The Atomic bomb...why we used it..

[T0J0]

Originally posted by ramzey
sry , im not understand

US push japs to war, and kill thousend 's of civilians to save them?

according to this, same scenario in iraque?

Yeah just like we encouraged Hitler to invade Poland... All of WW2 is america's fault too.. Because of our outstanding economic policies of the period "sarcasm" we drove the world to the worst war of the century... WE often plan ways to send our fathers and brothers to war to die like we plan picnics with the family on sunday"More Sarasm" Next we are planing the invasion of poland so be ready for us!! "Extreme Sarcasm"
 In fact America is the Thousand year Reich" "Real bad sarcasm"

I really need to stick to decafe! LOL

[Ripsnort]

Ramzey, Rape of Nanking. Need I say anymore of US sanctions against Japan in the early 30's?  Read the book.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Oedipus
The embargo's having been enacted on to pressure the Japanese from further ravaging of China and Manchuria.

Exactly. The US action was a REACTION to Japanese aggression ALREADY IN PROGRESS.

In short, if the Japanese had chosen trade rather than military conquest, there would have been no problem.

Of course, had the US done nothing, that would have been wrong too...... but if we had taken military action against Japan in '37, that would have been wrong too. (Not to mention the fact that we essentially HAD no military in '37.)

[Daff]

"IMO the war with Japan came about predominately from the feudalistic Japanese warrior code"

Nope..Bushido contains no such thing. It was later in the war twisted around as a propaganda tool by the Japanese.
The basic concepts of Bushido is: Mercy, Righteousness, Etiquette, Intelligence, Trust and Loyalty. What the Japanese did was pretty much against all the principles of Bushido.

From the Japanese generals (twisted) point of view, they weren't doing anything that the West hadnt done 50-100 years earlier.
 The blockade was highly justified, although in hindsight (which is always easy), the US probably should have been better prepared for the Japanese response.

Daff

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Hindsight is always 20/20.... even if you could build a time machine and go back to 1945, it would still take 2 nuclear bombs for the Japanese to surrender.
-SW

[Mathman]

Here endeth the war...

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by NUKE
Let's build a time machine and transport Hammy back in time to the US Navy as a sailor who would be required to participate in the assault on the Japanese mainland. Ask him if he thinks it might be a cool idea to not use the A-Bomb and instead just go in conventionally. Ask his comrads what they think would be the right choice.

Throwing this in a bit late, but my neighbor retired as a major in the USMC.  He flew Corsairs (among other things) in WWII.  His squadron was one of the many that was going to be flying air cover during the first wave of the invasion in Operation Olympic.  I can't remember the number, but the estimated casualties for the pilots was on the order of 80 to 100 percent.  

Needless to say, he had a pretty strong opinion about the use of the a-bomb in Japan.

[Tumor]

Originally posted by Naso


P.P.S.
If you are so naive to believe that the incoming war against IRAQ it's a war "against evil", "it's us or them", "they will nuke us" ....

... well, I pity you.

Naivety is a beautiful thing.


....Bet you wouldn't bother with soap on a roap in a prison shower either would you.

[Charon]

If the invasion of Japan only cost 10,000 allied lives, do you think the mothers and fathers, sons and daughters of those who died would have appreciated sparing the lives of those in an agressor country when we had spent so much money developing a weapon that would end the war with no US casualities? My grandfather, on the command communications ship USS Ancon, could easily have been one of those, after having come under fire (heavy fire at times) for five invasions from Torch to Okinawa, with Normandy in between.  

And don't overlook the rampant starvation that was starting to sweep Japan at the time, and continued to kill months after the war ended. Sakai talks about it in his book, and there is even a statue to an American naval base commander who opened the garbage dump to the local population. A longer war would have resulted in death and suffering for the Japanses people far beyond the two bombings, for many reasons.

The war ended, the American soldiers and sailors (and those from the other allied nations) got to return to being civilians after haveing been fored to fight in a war brough on by others, and the world moved on.

Charon

[whgates3]

Originally posted by Curval
Dropping the bombs actually saved many more Japanese than were killed.  

The resistance to invasion would have been fanatical....

not only that, but there would have been massivve starvation in japan in winter 45-46, as the chinese rice supplies were cut off...as it was, there was quite a bit of starvation in japan in '46

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Curval
Wouldn't you agree that more than 100,000 Japanese civilians and military personel would have died in an invasion of Japan?
I said that dropping the bombs saved more Japanese...I did not distinguish between civilian or military casulaties.

SaburoS, would your parents have actually fought with those bamboo spears, or would they have surrendered?  I'm not being judgemental, I'm just curious.  Would they have committed suicide rather than be taken prisoner?  Again, no judgement, just curious.  As mentioned civilian Japanese on Saipan and at Iwo Jima jumped from cliff rather than surrender to the American "devils".  Wouldn't this have also happened in Japan itself?  I would say yes, but I would like to hear what your parents say about that.  It is possible to me that the more sopisticated civilians in the major population centres would not do so, but what about the rural population?

It was estimated that the US would have suffered approximately 300,000 casulaties in the invasion of Japan.  Just think about how the survivors would have been feeling about the people that caused those casulaties?  I think "trigger happy" would be a gross understatement.  This is not to say that they would have committed wholesale slaughter of civilians...just that they would have reacted with swift and extreme violence against any resistance once they landed, even if it were a bunch of civilians waving bamboo spears.

Not disagreeing with you Curval. We'll never know. Both bombs were dropped and Japan gave her unconditional surrender. I do feel that only one bomb was all that would be necessary however as the communications in war torn Japan was not in good shape. I do feel the second bomb was a message to our new 'enemy', the USSR to 'show' that we have some bombs and will use it.
Naw, if the civillians saw a bunch of soldiers coming and then the civillians getting mowed down by arty and small arms, not to mention armor and aircraft cover, they'd surrender wholesale. Then the Japanese would be pleasantly surprised that the American's didn't have horns and weren't devils. The Japanese prisoners would be used to entice those that would be hiding to come out as they were wrong about the Americans. I would think that those Japanese civilian wounded would be treated by American medical corps which would further show the Japanese that the Americans weren't devils.
Can't change history. What's happened has happened. All we can do is not repeat our mistakes but to repeat our successes.
Remember, propaganda works both ways. Americans were taught that all Japanese were fanatics with no value of human life. They were taught how the Americans were devils with no value of human life. Both were wrong.
But that's war.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Originally posted by SaburoS
Naw, if the civillians saw a bunch of soldiers coming and then the civillians getting mowed down by arty and small arms, not to mention armor and aircraft cover, they'd surrender wholesale. Then the Japanese would be pleasantly surprised that the American's didn't have horns and weren't devils. The Japanese prisoners would be used to entice those that would be hiding to come out as they were wrong about the Americans. I would think that those Japanese civilian wounded would be treated by American medical corps which would further show the Japanese that the Americans weren't devils.
 

Nothing but assumptions... OTOH, the Japanese men who were essentially drafted into the military as Kamikazee pilots were willing to do their job.

The ones who didn't because Japan surrendered were grateful to be alive, but I don't think you actually understand the situation in Japan in 1940-1945... or the Japanese people's resolve.

Only the Emporer's word would lead them to surrender.
-SW

[Daff]

So, you guys are saying that use of weapons of terror and mass destruction is ok, if it can save even a few American lives?.
 Shouldnt we then, just bomb Saddam right here and now?..Why waste billions of dollars on a military campaign, if you can just drop a few nukes and get it over with?

As before...I can understand the Hiroshima bombing, but not the Nagasaki one..Japan was taking turns contacting Russia to use them as a middle man between US and Japan after Hiroshima.

Daff

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

It saved a few million American lives, and a few million Japanese lives.

Japan was taking turns contacting Russia to use them as a middle man between US and Japan after Hiroshima.

Yeah, the Russians also kept stealing B29s that had to land on their soil... they're a real good middle man.

Present day Iraq and 1945 Japan are two entirely completely seperate issues and circumstances...
-SW

[Charon]

So, you guys are saying that use of weapons of terror and mass destruction is ok, if it can save even a few American lives?.

Yes, IF they are the ones that started the war and the weapon helps bring the war to an end. If it is done just to be cruel, then there is no justification. Unless you think the Axis powers were the victims, it's hard to see sacrificing your own sons to end the most violent conflict in human history, that was waged entirely out of self-interest by foreign powers.

I personally don't see any parallels between WW2 and Iraq, BTW. Isn't there plenty to legitimately debate on that issue elsewhere without trying to make a point here?

As to Nagasaki, you can debate its merit, timing wise, but an attack so soon not only limited Soviet expansion but gave the impression of an impending reign of nuclear terror that might not be there otherwise. As has been pointed out, we had no capacity to really launch a massive nuclear campaign and if given sufficient time for the psychological shock value to wear off, the Japanese leadership might just realize that an occasional 20KT nuclear raid is not all that different in the end compared to a major incendiary attack. Whose to say.


Charon