Jump to content

August 6, 1945


psionic11
 Share

Recommended Posts

At the time, the options were as follows:

 

1. Give up, sue for peace, and allow a militaristic Japan to build up its military again and menace its neighbors while jeopardizing US interests in the Pacific.

 

2. Invade Japan, thereby extending the war an indeterminate amount of time. Keep in mind that the Japanese withheld a number of assets from being used in the Okinawa campaign -- Okinawa was considered important, but not vital, and the Japanese had a LOT of assets ready to defend the home islands to the death.

 

3. Detonate our only two atomic weapons offshore someplace to demonstrate how bad they are. If the Japanese are not sufficiently convinced, it will be another year or so before another weapon can be ready so .... back to option 1 or option 2.

 

4. Drop the nuclear weapons strategic targets that just might convince the Japanese leadership to surrender without having to invade.

 

I'm running out of options now. How many Japanese military and civilian deaths and American deaths are you willing to sacrifice to avoid the number who were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

 

It is really easy to sit in the cheap seats and throw stones at President Truman (who did not even know the Manhattan Project existed until after President Roosevelt died). Try really hard to put yourself in his place. His country is exhausted from four long years of war. Many soldiers who fought through Europe, from the Normandy invasion all the way to Berlin (in some cases, they were involved in North Africa and Italy as well), and their units would now be involved in the second wave of the invasion of Japan.

 

I once spoke with a guy whose Dad fought in the Pacific. He was preparing to participate in the invasion of Japan when the war ended because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ... instead, he came home to his family. This gentlemen said that, whenever someone tried to tell him that the US should not have dropped atomic weapons on Japan, he would point his finger in their chest and say, "F**k you! Your Dad was not the one who would have died invading Japan ..."

 

Just imagine the anger and outrage if Truman had decided NOT to drop the bomb, and then the war ended a year or more later .... and it then became known that we had a weapon that could have possibly ended the war without an invasion. That alone is not reason enough to make the decision, but as a leader it must give you pause .... your first and foremost task as President is to protect the American people.

 

Oh, well .... those who think we could have just been nice to the Japanese and they would have seen the error of their ways will never be convinced. The best I can hope for is that those who think the decision was flawed will at least consider the decision within the context of its time, and remember that a lot of people exist today in the USA because their Dad's were not killed invading Japan. And ... a lot of people exist in Japan today because their mothers and fathers were not killed in the invasion of Japan.

 

The nightmare scenario would have been if Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and the empty threat of the same thing happening to every major Japanese city) had not worked and we STILL had to invade Japan. That was the calculated risk ... fortunately, the risk paid off.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Oh, well .... those who think we could have just been nice to the Japanese and they would have seen the error of their ways will never be convinced.

 

Who said they thought “we could have just been nice to the Japanese”? Oh yeah, nobody.

 

Pretty sure everybody knows of the evils that the Japanese military committed. Using Korean women as so-called “comfort women” is another evil not mentioned.

 

But to explain it away that Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren’t anything but absolutely necessary is debatable. And it’s still being debated. I’m not sure what a better option would’ve been but “just being nice to the Japanese” didn’t once come to mind.

  • 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.

 

Many forget that between 50 - 80,000 British civilians were killed in Britain by Nazis during the Blitz, initially. And then there were the return bombings by the British that killed 10's of thousands German civilians. As said before war is an atrocity.

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?

Do you mean the military that was killing themselves by the thousands in suicide attacks? The military wasn't going to back down, no matter how much damage they suffered.

 

The will of the Japanese people needed to be broken with the Emperor as the only person capable of issuing a surrender order....

 

 

Btw, I don`t particularly care for the studio version of the song, A Show of Glands works much better... :)

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?

Do you mean the military that was killing themselves by the thousands in suicide attacks? The military wasn't going to back down, no matter how much damage they suffered.

 

The will of the Japanese people needed to be broken with the Emperor as the only person capable of issuing a surrender order....

 

That last part certainly influenced the decision.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the time, the options were as follows:

 

1. Give up, sue for peace, and allow a militaristic Japan to build up its military again and menace its neighbors while jeopardizing US interests in the Pacific.

 

2. Invade Japan, thereby extending the war an indeterminate amount of time. Keep in mind that the Japanese withheld a number of assets from being used in the Okinawa campaign -- Okinawa was considered important, but not vital, and the Japanese had a LOT of assets ready to defend the home islands to the death.

 

3. Detonate our only two atomic weapons offshore someplace to demonstrate how bad they are. If the Japanese are not sufficiently convinced, it will be another year or so before another weapon can be ready so .... back to option 1 or option 2.

 

4. Drop the nuclear weapons strategic targets that just might convince the Japanese leadership to surrender without having to invade.

 

I'm running out of options now. How many Japanese military and civilian deaths and American deaths are you willing to sacrifice to avoid the number who were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

 

It is really easy to sit in the cheap seats and throw stones at President Truman (who did not even know the Manhattan Project existed until after President Roosevelt died). Try really hard to put yourself in his place. His country is exhausted from four long years of war. Many soldiers who fought through Europe, from the Normandy invasion all the way to Berlin (in some cases, they were involved in North Africa and Italy as well), and their units would now be involved in the second wave of the invasion of Japan.

 

I once spoke with a guy whose Dad fought in the Pacific. He was preparing to participate in the invasion of Japan when the war ended because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ... instead, he came home to his family. This gentlemen said that, whenever someone tried to tell him that the US should not have dropped atomic weapons on Japan, he would point his finger in their chest and say, "F**k you! Your Dad was not the one who would have died invading Japan ..."

 

Just imagine the anger and outrage if Truman had decided NOT to drop the bomb, and then the war ended a year or more later .... and it then became known that we had a weapon that could have possibly ended the war without an invasion. That alone is not reason enough to make the decision, but as a leader it must give you pause .... your first and foremost task as President is to protect the American people.

 

Oh, well .... those who think we could have just been nice to the Japanese and they would have seen the error of their ways will never be convinced. The best I can hope for is that those who think the decision was flawed will at least consider the decision within the context of its time, and remember that a lot of people exist today in the USA because their Dad's were not killed invading Japan. And ... a lot of people exist in Japan today because their mothers and fathers were not killed in the invasion of Japan.

 

The nightmare scenario would have been if Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and the empty threat of the same thing happening to every major Japanese city) had not worked and we STILL had to invade Japan. That was the calculated risk ... fortunately, the risk paid off.

 

It was war, but there were rules - said and unsaid - regarding the west’s treatment of innocent civilians.

 

The US should’ve picked military targets if the threat was so dire. I have no doubt that it was.

 

And again - the decision to use nuclear weapons by a nation that supposedly protects innocent people has hurt the image of the United States, as well as legitimized the use of WOMD.

 

Bombing Dresden - executing Jews -or any type of genocidal mass murder- all took a serious amount of effort - manpower, cost and resources.

 

The advent of nuclear tech made all of that cheap and easy. No more training or mobilizing infantry et al. The pure horror that took so much effort in the past could now be delivered at the push of a button.

 

Bomb now, worry later!

 

I wonder if these justifications for Hiroshima and Nagasaki will hold any water once the US suffers its own nuclear attack?

Edited by chemistry1973
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the time, the options were as follows:

 

1. Give up, sue for peace, and allow a militaristic Japan to build up its military again and menace its neighbors while jeopardizing US interests in the Pacific.

 

2. Invade Japan, thereby extending the war an indeterminate amount of time. Keep in mind that the Japanese withheld a number of assets from being used in the Okinawa campaign -- Okinawa was considered important, but not vital, and the Japanese had a LOT of assets ready to defend the home islands to the death.

 

3. Detonate our only two atomic weapons offshore someplace to demonstrate how bad they are. If the Japanese are not sufficiently convinced, it will be another year or so before another weapon can be ready so .... back to option 1 or option 2.

 

4. Drop the nuclear weapons strategic targets that just might convince the Japanese leadership to surrender without having to invade.

 

I'm running out of options now. How many Japanese military and civilian deaths and American deaths are you willing to sacrifice to avoid the number who were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

 

It is really easy to sit in the cheap seats and throw stones at President Truman (who did not even know the Manhattan Project existed until after President Roosevelt died). Try really hard to put yourself in his place. His country is exhausted from four long years of war. Many soldiers who fought through Europe, from the Normandy invasion all the way to Berlin (in some cases, they were involved in North Africa and Italy as well), and their units would now be involved in the second wave of the invasion of Japan.

 

I once spoke with a guy whose Dad fought in the Pacific. He was preparing to participate in the invasion of Japan when the war ended because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ... instead, he came home to his family. This gentlemen said that, whenever someone tried to tell him that the US should not have dropped atomic weapons on Japan, he would point his finger in their chest and say, "F**k you! Your Dad was not the one who would have died invading Japan ..."

 

Just imagine the anger and outrage if Truman had decided NOT to drop the bomb, and then the war ended a year or more later .... and it then became known that we had a weapon that could have possibly ended the war without an invasion. That alone is not reason enough to make the decision, but as a leader it must give you pause .... your first and foremost task as President is to protect the American people.

 

Oh, well .... those who think we could have just been nice to the Japanese and they would have seen the error of their ways will never be convinced. The best I can hope for is that those who think the decision was flawed will at least consider the decision within the context of its time, and remember that a lot of people exist today in the USA because their Dad's were not killed invading Japan. And ... a lot of people exist in Japan today because their mothers and fathers were not killed in the invasion of Japan.

 

The nightmare scenario would have been if Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and the empty threat of the same thing happening to every major Japanese city) had not worked and we STILL had to invade Japan. That was the calculated risk ... fortunately, the risk paid off.

 

It was war, but there were rules - said and unsaid - regarding the west’s treatment of innocent civilians.

 

The US should’ve picked military targets if the threat was so dire. I have no doubt that it was.

 

And again - the decision to use nuclear weapons by a nation that supposedly protects innocent people has hurt the image of the United States, as well as legitimized the use of WOMD.

 

Bombing Dresden - executing Jews -or any type of genocidal mass murder- all took a serious amount of effort - manpower, cost and resources.

 

The advent of nuclear tech made all of that cheap and easy. No more training or mobilizing infantry et al. The pure horror that took so much effort in the past could now be delivered at the push of a button.

 

Bomb now, worry later!

 

I wonder if these justifications for Hiroshima and Nagasaki will hold any water once the US suffers its own nuclear attack?

Context matters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so uh...

 

who agrees with me that Manhattan Project is one of the best songs from Power Windows?

 

I’d rank it like this...very very close one for #1 and I do go back and forth with it...

 

1 Territories

2 Marathon

3 The Big Money

4 Manhattan Project

5 Middletown Dreams

6 Mystic Rhythms

7 Emotion Detector

8 Grand Designs

 

I like everything on this album. Great lyrics to match too.

  • Like 1
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...