I was never sure about dropping the atom bombs on Japan

always wondered whether this was the only available course.

After watching all 14 hours (or so) of "The War," I am now convinced that this was the correct course.

One of the things that was constantly unbelievable to me during the program was the sheer numbers of casualties. Every assignment cost us tens of thousands of troops. And fighting for every strip of land in the Pacific was horrific.

So, yes, dropping the bombs and brining Japan's unconditional surrender was crucial.

I am more familiar with the war in Europe than the one in the Pacific and was introduced to the sheer brutality of the Japanese military during this program. At some point I even wondered whether the Japanese were worse than the German ones (the non-SS troops). I have even felt some guilt about driving Japanese cars for the past 19 years (one every 12 years, or so). On the other hand, I now have a better understanding of the bitterness by the ones who did live through these days about buying Japanese.

As we debated these issues we concluded that while the military was more brutal in Japan, the population as a whole was worse in Germany and Austria. I don't know that the Japanese people would have applauded the systematic extermination of groups of people the way the Germans and the Austrians did.

There were two major testimonies during the last hour of the program.

The first, that right before landing at Normandy Eisenhower was talking about "a crusade" and that veteran questioned the use of that term at the time. But after witnessing the concentration camps he accepted that term. And he wept while talking about it.

Another comment by another veteran who was among the ones liberating the concentration camps, about the ones who do not believe that the Holocaust happened. "We were there," he said. "It happened."

All in all a very powerful and sobering program that is now starting its reruns on most PBS stations.

I am still having hard time comprehending the sheer number of soldiers being thrown into battles waves after waves. Most completely unprepared, and in some cases, too many, victims of arrogance and incompetence of the officers.

And I think this is what finally won the war: yes, the Japanese and the German military machines were very efficient. But we and the Russians had the million of people that we were willing to keep sending to the battle grounds.

They were suffering the same casualties. If circumstance was different would they have been justified in getting the win by using the bomb?

I don't know if the bomb was justified. I do not believe the Japanese cause for war was justified. But if the justification for using the bomb was to stave off casualties then the justification seems to work for either side and it was shear happenstance that we happened to have the bomb and not the Axis.

Not just attacking Pearl Harbor, but the Philippines, the "death march" to Bataan, their own treatment of POWs. Yes, we put our own Americansof Japanese origin in "camps," - one of the blackest marks in our history - but we did not brutalize them.

One of the sad stories, earlier, was how many civilians chose to jump into the sea and drown, afraid of the advancing American forces.

Noticed how your argument changed. It went from being about saving the lives of troops to some sort of revenge.

so it did save lifes.

the arguement has always been that a long drawl out land invasion would have cost both sides heavier casualties as the japanese had been told to fight to the last person if that situation occured.

correct ?

and if iraq had been capable of launching a nuke during the invasion, im sure they woulda ;)
lol

If the U.S. could have negotiated a surrender without it, then the whole argument falls apart.

"and if iraq had been capable of launching a nuke during the invasion, im sure they woulda ;)
lol"

So if they sneak in a "backpack" nuke and detonate it, you'd say it'd be justified?

Its just the terms we didn't like. They wanted to keep their Emperor and we wanted them to kick him to the curb. So we bombed them and let them keep the Emperor (although he did have to renounce his divinity). There may have been other ways. I don't condemn the bombing. But I don't know that it was justified.

should we have left that for them?

We know Japan wanted more favorable terms than the Allies agreed to at the Potsdam conference. But have not seen anything to indicate they were willing to to give back Formosa(Taiwan), Manchuria or other parts of their empire. Which was actually more or less according to Yamammoto's plan of suing for peace with the US after the US had tired of the War with an overall favorable outcome for the Japanese Empire.

the war crime of killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

the war was over -- the Japanese were suing for peace through back channels when those bombs were dropped...

they were meant to show Joe Stalin who was going to be in charge of the Earth after the war ended.

tens of thousands of Iraqis. So far they are doing the job quite well themselves.

And, apparently, they want Americans to stay there to protect them. It is us who say that, hey, it is their job to protect themselves. Of course, we are in compliance because we destroyed the basic infrastructure of civil administration that they had under Hussein.

I mentioned the atrocity as showing the difference.

I stand by my original statement that it was to save tens of thousands, half a million, perhaps, of our troops.

"And, apparently, they want Americans to stay there to protect them."

That's the same sort of propaganda bullshit the Japanese were told about the Chinese and Filipinos. Our brave Japanese troops are there to help them.

"I mentioned the atrocity as showing the difference."

Really? I could have sworn it was shifting goal posts.

scientific and neutral media studies that estimate the number of dead Iraqi civilians as a result of the invasion and occupation at over 1 million (latest estimate). Not every one has been killed by a U.S. bullet or bomb but many (too many) have. You should remove your blinders.

People do stupid things in wars. I stated I did not believe their cause for war was justified. But that does not mean that we are justified in ending it any way we choose. And yes they did some nasty things. But doing nasty things to them for it does not make things better. It just makes things different.

Lets say a bad guy has a child held hostage. Should I go round up his family and kill them one by one until he releases the hostage?

The bomb was originally planned for Germany, but it surrendered with no need for it.

Or would you have not have us land in Normandy?

I am saying I don't know if it was justified. I don't know. I can see many sides to this argument. And I don't know that they come to a clear conclusion. I do not condemn the people that made the decision. In fact I have a great deal of empathy for them. I cannot imagine a greater burden than the decision to erase over a 100,000 people in a moment. I don't think there is a clear answer to this issue.

There was no need for an invasion...

The powers that be knew that but they kept the public in the dark...

The bombs were dropped to show Joe Stalin who was in going to be Emporer of the Earth.

I know Pearl Harbor started the actual conflict, but we had been denying Japan access to OIL for years in an effort to thwart their expansion and development plans. What would this country do if the entire Middle East announced that no more oil would be shipped to the US. Can't you just hear practically everyone in Congress declaring this to be an act of war against us? Japan's choice came down to war or accepting that the US would not allow them to become a regional power.
Now, that being said, they were a brutal and fascist nation that brutalized everyone they conquered. And, had it not been for the atomic bomb, I likely wouldn't be sitting here typing this since my Dad Marine Air Corps division had already been told that they would be retrained as tank operators for the invasion of Japan since we could transfer most of our Air Force out of Japan. Estimates ran as high as a million allied deaths and maybe 10 million Japanese if they fought to the end. All things considered, dropping the bomb was morally justified because it resulted in fewer deaths and less suffering on both sides.

I mean, how can any action be "morally justified" when that action involves vaporising 100,000 innocent people? I'm sure the dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki consider it out-fucking-standing that their lives were considered "morally" expendable 60 years later.

cause for war? The Japanese were occupying parts of China, Manchuria, Mongolia, and Korea by 12/07/1941. They were controlling the resources of China and the surrounding territory in competition against Britain, USA, France, Dutch, Portugese, Russian, and German. They were in the neighborhood. Britain, USA, France, Dutch, Portugese, and Germans weren't. It was like a Monroe Doctrine to Japan. When Spain and Mexico opposed the Manifest Destiny of the USA, war was declared and they were defeated. The Manifest Destiny of the Japanese people was to economically control China and Southeast Asia, and surrounding islands. The other colonial powers opposed this assertion. Was Japan justified in trying to rid the area of the other colonial powers?

least as equivalent as Japan's justification, of its own policy in mind, of occupation of parts of the various countries in Asia. China was also in chaos, with Nationalists(Shi'a) and Communists(Sunni) fighting a cival war, when Japan was occupying it. Japan (USA) was trying to rid China (Iraq) of any intervention by the other colonial powers (Russia, Iran, Syria, France, German, Turkey, Saudi Arabia). Japan (USA) did not want any interference from USA (Iran). Therefore, USA will attack Iran.

And Japan's occupation of China was an atrocity greater than a dozen Iraqs. Your pseudo-defense of one of the greatest somewhere between offensive and sickening.

Moreover, your history is incredibly blurry: the relationship between China, Japan, and America is only superficially like the relationship between Iraq, America, and Iran. Moreover, the Nationalist/Communist war is so unlike the Shi'a/Sunni conflict that your comparisons between the two approach the level of satire.

You understand that 1945 is a completely different geopolitical and technological context than we have today, right?

Iraq is white, imperialist, capitalist, fascists invading, occupying, raping, torturing and killing arabs.

Not yellow, fascist followers of the Emperor killing 2500 White USAmericans...

the "yellow," imperialist, fascist followers of the Emperor killing 17.5 million innocent Chinese civilians.

The USAmerikan capitalist class REALLY gave a shit about 17 million "Yellow" Chinese... :sarcasm:

That was up to the nations themselves...

But I don't think Filipino mothers appreciated having their daughters raped en masse by the marauding Japanese soldiers...I have also read accounts of Filipino mothers smearing feces on their daughters to make them less attractive to the Japanese mauraders...And then you have the accounts of the Japanese capturing Korean women and forcing them to be sexual servants...


This wasn't liberation...The Japanese felt they were superior to other Asians, that they were untemenschen, and acted accordingly...

The Japanese didn't liberate Asia anymore than the Germans liberated Europe...

P.S. This has nothing to do with the justification of the atomic bombing...

purpose? To keep the missionaries safe? MacArthur thought so little of the USA that he had quit the US Army to remain in the Philippines and command its military. The Philippines were a long way from the USA, not so much from Asia, China, and Japan.
I'm not making any excuses for Japan as an imperialist nation in its dealings with China and other countries. I'm just explaining what it believed to be its justification of its policies.

eom

MacArthur did not "quit" the United States Army. After his tour as Chief of Staff of the Army, he technically retired from active duty.

And what the war is called.

An invasion of Japan would have been long, bloody and costly. There were plans drawn up that would have used mass bombing of Kyushu with nerve gas in preparation for an invasion, not to mention the degree of mobilization of the people and soldiers in the home islands. It would have cost probably at least a million lives for us but even more civilians would have died.

We launched an unprovoked illegal war against them. We've killed over a million of their people so far, and destroyed their country entire.

I guess that's why we better not let them get some. The problem with being an empire is that everybody hates you and when they eventually get the chance at revenge, and sooner or later they always do, they get really nasty about the revenge they exact.

It has always fascinated me that we believe that, no matter how many terrible things we do, to millions (billion?) of people all over the world, that we will never have to pay the consequences.

The only problem is no body seems to be paying attention. And your right on the money, what we do does have consequences and when they come it will be a duzzy and everyone will question why it happened.

geared towards doing just that.

They were going to bomb San Francisco ----

Nothing is good about any war. I detest it all.

I do however know that the Japanese military would have done anything to us to win that war. They were allied with Germany - Germany was providing assistance with the japanese nuclear program.

Did you even WATCH the friggin program? Or better yet done any reading or research?

First of all even if the Axis powers had developed and used the A bomb against the Allies, and won the war, the casualties WOULDN'T HAVE STOPPED. The Nazi death camps would have continued their policy of genocide, and the Japanese would have continued slaughtering millions of Chinese, and yes conquered Americans. So your ridiculous assertion that simply ending the war would stop the casualties, no matter who won it is mind boggling ignorant. If you don't believe it, study the rape of Nanking.

Second, the Japanese were prepared to commit genocide on THEMSELVES. Every man woman and child was expected to die for the emperor. It was their RELIGION! As evidence pay attention to the battle of Okinawa, the first large scale battle in the vicinity of Japanese civilians. The Japanese mothers were jumping off cliffs with their children in their arms. Death before dishonor. Over 120,000 dead Japanese civilians.

Third, you did see the part about the U.S. napalm bombing of Tokyo and other major cities that killed between 300,000 -500,000 Japanese civlians in a matter of weeks? Napalming women and children was not yet horrific enough to end the war. The U.S. military was preparing to literally kill every man, woman and child in Japan. Does the A bomb look like a better alternative to you yet?

It is o.k. to have an opinion. Just inform yourself. Just because you can not grasp the enormity of evil, does not mean it does not exist. I know I sound a little harsh, but I am a vegetarian, one step removed from a pacifist, left wing, tree hugger, but I know evil, even when veiled in a beguiling facade.

Bringing in the Sheaves. Bringing in the Sheaves. Hallelujah...!

YEEEHHAAAWWWW!!!

But not this time ....

I too changed my mind about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki events, (after watching the Ken Burns Documentary) because they avoided a wider conflagration that would have cost at least a half million US lives, as well as a likely 5 million japanese lives that would have been lost in a drawn-out conventional invasion of the Islands of Japan.

It is not without the greatest regret though, knowing how those awful events have opened a door to future fear and probable disaster .... But; given the pure numbers that had accompanied the conflict up to that point: a land invasion against the entrenched Japanese would have been many more times worse than those two bombs ...... It is my understanding that the Japanese lost over 100,000 soldiers on Okinawa alone. That was one small island ....

In pure math: It was the least destructive of the two options .....

I could not have imagined the US invading another nation without justification in the past, so I had never considered the possibility of the necessity of such a response to OUR actions .... But let's assume we are consistent in both the calculus and our own moral obligations .... We might conclude it WOULD be justified to bomb even the US if the US acts in the way that the Axis powers acted then ....

I am deeply troubled by that idea ..... but what other position makes sense ?

One can posit many 'what if's?' about this, or wax philosophically til the wee hours .... But the pure math says it was the better option ....

We nuked them, accepted their unconditional surrender, then let them keep the emperor.

The real target of the A bomb was Russia. We were sending them a message in the first salvo of the Cold War.

Period.

The Japanese were already involved in back door negotiations for surrender. I have been to the A-bomb museums in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima. It is inexcusable what we did to that country.

Japan was already negotiating a surrender. I guess Burns must've left that little fact out.

to back up that claim?

This should get you pointed in the right direction...

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51CHD9FRMWL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-Stalin-Truman-Surrender/dp/0674016939

that were mentioned in "The Rise & Rall of the Third Reich" by William L. Shirer - I read about it in 1962.

Dropping those bombs was a war crime of even greater proportion than the war crimes of fire bombing Dresden and Tokyo...




This is supposed to be a reply to the clueless "got a link" poster #55...

maybe they dropped them as a two-fer...

Force Stalin into the war against Japan and to show Joe Stalin who was going to be the new "Emperor of the Earth"...

Just that Japan whats not willing to accept the Allies conditions. And were attempting to negotiate through Russia which had not officially declared war on them.

Those who hold to the categorical imperative consider the decision wrong. Those who hold a utilitarian ethics consider it justified.

These positions can't be "negotiated" or made to agree. They can't be reconciled by appeal to "fact."

Even if the invasion would take 10 million lives (The War stated that planner suggested 7 million civilians) the categorical imperative would dictate that you do not drop the atomic bomb on a city of civilians. There's no way out of that compelling ethical orientation, since it ignores consequences.

it was STILL unnecessary -- there were other alternative operative at the time...

My only point is that the arguments FOR the bombing are almost exclusively made from a utilitarian ethical position.

Ken Burns will be lauded for it, deservedly. And while just the topic of nuclear weapons makes me nauseous, it was unreal that the Japanese would not surrender after Hiroshima and had a split council vote after Nagasaki. Viewing again the unrivaled devastation, I will confidently cast my vote for Barack "No Nukes" Obama.

They still wanted to keep fighting. Of course nukes back then only wiped out downtowns, not whole cities. And no one appreciated the slow agonizing death by cancer than nuclear radiation brought.

In their stubbornness, the 6 member Japanese War council, frankly, reminds me of the neocons.

to personally break the tie and ordered Japan's surrender.

I think we are looking for a similar voice of reason to stay the lunacy.

watch HBO's documentary "White Light Black Rain: The Destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" We are still the only country in the world that has used nuclear weapons against another country - cities with civilian populations and after watching that program, I don't think we could rationalize using them in that way ever again.

If you understand the words of Oppenheimer . . . "we have created death" . . .
you understand what we unleashed -- at even now we're not sure what effect this has had on the environment.

IF nothing else use of the Bomb brought home the true horror of the weapon in a way no desert test ever could. Had the Bomb not been used in anger prior to MacArthurs request to use it on Chinese troops in Korea. It likely we would have witnessed what an H-Bomb can do to people.

and I do find that we are often wasting our time trying to wake up such people ---

Those that lived Omaha Beach and saw the carnage there. Would not have believed that any bomb could of been more devestating than any other without having witnessed the results. Ordinary people may remark that it was not necessary to see the results. But to those who have already witnessed carnage on what ordinary men concider an unimaginable scale, the difference is in the details of what the weapon did.

but to ourselves. Obviously, exploding nuclear weapons doesn't only hurt the victims; it hurts nature and humanity.

We don't still know what the full effects of these tests and actual war use of atomic weapons has been --whether nuclear weapons harmed the ozone -- whether it has played a role in global warming.

As we can see of other war weapons -- presumably less harmful ones!!! -- like agent orange and depleted uranium, we have genetic damage as well as a great deal of damage to the victims.

So -- we have imagination and common sense to keep us from these stupidities ---

Sadly, as well, many soldiers have found out that they were used as guinea pigs by our military leaders and others who wanted testing of these weapons.

climate change is proving that "common sense and imagination" are in VERY SHORT SUPPLY among the human race...

All war is evil...

Total war is the greatest evil...

The fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo were evil as was the unnecessary nuclear holocaust against Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

It saved American lives. Maybe Japanese lives, too.

Oh wait.

I don't know that this justified it.

It killed a lot of people. American lives were saved.

Are American lives worth more than Japanese lives? Whats the going rate these days? 3 Japanese for 1 American?

But I value American lives over the lives of our enemies.

I don't know. I am a little fuzzy on this enemy thing. So after we bombed them and made the Emperor step down they suddenly weren't our enemies any more and it would be wrong to kill them then?

My thinking suggests that war is wrong but that it sometimes happens. A person that is labeled an enemy is only labeled as such due to circumstance. He/She no more deserves to die than I do. If there is a way to avoid killing and end the conflict that would be superior. I also do not believe that one should ever stop looking for a nonviolent way to end a conflict even if you find yourself already engaged in violence. Because violence is not an answer. It is merely a way of silencing the question.

After the surrender, they were no longer our enemies.

What non-violent way would you suggest?

It was the possession of the technology that put the fear into them. The actual killing of 1000s of people seems incidental to that. So why not simply make them very aware of what we could do by dropping one of the bombs on an uninhabited island and then demanding their surrender.

There weren't many of them and there was some question if they would work...

Again, we have the benefit of hindsight...

it's likely they would have seen a no-kill test as a sign that we wouldn't use the bomb.

The US was probably going to use WW1 type gas weapons in its invasion of Japan, had it come to that, by the way. Plus by forcing Japan's surrender, we kept Russia from getting an occupation zone in Japan. Stalin had plans to invade Japan before the US's scheduled November 1st invasion date.

The real reason Japan surrendered by the way, wasn't the US's atomic bombs, but rather a fear of Russian occupation.

For that, they needed targets with buildings and, I suppose, humans.

There was little, if any, question that the two bombs would work. Trinity proved the destructive quality of a plutonium implosion, and the scientists knew through previous experiments that splitting uranium atoms would produce a tremendous explosion.

What they wanted to find out was how well they'd work. Trinity didn't fully tell this because it was conducted in the middle of a desert, and crystallizing sand isn't the same as blowing shit up.

You think blowing up an uninhabited island would have done it?

I think 3 days is perhaps a bit short a period of time to make a concrete judgment on. Pretty sure it would have shaken their resolve a bit. Who knows.

Ultimately, they put themselves in peril.

when George attacked Iraq?

That's not as important as a new library dedication.

ANY country that suffered an attack of that magnitude would be focused ENTIRELY on the nuking.

They were debating surrender. AFTER the nuking. FOR THREE DAYS.

And you think a little demonstration would have dissuaded them?

I think setting off a nuke that they could see would have made a difference. Informing them that these could be dropped on their mainland would have definitely sent a message. I don't know that we needed to vaporize more than a 100,000 people that never did us wrong in order to make the point that we could.

Japan was finished --

And, probably because of our constant path of violence, we are also near finished ---

who were told they would be killed upon invasion.

However, as the former POW from Alabama described it, once Japan surrendered, their guards just walked out from the camp.

They were bound and determined to fight to the bitter end. The refusal to surrender after the first bomb is sufficient evidence.

The first bomb created significant change. Coup attempts and a shift in support occurred. Sorry, but we simply don't know what would have occurred if we had dropped the bomb on an uninhabited island and let them see what we could do. Insisting otherwise is unsupported and an emotional appeal. I can well understand the need for such a claim but it is not backed up by sufficient evidence.

Let me ask you this question. Lets say we could stop the war in Iraq by killing your mother, father, or someone important to you. Would you think it was justified?

There were innocent people living in those cities. People who opposed the war. But we targeted them. We evaporated them. Collateral damage barely makes sense. But directly targeting citizens who have nothing directly to do with the conflict....? Particularly when it is the severity of the weapon that we wish to demonstrate instead of actually killing people. It just seems to me there were alternatives that we could have taken.

Yes, the bombs ended the war. There is good in that. But was it the only way? Was it the best way? Was it justified? Those questions I cannot answer as readily.

or jingoist or clasist statement

but whatever it is that's the most fucked up statement I've ever seen you post!!!

Sorry, but I kind of prefer that the guy who'll help defend me lives more than the guy who'd kill me.

But that's just me.

Simple geographical location is no means of determining one's political positions. Being born in Japan did not mean one supported the war. Just that one was born in Japan. Just as being born in America does not mean you support the war in Iraq.

Would the Iraqi's be justified in bombing an American city into ashes? We are attacking their people after all.

I don't know what I would have done if I were president...

I have read the accounts they were about to surrender and have read accounts to the contrary , including accounts they weren't ready to surrender, even after the first atomic bomb was dropped...

And it was perhaps the most difficult question ever forced upon a person.

its empire in Asia.

Everyone knows that white lives are more important than yellow lives anyway, right? :mad:

civilians and over 400,000 allied prisoners of war, not to mention a large share of the over 400,000 U.S. military war dead in WWII. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrific indeed, but they did have the effect of bringing an immediate end to the war, unlike the 1945 firebombing of Tokyo, which killed more people than either of the two atomic bombs. Surrender was anathema in Japanese imperial culture; had it not been for Hiroshima, it's unlikely it would have happened without a bloody and protracted land invasion which would have costs the lives of tens of thousands more allied troops. In Truman's shoes, what would you have done?

Drop a bomb somewhere they would notice but did not require the death of 100s of 1000s of civilians.

I doubt a "demo bomb" would have shaken their resolve where destroying Hiroshima failed to.

It's all just a bunch of stuff that happened, anyway. Not nearly as interesting as what they imagine might have happened, if only they'd been running things.

If I had been in Truman's shoes, I would have worked with the Japanese who were suing for Peace at the time the bombs were dropped...

I would NOT have invaded -- there was no need...

I would NOT have needlessly murdered 250,000 civilians to show Stalin who's gonna be the new Mack Daddy of the Earth...

After Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death march, Midway, Guadalcanal and the rest of the bloody and brutal pacific campaign, do you honestly think the American public would have accepted a negotiated peace with Japan? Truman would have been universally reviled as a traitor and capitulator.

Peace was becoming more important than absolute victory. Negotiations may have worked. On both sides.

That's just a ridiculous statement. Very few Americans in 1945 would have been willing to settle for a negotiated peace with Japan. By April 1945 it was pretty apparent that Japan's defeat was inevitable; the only question was at what cost to allied forces. You're apparently not aware that the Japanese military opposed surrender even after Nagasaki; had it not been for Hirohito's intervention the war would almost certainly have ended in a bloody and protracted occupation, resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides.

I have talked to Japanese about the war. People who were there. And I have heard otherwise. And to think that America was not weary of the war... well thats a bit of a stretch.

continuous combat since being drafted in 1942. He was part of the invasion force that took Okinawa in April, 1945 and would have been part of the larger Japan invasion force had such a thing proved necessary. My mother was younger, but remembers the war with great clarity. People were tired of war, sure, but very few would have accepted a negotiated peace with Japan after what they saw as the sneak-attack on Pearl Harbor, the atrocities of Bataan and Nanjing, and so forth. The Japanese were not to be trusted, and a negotiated peace requires trust. Only unconditional surrender would have been sufficient for the great majority of Americans--especially once it became clear by mid-1945 that the Japanese were all but defeated militarily.

I'm sure there's a broad range of opinion among Japanese about the war. Those who were both knowledgeable and intellectually honest would have a hard time overstating the power and influence of the Japanese military after the assassination of Prime Minister Inukai in 1932. By the late 1930s Japanese society had become highly militarized, and the military answered to no one but the Emperor. Which you would know, if you knew anything at all about Japanese history.

I do not accept a demand for vengeance as a just cause to kill 200,000 people. It might make for a great deal of political pressure but if the question is one of morality I do not believe a demand for vengeance qualifies.

As to whether detonating the bomb over an uninhabited target would have had an effect we don't have any data on that to judge properly. That chance was lost when we detonated it over a civilian target.

Perhaps detonating it over a pure military target would have conveyed the capability and our willingness to use it sufficiently. There are endless possibilities. And that is why I cannot simply state that we were justified in what we did. I will not condemn it but I cannot condone it either.

that the Japanese military government couldn't reconstitute itself in the way that the German war apparatus did after WWI. Nobody wanted to have to fight the Japanese again, a generation later. Detonating an atomb bomb over some deserted atoll would have accomplished nothing, I'm pretty sure, unless you could figure out a way to get Japan's military leaders and emperor to witness it. Good luck with that one.

It is regrettable that the world will never get the chance to see if the threat of the bomb alone would not have been enough to stop the war. It is good that the war was ended. There is no questioning that.

that the A-bombs were unnecessary...

"the Japanese military opposed surrender even after Nagasaki" <-- so they didn't end the war. The folks who were already trying to negotiate with Truman via back channels BEFORE HIROSHIMA were the ones who finally ended the war.

The U.S. didn't need to invade, Japan was done.

The direct intervention of the Emperor is what ultimately ended the war. Under the structure of Japan's government at the time, the military was basically a separate branch of government, answerable only to the Emperor, and not to the Prime Minister or parliament. Only the Emperor could order the military to surrender--not back-channel negotiators, whoever they were. The military were prepared, by all accounts, to fight to the last man--as they'd done all across the Pacific. I know the quote from Nimitz you're referring to, but I've never seen any documentation to support it. Who were these shadowy Japanese negotiators, and what sort of surrender were they offering?

'cause they were hammered with it for nearly 5 years...

what's your excuse?

Nothing can ever justify the dropping of A-bombs on Japan.

and arguably Japanese lives as well.

But the agressors must pay the price.

Or how about this one?



Or these:










Well, they SURELY paid a price, didn't they?

and you'd have a vague idea of what invading Japan would have been like.

That's a red herring that has been used for the last 62 years to justify a war crime...

I remember arguing with a neo-fascist fool on a website who claimed that Americans were better than Aghanis because Americans would earn more money during their lifetime and as a consequence, killing them shouldn't be an issue.

As long as the superior American lives are saved eh?

I mean, are you kidding?

You'd be cool with an entire civilian population being murdered to ensure the safety of American combat troops?

I'm sure all those dead civilians are grateful to have their contribution recognised.

In an all out war - like what was happening in the Pacific in 1944/1945 - you can bet your ass that Americans valued the lives of our troops over the Japanese. Conversely, you can bet the Japanese valued the lives of their people over ours. This is known as "being at war."

When our leaders were presented with a weapon that might bring an immediate end to the war - and save tens of thousands of American lives in the process - they'd have been derelict in their duties not to use it. To suggest that they should weighed the lives of the Japanese equally with our own citizens/soldiers is one of the more bizarre suggestions that I've read on this forum.

I just find it undefensible to claim that 100,000 deaths were "morally justifiable" because their deaths saved American lives.

Killing life to save life is bullshit.

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

Think of all the lives saved!!!!!!

:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

we are not forced to choose between a bloody invasion of every single country and nuclear attacks on major cities.

:sarcasm:

Blow 'em all up!!!! :sarcasm:

"Those people" don't know peace!!!!! :sarcasm:

Kill 'em all - the f*&@ing towel heads!!!!! :sarcasm:

the power of He Who Must Be Obeyed. Incoming.

destroyed Japans cities and most of its industry. There would have been no jobs and no capital for agriculture and no food. In some ways,Japan had it a lot easier than Europe. Plus, they didn't have USSR breathing down their necks. Still, if the Ken Burns film is right, the Japanese barely reached consensus on surrendering.

Burns is a master at spinning you where ever he wants to...

This is a BIG "if"...

She explains that they everyone was being trained to do something to fight the invasion. They weren't just defending their homeland, they were defending the Emperor, the living embodiment of everything they believed. MacArthur was wise to keep the Emperor in place. MacArthur did some other amazing things for a far-right Republican. He required the new Japanese constitution to give women the vote. He also allowed labor unions and agricultural cooperatives.

This thread shows that they are too often right. Some people just can't accept the possibility that good people make the best decisions they can at the time. Some are always ready to go back and second guess any decision made by an American president - and assign them the worst possible motives.

I agree with the OP. Until I saw this program I was willing to question that decision - but not condemn it. Now, knowing that a half million more American troops could have died on the Japanese mainland - based on what happened in Okinawa and the very credible Japanese threat to fight to the last person - I believe we did the right thing. If half a million more Americans would have died that means 2 or 3 million more Japanese at least. After all the subsequent deaths from them the 2 A-bombs killed less than a half million Japanese.

Those who disagree with that decision need to justify the additional 2 to 3 million probable Japanese deaths that would have occurred - plus the half million American like my father who would have died in the invasion.

We did the right thing.

"Some people just can't accept the possibility that good people make the best decisions they can at the time. Some are always ready to go back and second guess any decision made by an American president - and assign them the worst possible motives."

No need to go back. Plenty of the people at the time thought it was a bad idea. Winston Churchill for one. MacArthur for another.

"Those who disagree with that decision need to justify the additional 2 to 3 million probable Japanese deaths that would have occurred - plus the half million American like my father who would have died in the invasion."

Those who think it was necessary need to deal with the fact that Japan would have surrendered without an invasion. They also need to deal with the fact that this was the same military that firebombed Dresden for absolutely no military purpose, and had no remorse about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II


British, then USA.

Exactly when in August of 1945 did MacArthur or Churchill advise President Truman that using the Atomic Bomb was a bad idea and unnecessary. Their pronouncements were made ex post facto. Hind site is generally clearer than the present reality.

they wanted to see how big a firestorm they could create...

From this:



To This:




Just to see if they could...

The criminals: Arthur "Bomber" Harris



And for the USAmerikans: Carl Spaatz

I've been extensively studying WWII for about 50 years now (that's from about 12 years after it ended, I was born exactly one year before VE day)

and

I can assure you it was USAmerica who dropped BOTH nuclear weapons on innocent civilians...the only nation on Earth to have ever done such an evil act...

don't represent the "left".

liberals down the path to the wrong conclusion.

I find it hard to believe that so many who weren't even alive at the time aren't willing to give Truman and the American people the benefit of the doubt that what was done was the best thing.

Think about the costs of the American invasion of Japan.

AND the invasion of the other islands.

AND the Russian invasion.

AND the Russians' renowned hospitality toward captured prisoners, civilians and even their own troops.

AND the Chinese deaths from mainland China.

AND the dead POWs.

AND the cost of the number of dead Japanese civilians.

AND the number of dead in the likely ensuing guerilla conflict with a government that wouldn't surrender after 100,000 of its people died in an instant.

And the potential for another Capitalist/Communist showdown similar to Korea or even Vietnam.

And then, you begin to get the idea of how many people were saved by that decision.

As for the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ask any of the Japanese people today if they'd be willing to have died so that those people MIGHT have lived.

It's people on the right who are nationalists --- "my country right or wrong" --

OR WRONG ......???

And, again, we see little skepticism among viewers when the "propaganda is being catapulted" -- !!!
Evidently, many of you don't even understand that you were watching propaganda--!!!
Wake up, folks!!

Nor do we know yet how many more victims those A-bombs and the ones that followed in tests may have killed or will be killing --

The very existence of our planet is in question ---

No one has to justify actions they didn't take, or that weren't taken. WE NEED to justify actions that weren't taken, and decide if they were justifiable.

This American jingoist bullshit wears thin. Here's an idea: Try thinking as a human being instead of a nationalist jerk.

Of all the A-bomb memories,few are as harrowing as that of Sakue Shimohira, from Nagasaki. By August 1945 her father, Tomosaku, a soldier, had already been abducted and executed, and her 20-year-old brother had been killed in battle. 'Fat Man' would cause the deaths of her mother, brother and sisters too, as well as 1,400 of her fellow pupils at their primary school. 'There was an air raid warning,' said Mrs Shimohira. 'We went into the shelter but the warning was lifted. My brother went to school as usual and, although he didn't have any external injuries, he died three days later, vomiting and crying, "I don't want to die". He was 16.

'I remember the flash of light. Then a blast of wind came into the shelter and I was blown on to some rocks. I lost consciousness then somebody called, "Are you all right?" I was shocked to see people with eyeballs hanging out, faces black, some with flesh hanging off. Some had internal organs coming out of their abdomen. They were holding their arms out asking for water. I heard people saying, "Help me! Help me!" but I couldn't do anything because I was so frightened, shaking with fear.

'Somebody was saying, "Kill me! Kill me!" Those voices faded out, which meant they had died. The floor was full of dead bodies and they smelt so bad we just kept vomiting.'Late at night my stepfather, who was in the army in the next city, took us out of the shelter. We knew it was already night but it was lit by the flames of the fire. We saw the charred bodies of my friends and there was a woman holding a charred child to her bosom. She called me but I couldn't reply because I knew she was my next-door neighbour. She was crawling and something had cut her throat across. All her body was black except that part of her throat, which was red with blood.'

Link http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-23-2005-73609.asp


It becomes a little more difficult to pick which 4 year old dies for the invasion. The test of your belief is can you look into the child's eyes and press the button and watch him or her burn.We can't go back in time and change this but I know that the children above never hurt anyone yet were burned alive. I also know that the story is the same in the death camps, death marches, Dresden etc done by the axis, soviet and allied powers. But I do know that we can't do it again, ever. The very existence of our lives and world depends on compassion and NOT on violence.

the main thing for modern folks to remember, that is post youngster-bush-crowned-nakkid-emperor- after-American-voters-went-to-bed by the mediawhore media (and who's gonna argue with mass media?) is that lies are the fuel of the devil's success in human affairs. An examination of the record shows beyond doubt that the establishment in post WW1 era were all for fascism takeover of Europe, and Europe consolidation of its control of world etc. What saved the western establishment was hitler's viciousness and racism and greed- hitler violated the Treaty of Versaille by occupying the French Ruhr; France was so infested by fascists it wouldn't even defend its own territory. Both Britain and USA were supporters of Franco and Mussolini, not to mention Japan taking control of Asia. But certain pins just never lined up, and when fate threw the ball several things happened that- well in the end Germany ended up at war with France Britain USSR etc while Japan bullyboys realized they had no way but to fight the USA. History unfolded thus.
Consider this, for a moment (and remember Gore Vidal is a member of the WASP aristocracy):

taken from Gore Vidal’s ‘Dreaming War, Blood For Oil and the Bush-Cheney Junta pg 77/78:
“…But let me quote from a letter by the historian Kai Bird, which, to my amazement, the New York Times published (usually they suppress anything too critical of themselves or their Opinion makers):
‘Twice the reviewer dismisses as “silly’ Vidal’s assertion that Harry Truman’s use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was unnecessary because Japan had been trying for some months to surrender.
Such assertions are neither silly nor….a product of Vidal’s ‘cranky politics’ Rather Vidal has cleverly drawn on a rich and scholarly literature published in the last decade to remind his readers that much of what orthodox court historians have written about the Cold War was simply wrong. With regard to Hiroshima, perhaps Vidal had in mind Truman’s July 1945 handwritten diary reference to a ‘telegram from Jap emperor asking for peace’”
---------
iow, President Truman's diary contains a mention of Emperor Hirohito's telegram 'asking for peace' that was made in July '45 a month prior to the A bombing. The excuse that our history has been saddled with (that fighting Japan cost too many lives, A bombing them would save lives, including Japanese) simply isn't true. If Japan Emperor was asking for terms in July, then using A bombs in August wasn't necessary. But let's not forget Pearl Harbour. The surprise attack on relaxed, peaceful US naval station cost nearly 2000 lives, and enraged the people enough that, even after Japan was threashed, a terrible sci-fi like destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were righteous punishment. But today it is America itself which finds itself 'punished' for its liberal democracy, it tolerance, its progressiveness etc. Bush= punishment. And that frees the American people from feeling tied to the evil lying crimes of the past leadership, such as trying to exterminate the first nations, or enjoying the multi trillion dollar economic benefits of the slavement of african americans, and so on.... that is, if an honest assesment of the past is agreeable to the people. If it isn't (and if fairy tales about the past and present are acceptable basis for understanding them) then let's not bring the issue up in first place. Murdering 200 thousand people is NEVER all right, if a person (society) wishes to be respected as civilized.

The Japanese government was not about to surrender. That is a load of crap. Indeed, even AFTER we dropped the second bomb there was a coup attempt to prevent the surrender, that was almost pulled off. Probably would have been successful had there not already been two bombs dropped.

Continuing conventional war would have been incredibly costly, as the Marines alone were losing more than a division an island (we took 26,000 casualties at tiny Iwo Jima alone, and it was only 8-square miles). Also, the Japanese were taking hundreds of thousands of casualties from our conventional bombing. Not sure that being burned to death by a TNT bomb is any better than being vaporized by an A-bomb (or dying from suffocation from fire bombs is any better than dying from radiation).

Face it, war is horrific. Anything that could end it sooner was the right thing to do.

The troops protested -- !!!!
If you read Fletcher Prouty -- he describes that we were all packed and loaded with weaponry to move into Vietnam .....

:wtf:

All of these justifications for bombing Japan are sickening to me.

Humanity, we are doomed.

why invade the islands at all? Japan needed everything by 1945, yet had no navy; it controlled no airspace, it couldn't even bring its troops home from where they'd been sent. So why would USA need to invade, to lose a single soldier? To offset the soviets? War isnt a box game where resources can be brought into play via shake of dice- each meal, each tank of gas, each bullet must be budgeted, purchased, paid for and moved into position. By 1943 the war had been lost by the Japanese, by the Germans, by Italy; they knew it....lies prevail because the truth is just too awful to think about. And that's all there is to it

Sad, but possibly true.

Bombing civilian populations is a warcrime.

with the leaders of Japan at the time. (note: there are some great books written by the Japanese about this giving their perspective).

Basically for the anti-war group and the emperor, the atomic bombing gave them a face saving "out" for surrender. Once the bomb was dropped it permitted the emperor to argue that the main reason for surrender was not the lack of effort on the Japanese or that the Japanese did not sacrifice enough. The out was the "horrific new technology".

The bomb gave the ill-named "peace" party an out, of course. But what they feared more than loss of a few cities, which was hardly unprecedented by then (one night's bombing of Tokyo in March killed more civilians than the combined fatalities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima), was the future half their country faced if occuped by the communists. Japan's top reason for getting into war with China in the first place was a need to contain communism.

Imagine the course of the Cold War if there had been a communist North Japan and Korea unified under Kim Il-sung.

in that it is the privilege of the winner.

be people left who knew this to be fact.

The discussion seemed to be about use of massive force, not about which side was 'right.' That is moot.

seems clear in its immorality -- I think Howard Zinn wrote on that.

decide who was right. No. Hitler would have still been wrong even if he had won.

Was it "necessary" to obliterate, maim, and poison unto the 7th generation regular citizens, to end the war in the Pacific?

I think enough evidence exists to suggest that the Japanese PTB were on the verge of surrender. In any event, why didn't we bomb the Imperial Palace?

However there is a massive amount of history written around this subject. Personal documents from all sides.

EVERYONE should have a fundamental understanding of the context of WW2.

It is terribly wrong to attempt to apply modern concepts of nuclear weapons and modern war into that time.


I see no reason to post my personal opinion however the question is about suffering in context.

What would the outcome be if the bomb was NOT used. There are historical examples including the fragmentation of germany and the life of soviet states that lend an idea to that.

Again reading up on the war is a great hobby.

the cold war was inevitable. This is established history. The USSR was an oppressive state and countries with millions suffered for a very long time. There was a cold war after the russians had the bomb and it continued until one side went broke.

On an interesting note a line chart showing the trend of human death in war since 45 shows a massive drop.

The bottom line is that dropping those bombs saved thousands of lives on both sides.

and welcome to DU

:nuke:

I watched the last episode and heard two things that changed my mind.

1) It was predicted that 500,000 Americans would be killed, and well over 1.5 million japanese would be killed if the bombs were not used.

2) After two bombs(we only had two) the japanese were still reluctant to surrender. It took a tie-break vote by their government to finally give in. It's clear they would have been willing to fight as long as possible if the bombs were not used. America was lucky that they didn't call our bluff and continue the war.

I'm 36 and I had no idea that war was so evil. I'm not sure anyone can watch that show and still agree that using those bombs was a bad idea.

ok - kill a hundred thousand people ok - and bombing Hirsoshima not ok??

What was the difference??

Russia came in only when they knew we had the bomb - that is the truth.

Truman had no moral choice - I have no doubt anyone here would do otherwise under the circumstances. He in fact probably saved millions of people by doing that.

I have never had any doubts about his decision.

Joe

that is not quiet accurate. At Yalta Stalin agreed to declare war on Japan within 90 days of the surrender of Germany. The Soviet Union kept their end of the bargain.

If you understand what "fire bombing" actually is ---

If the bomb has been available 6-12 months sooner, or the war lasted 6-12 months longer, then Berlin would have been the first target. My opinion has always been that those who now condemn the us of the bombs on Japan would not have said a goddamn thing about their use on Germany. Their attitude would have been that the dirty Nazis got what they deserved.

Furthermore, the Nazis were executing more people toward the end of the war in the concentration camps because they had perfected the mechanical means of the Holocaust. How many Jews, Poles, Gypsies and others might have been saved if the war in Europe had ended 6-12 months sooner?

Those scientists who worked on the bomb (many of the Jewish refugees from Hitler) did not seem to develop scruples until it was clear that Germany would no longer be the target. They knew for a fact that Berlin, and its civilians would certainly be the main target. And for those who cry moral outrage I see no difference, none, between the fire-bombing of Dresden, Tokyo and other Japanese cities and the atomic bombings. Dead is dead.

The Japanese were just as bad as the Nazis, but too many naive, foolish people, weep bitter crocodile tears for the "innocent victims" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This thread is evidence of this. No sympathy here for the Japanese, none, because the Chinese suffered between 20-35 MILLION casualties during the Japanese invasion of China (1937-1945). They forced Korean women into sexual slavery. Everywhere the Japanese won they acted like barbarians toward our and our allies captured soldiers, sailors and airman and civilians. They beat, starved, tortured and executed men and women. They used living human beings as test subjects under their infamous biological warfare Unit 731. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

People these days find it easy to take some moral high-ground when they are not involved in a war to the knife for the future of civilization. Hindsight is easy.

And I personally think if Truman had not used the bomb out of moral scruples, and Operation Downfall had gone ahead, then America would have suffered terrible casualties. The truth about the bomb would have come out. and I think Truman would have been impeached and possibly executed for Treason (and deservedly so).

and your lack of sympathy for them shows an astounding lack of compassion.
whether dropping the bomb was right or not, they didn't deserve to die.

The ones in China who were murdered were civilian men, women and children. What about THEM?
The CIVILIAN women in Korea who were forced into sexual slavery, what about THEM?
What about American civilian contractors in the Philippines and other Pacific areas taken prisoner?

The Japanese killed plenty of CIVILIANS in their War of Conquest, none of them, NOT ONE "deserved" to die. And YOUR lack of sympathy for THEM shows an astounding lack of compassion for THEM.

Or is your compassion restricted to "victims" of American "aggression"? :sarcasm:

and the actions of japanese SOLDIERS, monstrous though they were, does not mean that the innocent japenese men, women, and children deserved to suffer for it.
however, you seem to think that they did deserve it. how fascinating.
so if iraqis detonated a suitcase nuke in new york city tomorrow, would you say that the dead civilians 'had it coming'?

If we had been able to limit the use of the bomb to the Japanese Army and Navy, that would perfectly acceptable to you?

it's different for soldiers. they expect to fight and die in war.
i don't know about 'perfectly acceptable'...but it wouldn't be as morally repugnant, as far as i'm concerned.
and you never answered my question.

Because we aren't in a declared war.

What's the difference? A piece of paper?

The Constitution is piece of paper. Or do you believe it is it a goddamn piece of paper?

Pieces of paper mean a great deal.

and killing their people, and the japanese doing the same thing?

It is not a matter of whether they deserved it or not. Japanese soldiers, sailors and airmen did not produce the weapons, ships, and aircraft that they used against the various enemies of Japan. These were largely produced by civilian work forces throughout Japan. Most military planners would consider the ship yard at Newport News, VA, or the B24 plant at Willow Run, MI as legitimate targets, even thought the vast majority of employees were civilians. I am willing to bet that if the Authorities in Japan or Germany had access to a 25kt nuke, they would have not had the least bit of moral reservation from using it on those facilities, knowing full well that thousands that were not directly working on those facilities would also perish in the explosion. While no NNSBDD or Willow run size factories remained standing in Japan by Aug 1945, hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians were still working to support the Imperial war effort in small factories and make shift facilities. Numbers of these types of operations were located in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The workers in those factories, men and women, are not innocent. Their labor helped to sustain the armed forces of Japan.

they weren't innocent either, right?

So were the children and elderly in London, Dover, Rotterdam, Stalingrad, Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo and Nanking.

Including the ones in Japan.

you attacked wasn't compassionate regarding the lives of other civilians killed were any less important than those killed by the a-bombs. In fact quite the contrary, the comment conveyed to me was that targeting civilians period wasn't right.
The Japanese military were certainly brutal all around but the Allies weren't complete angels either. War sucks any which way you slice it.
I would be disgusted if the US used an A-bomb or god forbid a nuke *now* to get us out of Iraq or to *stop* terrorism. I would be disgusted if ANY country used one again. We do need to draw the line *somewhere*. And I'm not a pacifist, tree-hugging hippy. Nor am I a blood thirsty war monger.
I read a lot of posts on DU and have been a member well before we got into Iraq. My husband and I have noticed a real fracture here on DU with many people (not you specifically) living up to the term *looney left*, quite sad really.

and justify it by citing atrocities committed by the military?

They were not INNOCENT. People want to pretend that the US just jumped up out of the clear blue and nuked Japan, as if the Japanese had nothing to do with the war THEY stated.

:eyes:

what the hell did the children or the women or the elderly or others have to do with what the japanese army did?

Those killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki — not to mention Tokyo, Osaka, Kobe, Yokohama, Nagoya and the rest of the 67 Japanese cities laid to waste by incendiary bombs — didn't start or continue anything.

:shrug:

The civilian population makes the bullets. They also make the food and clothing needed to keep a military going. Stopping/degrading any of these are effective ways of neutralizing/degrading a militries performance.

i think it was pretty clearly stated in his posts.
in any case, it wasn't just infrasctructure that was destroyed and factory workers that were killed. there were also children and elderly.

German doctrine was to strafe civilians, to cause panic and thus slow down the movement of enemy troops/reinforcements. Nightime strategic bombing as practiced by the Allies was to target the entire city which contained various factories producing war supplies. War supplies which famously included Ball Bearings.

Evil, no matter who does it and no matter what its cause.

So for the sake of argument, are you saying that if in the American Civil War the North had managed to build an atomic bomb, and dropped it on say, Atlanta and New Orleans, that would be morally justified, because no Southerners were innocent? Every man, woman and child was guilty, and deserved to die? Try taking this up with a Southerner, and see how far you get before you get a good ole style Southern beatdown.

You on the issue because it's a fantasy, and furthermore I'm from Texas.

Dropping the bomb on New York would be justified since USAmericans are responsible for over 1,500,000 dead in Iraq between the "sanctions", invasion and occupation...


The Japanese were already suing for Peace. Dropping those bombs was an unnecessary war crime!

the japanese killed tons of innocent people. i was in china and visited the memorial to the rape of nanjing. the brutality of the japanese soldiers was incredible and sickening.
that does NOT justify slaughtering innocent civilians.
nothing ever justifies it. maybe it was necessary (i'm leaning towards 'it wasn't'), but it certainly wasn't justified.

since scientist Klaus Fuchs was their spy inside Los Alamos. They developed their nuclear weapons program largely on the back of ours.

Of course, the U.S. didn't know that at the time.

A Cold War was required because humans had invented a weapon which ended "ordinary" war --
They were out of business in using ordinary wars to scare people --

So -- The COLD WAR had to be invented --

JFK exposed their Cold War for the nonsense it was --


Unfortunately, we had already set up a MIIC which didn't want to be put out of business --
any of it: either the superpower business, nor the business of imperialism.

Close bases around the world -- ??
We still have them everywhere -- !!!

mainland in south Japan. They projected a million american kids killed and about 5 million Japanese civillians killed. Really.

If there was no bomb - we would still have carried out the firebomb raids - you know what the real difference was?? Instead of sending a thousand B-29s to drop bombs we would send just one - and get the same number of killed. Thats all.

Russia knew what we had. They had spies. If it worked they attack Manchuria - if it didn't they don't. It was simple math.

We probably killed 300,000 people to save 6,000,000. Just math in the end, isn't it??

Joe

if it was necessary, it is still not justifiable. it's an ugly, despicable act no matter how you look at it.

That is why we should avoid it.

We would have firebombed those cities. They had no choice.

A lot of people would die - more than ever should have.

Those people lost that war in 1942 - they just didn't get the message.

Joe

but sometimes necessary.
doesn't change the fact that a lot of innocent people died.

Tokyo - which we did - or nuking Hiroshima - same number of people died.

OR what we did to Dresden or Hamburg - what is the difference??

The only difference I see now, or ever saw, was the number of planes we had to send up to acheive the same number of killed. That is all.

Think war is anything but killing - that is what it is. It is murder. Legalized killing. Usually, really, really dirty killing. You have no idea how dirty.

Sometimes you get no choice in the matter. Rarely, you get no choice.

But it is all killing, none the less. The kind that destroys whole generations of our children brought up to think killing was a violation of the commandments.

I am still christian enough to recognize that.

I know what happened in a few wars now - and you don't want to know what really happened. Don't.

Joe

I guess you're right about that.
The firebombing was little less evil because that didn't involve the radiation.
Dresden got it even worse.
It was all awful.

I think that is why it is truly so evil.

When I was growing up, Mom and Dad did that war - but so did all my uncles. When I was little they would get together. It was like a confessional. My dear god, I couldn't believe what I heard - and these were good decent people. Had nightmares the rest of their lives for what they had to do.

I can say clearly - don't ask a lot of questions about war - you will not like the answers. I will leave it right there.

Joe

The alternative was to not invade Japan and to negotiate a conditional surrender.

Japan has no coal or oil resources and therefore had no ability to project force against the forces of the United States by mid 1945.

Can you make a reasonable mathematical guess that Chinese civilian casualties + starvation of Japanese civilians over X period of time would be greater than the death toll from the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?



Harsh economic conditions in Germany during WWI led to the overthrow of the Kaiser, without a corresponding breakthrough on the Western Front. Would not a blockade been a more ethical course of action?