Author Topic: History: Atomic bombs.  (Read 5325 times)

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
History: Atomic bombs.
« on: January 22, 2004, 11:16:45 AM »
Some people I've found in agreement with an opinion I voiced earlier.


Admiral William D. Leahy. 5-star admiral, president of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combined American-British Chiefs of Staff, and chief of staff to the commander-in-chief of the army and navy from 1942–1945 (Roosevelt) and 1945–1949 (Truman):
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . . My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted the ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, quoted by his widow:
". . . I felt that it was an unnecessary loss of civilian life. . . . We had them beaten. They hadn't enough food, they couldn't do anything." And – E. B. Potter, naval historian wrote: "Nimitz considered the atomic bomb somehow indecent, certainly not a legitimate form of warfare."

Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet:
"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake ever to drop it . . . (the scientists) had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before."

Rear Admiral Richard Byrd:
"Especially it is good to see the truth told about the last days of the war with Japan. . . . I was with the Fleet during that period; and every officer in the Fleet knew that Japan would eventually capitulate from . . . the tight blockade."

Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy:
"I, too, felt strongly that it was a mistake to drop the atom bombs, especially without warning." [The atomic bomb] "was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion . . . it was clear to a number of people . . . that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate . . . it was a sin – to use a good word – [a word that] should be used more often – to kill non-combatants. . . ."

Major General Curtis E. LeMay, US Army Air Forces (at a press conference, September 1945):
"The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb . . . the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."

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

Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, Commanding General of the US Army Air Forces.
". . . [F]rom the Japanese standpoint the atomic bomb was really a way out. The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell. . . ."

Lieutenant General Ira C. Eaker, Arnold's deputy.
"Arnold's view was that it (dropping the atomic bomb) was unnecessary. He said that he knew that the Japanese wanted peace. There were political implications in the decision and Arnold did not feel it was the military's job to question it. . . . I knew nobody in the high echelons of the Army Air Force who had any question about having to invade Japan."

Arnold, quoted by Eaker:
"When the question comes up of whether we use the atomic bomb or not, my view is that the Air Force will not oppose the use of the bomb, and they will deliver it effectively if the Commander in Chief decides to use it. But it is not necessary to use it in order to conquer the Japanese without the necessity of a land invasion."

General George C. Kenney, commander of Army Air Force units in the Southwest Pacific, when asked whether using the atomic bomb had been a wise decision.
"No! I think we had the Japs licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit."

W. Averill Harriman, in private notes after a dinner with General Carl "Tooey" Spaatz (commander in July 1945 of the Pacific-based US Army Strategic Air Forces), and Spaatz's one-time deputy commanding general in Europe, Frederick L. Anderson:
"...Both felt Japan would surrender without use of the bomb, and neither knew why a second bomb was used."

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

former President Herbert Hoover:
"I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

Richard M. Nixon:
"MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it. . . . He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be to limit damage to noncombatants. . . . MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off, which I think speaks well of him

Offline Gyro/T69

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 386
History: Atomic bombs.
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2004, 11:25:55 AM »
Is cut and paste allowed? I know it's not if your quoting a Dem. How about in this case?

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12768
History: Atomic bombs.
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2004, 11:30:52 AM »
If they were ready to surrender then why didn't they do so after Hiroshima? Instead, they waited to see if we had only the one bomb.
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline Rude

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4609
History: Atomic bombs.
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2004, 11:48:33 AM »
I agree.

If indeed the truth of the matter was that Japan was near defeat and that a massive invasion resulting in the loss of 100,000 US Troops was not necessary to win that war, then yes, I disagree with the use of the bomb.

I seem to recall that Japan was warned several times of impending doom if they did not surrender...still, the loss of innocent people, especially children, is brutal.

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
History: Atomic bombs.
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2004, 11:55:07 AM »
AKIron: If they were ready to surrender then why didn't they do so after Hiroshima?

 Too bad those people I've quoted are already dead to realise the extent of their ignorance and stupidity and proclaim you the unquestionable genius of all times and people. With their endorcement you could have run for a president and won by a landslide.  :)
 Little did they know it was so simple. Or maybe they had their priorities wrong. They cared about defeating Japan without invasion and expense of american lives and without commiting atrocities and unnecesarily killing civilians that were supposed to became our friends as soon as we sorted out their evil governments. Little did they know that the USA would crumble if the Japan did not capitulate within a week...

Instead, they waited to see if we had only the one bomb.

 How about the fact that it took japanese several days just to realise what the heck happened after one of their cities suddenly stopped responding to the phone calls in the middle of a disastorous war.
 More people died in firebombings of Tokio than from any nuclear strike. Japain was quite a mess at the time and not easy to sort out.
 Hirosima could have been destroyed even more thoughrouly by a massive conventional bombing strike. The only question was the incredible claims by survivors that it was caused by a single bomb. Such claims take time to get verified in bureaucratic systems on the verge of collapce.
 
 Besides, the second bomb was of a different design which  was not tested on a proving range. Probably the japanese wanted to see if the plutonium bomb would work as well as the uranium one. Out of scientific curiosity.


Rude: If indeed the truth of the matter was that...

 There is no such thing as truth - at least not in a sense that we would know it and know it is truth. All I have offered is the educated personal opinions of people with some expertise in the subject.

 The only thing this post proves is that the issue of dropping bombs was very controversial even at the time they were dropped and anyone who says so in not an ignorant idiot - like real ignorant idiots (who probably have never heard about those people, let alone their opinions), have claimed on this board.

 miko

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12768
History: Atomic bombs.
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2004, 12:01:43 PM »
No need to get yer panties all in a wad there miko. I'm just stating the obvious. If they were ready to surrender then 3 days was more than long enough to do so after losing a city. They were certainly able to do so quickly enough after Nagasaki.

BTW, anyone that says there no such thing as "truth" in my book is an "idiot".
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27251
History: Atomic bombs.
« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2004, 12:28:27 PM »
Repost.

Offline Sixpence

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5265
      • http://www.onpoi.net/ah/index.php
History: Atomic bombs.
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2004, 12:35:56 PM »
Miko makes a point here. One of the reasons stated for dropping the bomb was to show the Japanese the power of the weapon we had. Now why not drop it away from the population, but close enough to see what the weapon could do? I see no reason to drop the first one on a population of that many. The reason for dropping the first one was to show them what we could do to them.

If after that they gave no response, then you could make the argument that you are not going to send all those soldiers to die invading Japan.

We could sit here and make point after point, but you can never unring a bell.
"My grandaddy always told me, "There are three things that'll put a good man down: Losin' a good woman, eatin' bad possum, or eatin' good possum."" - Holden McGroin

(and I still say he wasn't trying to spell possum!)

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27251
History: Atomic bombs.
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2004, 12:43:35 PM »
If you had only 2 bullets, against your opponents many arrows...would you shoot one in the air thinking "that should frighten them into surrendering!"  ??

I wouldn't.  I'd use one.  Then, if they still showed no sign of giving up, I'd use the other...

Offline kappa

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1330
History: Atomic bombs.
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2004, 12:51:53 PM »
Excellent post Miko..

These facts went a long way in the order of making me rethink my learned History book History in high school..  My truths I learned, I learned later were not truths..

Some say the bombs were the beginning of american imperialism.... And in this context its hard to argue against that view point after the second bomb was dropped..

btw Miko... Have you ever read anything by Gore Vidal?
- TWBYDHAS

Offline kappa

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1330
History: Atomic bombs.
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2004, 12:53:11 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ripsnort
If you had only 2 bullets, against your opponents many arrows...would you shoot one in the air thinking "that should frighten them into surrendering!"  ??

I wouldn't.  I'd use one.  Then, if they still showed no sign of giving up, I'd use the other...


Well, in order for you analogy to work.. They must be majic bullets.. or your opponents must be weilding sharp fingernails.. 8)
- TWBYDHAS

Offline Sixpence

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5265
      • http://www.onpoi.net/ah/index.php
History: Atomic bombs.
« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2004, 12:53:59 PM »
2 bullets huh? Sure. Like we couldn't have had another in short time. So you are saying that if they didn't surrender after the second we wouldn't have had another one in short time? Seems that we were able to produce quite a few of them by 1950, no?
"My grandaddy always told me, "There are three things that'll put a good man down: Losin' a good woman, eatin' bad possum, or eatin' good possum."" - Holden McGroin

(and I still say he wasn't trying to spell possum!)

Offline Lance

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1316
History: Atomic bombs.
« Reply #12 on: January 22, 2004, 01:06:02 PM »
There are a lot of historians that believe a major factor in the decision to drop the bomb was to end the war with Japan before Russia got involved.  Truman had by this time seen the iron curtain falling in eastern Europe and wanted to end the war without the same thing happening in Asia.  It is obviously still debateable whether the dropping of the bomb was justified, but it is something that should be considered beyond the purely military reasons that you are trying to debunk.

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
History: Atomic bombs.
« Reply #13 on: January 22, 2004, 01:13:51 PM »
Lance got this one, somewhat!  It is true one of the decisions to drop the bomb was to keep russia from occupying post war japan.  The japanese wanted to surrender but not to the terms the americans had set (unconditional)  

We would have lost well over 250,000 Marines and soldiers during the invasion.  The japs were in fact still willing to fight to the last man and woman.  That was proven in the invasion of Okinawa.  (25,000 dead even more casualties)

My second point would be this.....We killed more people in the fire bombing of tokyo than both A-Bombs COMBINED and the japs really didnt even wince.  They were still fighting!

people who want to say in retrospect that it was "inhumane" and "barbaric" need to realize it was a different time and a different war.  There were many atrocities during the entire war and in my opinion the A-bombs would be at the BOTTOM of the list.

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
History: Atomic bombs.
« Reply #14 on: January 22, 2004, 01:17:33 PM »
Quote
Little did they know that the USA would crumble if the Japan did not capitulate within a week...


Miko care to elaborate on this statement.  I'm very curious about how this is true?