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel (now a pilot for a major airline), so my service afforded me the opportunity to spend a decent amount of time in Japan.

 

I visited Hiroshima first, and I was a bit reticent because I was concerned how I might be viewed by the people who live there. Based upon my haircut and dress, there was no way to hide the fact that I was an American, and likely a service member.

 

I never even detected a sideways glance from people there. And it was a very moving experience -- it would be wise for all policy makers to visit at least once to inform any decisions they might have to make in the future.

 

1945 was a very different time. There was a 0.0% chance that Japan would respond against the US with nuclear weapons ... no one else had them. So the decision was: Is it worth taking the lives of a large number of civilians, not unlike the fire bombing campaign in Tokyo, to enhance the possibility that Japan might surrender and avoid another 1 - 1 1/2 years or more of fighting, resulting almost certainly in far more death and destruction?

 

Let he or she who has been in a similar position [to make a decision where, no matter what you decide, hundreds of thousands of people will die] cast the first stone.

 

The Japanese were planning to fight to the very end, all the while thinking if they could just inflict enough punishment on the US we might sue for peace.

 

Finally, it is also useful to consider this: More often than not in the field of international geopolitics (and war is nothing more than politics by other means), the decisions at hand are not "right or wrong". The decisions presented are often, "Bad, worse, or catastrophic" ... choose wisely.

 

You could choose not to murder women and kids by the 10s of thousands. The Russians did. The Nazis did. The Japanese did. They had their nationalistic justifications too.

 

I appreciate your service to our country, but you’ve simply offered excuses. The US is supposed to value innocent human life.

I think you might consider that the nations you listed murdered by the millions, which certainly played into the calculus. Weigh that with the courageous ferocity we'd seen from Japanese soldiers throughout the Pacific theater, the ramping up of Japanese suicide attacks as we closed in on mainland Japan, Japan's refusal to surrender in the face of and end to European hostilities, and the number of US troops already lost during the war, and the decision to drop seems more reasonable, albeit tragic.

 

I totally get that - and understand the tactical reasoning 100%.

 

It doesn’t absolve the US of a major war crime though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I say to those saying A-bombs were the only choice: Consider the other side.

Visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and the nearby museum. Visit the Atomic Bomb Museum in Nagasaki. ...

 

I have visited both.

 

I'm a retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel (now a pilot for a major airline), so my service afforded me the opportunity to spend a decent amount of time in Japan.

 

I visited Hiroshima first, and I was a bit reticent because I was concerned how I might be viewed by the people who live there. Based upon my haircut and dress, there was no way to hide the fact that I was an American, and likely a service member.

 

I never even detected a sideways glance from people there. And it was a very moving experience -- it would be wise for all policy makers to visit at least once to inform any decisions they might have to make in the future.

 

1945 was a very different time. There was a 0.0% chance that Japan would respond against the US with nuclear weapons ... no one else had them. So the decision was: Is it worth taking the lives of a large number of civilians, not unlike the fire bombing campaign in Tokyo, to enhance the possibility that Japan might surrender and avoid another 1 - 1 1/2 years or more of fighting, resulting almost certainly in far more death and destruction?

 

Let he or she who has been in a similar position [to make a decision where, no matter what you decide, hundreds of thousands of people will die] cast the first stone.

 

The Japanese were planning to fight to the very end, all the while thinking if they could just inflict enough punishment on the US we might sue for peace.

 

Finally, it is also useful to consider this: More often than not in the field of international geopolitics (and war is nothing more than politics by other means), the decisions at hand are not "right or wrong". The decisions presented are often, "Bad, worse, or catastrophic" ... choose wisely.

 

You could choose not to murder women and kids by the 10s of thousands. The Russians did. The Nazis did. The Japanese did. They had their nationalistic justifications too.

 

I appreciate your service to our country, but you’ve simply offered excuses. The US is supposed to value innocent human life.

This is parody, right?

 

The Holocaust never happened? The Rape of Nanking and other Japanese atrocities on civilian populations never happened? And the Russians just coincidentally happened to stop and resupply and so were unable to assist in the Warsaw Uprising? Probably just a coincidence since the Purges and Holomodor never happened, either.

 

I acknowledged those atrocities above.

 

Are you having trouble acknowledging Hiroshima and Nagasaki as atrocities?

To the extent that all war is an atrocity, yes.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I say to those saying A-bombs were the only choice: Consider the other side.

Visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and the nearby museum. Visit the Atomic Bomb Museum in Nagasaki. ...

 

I have visited both.

 

I'm a retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel (now a pilot for a major airline), so my service afforded me the opportunity to spend a decent amount of time in Japan.

 

I visited Hiroshima first, and I was a bit reticent because I was concerned how I might be viewed by the people who live there. Based upon my haircut and dress, there was no way to hide the fact that I was an American, and likely a service member.

 

I never even detected a sideways glance from people there. And it was a very moving experience -- it would be wise for all policy makers to visit at least once to inform any decisions they might have to make in the future.

 

1945 was a very different time. There was a 0.0% chance that Japan would respond against the US with nuclear weapons ... no one else had them. So the decision was: Is it worth taking the lives of a large number of civilians, not unlike the fire bombing campaign in Tokyo, to enhance the possibility that Japan might surrender and avoid another 1 - 1 1/2 years or more of fighting, resulting almost certainly in far more death and destruction?

 

Let he or she who has been in a similar position [to make a decision where, no matter what you decide, hundreds of thousands of people will die] cast the first stone.

 

The Japanese were planning to fight to the very end, all the while thinking if they could just inflict enough punishment on the US we might sue for peace.

 

Finally, it is also useful to consider this: More often than not in the field of international geopolitics (and war is nothing more than politics by other means), the decisions at hand are not "right or wrong". The decisions presented are often, "Bad, worse, or catastrophic" ... choose wisely.

 

You could choose not to murder women and kids by the 10s of thousands. The Russians did. The Nazis did. The Japanese did. They had their nationalistic justifications too.

 

I appreciate your service to our country, but you’ve simply offered excuses. The US is supposed to value innocent human life.

This is parody, right?

 

The Holocaust never happened? The Rape of Nanking and other Japanese atrocities on civilian populations never happened? And the Russians just coincidentally happened to stop and resupply and so were unable to assist in the Warsaw Uprising? Probably just a coincidence since the Purges and Holomodor never happened, either.

 

I acknowledged those atrocities above.

 

Are you having trouble acknowledging Hiroshima and Nagasaki as atrocities?

To the extent that all war is an atrocity, yes.

 

Couldn’t we have picked military targets to nuke?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...