Hiroshima and Nagasaki... Was it necessary?

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
We're talking about people who only stepped into the modern era just fifty years before - a people who believed their Emperor was a God in human form. To die for your Emperor was a guaranteed seat on the train to ancestral shangri-la. Why else would anyone volunteer to be Kamikazi? Really, you have to be able to think in their headspace to understand.

Wolf
 

s_lone

Council Member
Feb 16, 2005
2,233
30
48
42
Montreal
The question may be simple, but which question?

Your header asks if it was necessary; your post asks if it was morally justifiable.

Which question are you asking?

You're right... it's two different questions...

Answer both.
 
May 28, 2007
3,866
67
48
Honour our Fallen
We're talking about people who only stepped into the modern era just fifty years before - a people who believed their Emperor was a God in human form. To die for your Emperor was a guaranteed seat on the train to ancestral shangri-la. Why else would anyone volunteer to be Kamikazi? Really, you have to be able to think in their headspace to understand.

Wolf

I understand ....lets ask then...do you think the Emperor and his cronies knew this was all a dodge???the whole divine right thing..blah blah Divine Wind

and in any case...they had enough dealing with the USA and knew enough of their culture to know defeat, which they obviousley never considered,would not bring baby eating....or anything of the sort...

come now do you think the ignorance of their highest in command would allow for such ignorant fears on that level....
 
May 28, 2007
3,866
67
48
Honour our Fallen
The question may be simple, but which question?

Your header asks if it was necessary; your post asks if it was morally justifiable.

Which question are you asking?
For me....
wasn't necessary.
Morally corrupt
all war is morally corupt , but sometimes necessary...We outlawed the use of poison gas...they decided to use a worse horror....
It did give them a huge edge from a military point of view...the fact they would do anything to further OUR CAUSE....
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
I understand ....lets ask then...do you think the Emperor and his cronies knew this was all a dodge???the whole divine right thing..blah blah Divine Wind

and in any case...they had enough dealing with the USA and knew enough of their culture to know defeat, which they obviousley never considered,would not bring baby eating....or anything of the sort...

come now do you think the ignorance of their highest in command would allow for such ignorant fears on that level....

Hirohito knew only what he was told by his advisors. Most of the military were schooled by the British (with whom Japan was allied in WW1) From them, they learned modern technology and methods. Their own Samuri culture had them very well-heeled in warfare - and their own situation on an island taught them a need to expand. The general population believed in their Gods and Samuri culture. It wasn't a dodge any more than it was a need for colonial power - a need to be modern.

Wolf
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
The use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a demonstration to the Russians and a selfish proof of effectiveness to the U.S. administration. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intentionally spared conventional fire bombing that almost every other Japanese city had suffered. Japan was finished and she was trying to surrender but Good old Harry Truman wouldn't hear of it until the A-bombs were used. Just about every U.S. military leader was against the use of these bombs.
How did the most knowledgeable men, the top brass in the military, regard the decision to use the bomb? They almost unanimously condemned it. The roll call includes: General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower, supreme allied commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF); General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, supreme allied commander of the South West Pacific Area; Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, chief of staff to the President; General of the Army Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, commanding general of the US Army Air Forces; General Carl "Tooey" Spaatz, chief of staff of the US Air Force and commander US Army Strategic Air Force (USASTAF); Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, and Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King commander in chief of the US Fleet and chief of Naval Operations. Only Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall, former assistant secretary of war, acquiesced with the decision, insisting that it was a question for the president and not for the military to decide. Two well-known hawks a step lower in rank also criticized the decision The notorious Major General Curtis E. LeMay, commander of the Twenty-First Bomber Command -- who admitted, according to Robert MacNamara in the film Fog of War, that his awesome bombings were war crimes -- was quoted as saying "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all." Another no holds barred tough wartime fighter, Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, Jr., commander of the US Third Fleet asserted "The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before."
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
The use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a demonstration to the Russians and a selfish proof of effectiveness to the U.S. administration. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intentionally spared conventional fire bombing that almost every other Japanese city had suffered. Japan was finished and she was trying to surrender but Good old Harry Truman wouldn't hear of it until the A-bombs were used. Just about every U.S. military leader was against the use of these bombs.
If that be truth, it's rather poetic justice that Mt. St. Helens blew good ol' Harry's ass to kingdom come....

Wolf
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Prior to Pearl Harbor the Japanese were already attempting to control China through military aggression - they were a warlike nation and their error in attacking Pearl Harbor was the final go-ahead by a divided United States to enter the WWII. Until that time, the European war was a British/French one - and the U.S. was steeped in a terrible depression - how they managed to equip and rebuild their military as they did until the final bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a testament to what a nation when united in a cause can do. I have heard many times if Japan had resisted their action in 1941, the U.S. may have opted to remain out.


http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm


The road to war between Japan and the United States began in the 1930s when differences over China drove the two nations apart. In 1931 Japan conquered Manchuria, which until then had been part of China. In 1937 Japan began a long and ultimately unsuccessful campaign to conquer the rest of China. In 1940, the Japanese government allied their country with Nazi Germany in the Axis Alliance, and, in the following year, occupied all of Indochina.

The United States, which had important political and economic interests in East Asia, was alarmed by these Japanese moves. The U.S. increased military and financial aid to China, embarked on a program of strengthening its military power in the Pacific, and cut off the shipment of oil and other raw materials to Japan.

Because Japan was poor in natural resources, its government viewed these steps, especially the embargo on oil as a threat to the nation's survival. Japan's leaders responded by resolving to seize the resource-rich territories of Southeast Asia, even though that move would certainly result in war with the United States.

The problem with the plan was the danger posed by the U.S. Pacific Fleet based at Pearl Harbor. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, commander of the Japanese fleet, devised a plan to immobilize the U.S. fleet at the outset of the war with a surprise attack.

The key elements in Yamamoto's plans were meticulous preparation, the achievement of surprise, and the use of aircraft carriers and naval aviation on an unprecedented scale. In the spring of 1941, Japanese carrier pilots began training in the special tactics called for by the Pearl Harbor attack plan.

In October 1941 the naval general staff gave final approval to Yamamoto's plan, which called for the formation of an attack force commanded by Vice Admiral Chuichi Nagumo. It centered around six heavy aircraft carriers accompanied by 24 supporting vessels. A separate group of submarines was to sink any American warships which escaped the Japanese carrier force.

Nagumo's fleet assembled in the remote anchorage of Tankan Bay in the Kurile Islands and departed in strictest secrecy for Hawaii on 26 November 1941. The ships' route crossed the North Pacific and avoided normal shipping lanes. At dawn 7 December 1941, the Japanese task force had approached undetected to a point slightly more than 200 miles north of Oahu. At this time the U.S. carriers were not at Pearl Harbor. On 28 November, Admiral Kimmel sent USS Enterprise under Rear Admiral Willliam Halsey to deliver Marine Corps fighter planes to Wake Island. On 4 December Enterprise delivered the aircraft and on December 7 the task force was on its way back to Pearl Harbor. On 5 December, Admiral Kimmel sent the USS Lexington with a task force under Rear Admiral Newton to deliver 25 scout bombers to Midway Island. The last Pacific carrier, USS Saratoga, had left Pearl Harbor for upkeep and repairs on the West Coast.

At 6:00 a.m. on 7 December, the six Japanese carriers launched a first wave of 181 planes composed of torpedo bombers, dive bombers, horizontal bombers and fighters. Even as they winged south, some elements of U.S. forces on Oahu realized there was something different about this Sunday morning.

In the hours before dawn, U.S. Navy vessels spotted an unidentified submarine periscope near the entrance to Pearl Harbor. It was attacked and reported sunk by the destroyer USS Ward (DD-139) and a patrol plane. At 7:00 a.m., an alert operator of an Army radar station at Opana spotted the approaching first wave of the attack force. The officers to whom those reports were relayed did not consider them significant enough to take action. The report of the submarine sinking was handled routinely, and the radar sighting was passed off as an approaching group of American planes due to arrive that morning.

The Japanese aircrews achieved complete surprise when they hit American ships and military installations on Oahu shortly before 8:00 a.m. They attacked military airfields at the same time they hit the fleet anchored in Pearl Harbor. The Navy air bases at Ford Island and Kaneohe Bay, the Marine airfield at Ewa and the Army Air Corps fields at Bellows, Wheeler and Hickam were all bombed and strafed as other elements of the attacking force began their assaults on the ships moored in Pearl Harbor. The purpose of the simultaneous attacks was to destroy the American planes before they could rise to intercept the Japanese.

Of the more than 90 ships at anchor in Pearl Harbor, the primary targets were the eight battleships anchored there. seven were moored on Battleship Row along the southeast shore of Ford Island while the USS Pennsylvania (BB-38) lay in drydock across the channel. Within the first minutes of the attack all the battleships adjacent to Ford Island had taken bomb and or torpedo hits. The USS West Virginia (BB-48) sank quickly. The USS Oklahoma (BB-37) turned turtle and sank. At about 8:10 a.m., the USS Arizona (BB-39) was mortally wounded by an armorpiercing bomb which ignited the ship's forward ammunition magazine. The resulting explosion and fire killed 1,177 crewmen, the greatest loss of life on any ship that day and about half the total number of Americans killed. The USS California (BB-44), USS Maryland (BB-46), USS Tennessee (BB-43) and USS Nevada (BB-36) also suffered varying degrees of damage in the first half hour of the raid.

There was a short lull in the fury of the attack at about 8:30 a.m. At that time the USS Nevada (BB-36), despite her wounds, managed to get underway and move down the channel toward the open sea. Before she could clear the harbor, a second wave of 170 Japanese planes, launched 30 minutes after the first, appeared over the harbor. They concentrated their attacks on the moving battleship, hoping to sink her in the channel and block the narrow entrance to Pearl Harbor. On orders from the harbor control tower, the USS Nevada (BB-36) beached herself at Hospital Point and the channel remained clear.

When the attack ended shortly before 10:00 a.m., less than two hours after it began, the American forces has paid a fearful price. Twenty-one ships of the U.S. Pacific Fleet were sunk or damaged: the battleships USS Arizona (BB-39), USS California (BB-44), USS Maryland (BB-46), USS Nevada (BB-36), USS Oklahoma (BB-37), USS Pennsylvania (BB-38), USS Tennessee (BB-43) and USS West Virginia (BB-48); cruisers USS Helena (CL-50), USS Honolulu (CL-48) and USS Raleigh (CL-7); the destroyers USS Cassin (DD-372), USS Downes (DD-375), USS Helm (DD-388) and USS Shaw (DD-373); seaplane tender USS Curtiss (AV-4); target ship (ex-battleship) USS Utah (AG-16); repair ship USS Vestal (AR-4); minelayer USS Oglala (CM-4); tug USS Sotoyomo (YT-9); and Floating Drydock Number 2. Aircraft losses were 188 destroyed and 159 damaged, the majority hit before the had a chance to take off. American dead numbered 2,403. That figure included 68 civilians, most of them killed by improperly fused anti-aircraft shells landing in Honolulu. There were 1,178 military and civilian wounded.

Japanese losses were comparatively light. Twenty-nine planes, less than 10 percent of the attacking force, failed to return to their carriers.

The Japanese success was overwhelming, but it was not complete. They failed to damage any American aircraft carriers, which by a stroke of luck, had been absent from the harbor. They neglected to damage the shoreside facilities at the Pearl Harbor Naval Base, which played an important role in the Allied victory in World War II. American technological skill raised and repaired all but three of the ships sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor (the USS Arizona (BB-39) considered too badly damaged to be salvaged, the USS Oklahoma (BB-37) raised and considered too old to be worth repairing, and the obsolete USS Utah (AG-16) considered not worth the effort). Most importantly, the shock and anger caused by the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor united a divided nation and was translated into a wholehearted commitment to victory in World War II.
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
Whaaa????

Wolf

Not much of a rebuttle.

Find one war between two nuclear armed countries that isn't some small scale proxy war fought between two non-nuclear defended counties.

You can say that all war is this or that and that no one should be fighting blah blah blah, fact is there are people who make a handsom living from conventional war. Governments are razed and new ones built on the ashes of the last through conventional war. It's easy, makes a great story and can be fought far far away from us so we can watch it on tv and combine two things we just love.

Once you throw in the two aspects of never getting the resources out of the place and the definate possibility of you getting your whole family, friends, and everyone you will see turned into a tragic memory, it's not so important to go get the oil or support a puppet regime to keep the money coming in.

Not to mention the difficult time someone will have convincing everyone that we can take a few cities melted in order to melt some country for it's political views and attitude towards us.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
Morally justifiable? Yes, if you take into balance the expected loss of life to fight conventionally.

Necessary? Depends on what you wanted the outcome to be. If you wanted to war to end quickly, with lower American casualties, then yes, it was.
 

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
Civilians committed suicide in the thousands by jumping off cliffs just to avoid capture by the "horned devils". American losses were in the thousands

I wonder if the Japanese may also have believed that they would be treated as the Japanese treated the Chinese during 1937's invasion of Shanghai and Nanking. This is typical of human behavior to believe that others are capable and willing to do what you yourself are capable and willing to do and does not exist in only 1 type of culture, but is universal
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
The use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a demonstration to the Russians and a selfish proof of effectiveness to the U.S. administration. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intentionally spared conventional fire bombing that almost every other Japanese city had suffered. Japan was finished and she was trying to surrender but Good old Harry Truman wouldn't hear of it until the A-bombs were used. Just about every U.S. military leader was against the use of these bombs.

... So sayeth the Soviets and the rest of modern day communist. More revisions.

Japan was not finished. Japan was going to lose but she had plenty of fight in her. Japan was asked to surrender according to the Potsdam Declaration which meant UNCONDITIONAL. Japan wanted to have a negotiated conditional surrender, trying to save face. They wanted to be able to say that they didn't lose the war.

Show me quotes or links of "just about every US Military leader" that opposed the use of the bomb. MacArthur, Nimitz, Eisenhower, Patton, Marshall, Smith, Halsey... those were the main players.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Not much of a rebuttle.

Find one war between two nuclear armed countries that isn't some small scale proxy war fought between two non-nuclear defended counties.

You can say that all war is this or that and that no one should be fighting blah blah blah, fact is there are people who make a handsom living from conventional war. Governments are razed and new ones built on the ashes of the last through conventional war. It's easy, makes a great story and can be fought far far away from us so we can watch it on tv and combine two things we just love.

Once you throw in the two aspects of never getting the resources out of the place and the definate possibility of you getting your whole family, friends, and everyone you will see turned into a tragic memory, it's not so important to go get the oil or support a puppet regime to keep the money coming in.

Not to mention the difficult time someone will have convincing everyone that we can take a few cities melted in order to melt some country for it's political views and attitude towards us.

Again... Whaaa????

OP had nothing to do with two nuclear powers, and from what I can decypher from the rest, I'm thinking you write speeches for Miss America contentants. I'd love to respond ... but have to know what you're sayin', dude....

Wolf
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
I wonder if the Japanese may also have believed that they would be treated as the Japanese treated the Chinese during 1937's invasion of Shanghai and Nanking. This is typical of human behavior to believe that others are capable and willing to do what you yourself are capable and willing to do and does not exist in only 1 type of culture, but is universal

Bingo! We fear most that which we have done to others....

Wolf
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Again... Whaaa????

OP had nothing to do with two nuclear powers, and from what I can decypher from the rest, I'm thinking you write speeches for Miss America contentants. I'd love to respond ... but have to know what you're sayin', dude....

Wolf

I second that...
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Quite frankly, when this is all boiled down (after removing people who like to blame Victors for being Victors), The question is this:

Is it better to incinerate, poison, scald, explode and mangle a few hundred thousand people with many small bombs or one big bomb?

Japan was not "on the verge of surrendering", nor did the bombs make them surrender. Japan had alot of fight in it, and actually a very viable plan for homeland defense based upon attrition and lack of willpower for the US to continue fighting (one employed in Vietnam, which had many ex-japanese soldiers training their military).

Japanese surrender was brought about more by the Soviets entering the war, simply because the Soviets had no qualms about losing the kind of manpower required to annex Japan, and its version of unconditional surrender bode far worse than unconditional surrender to the USA. Its Idea of using the USSR to broker piece fell into ash and it was now the whole world against Japan.

Atomic bombs really, after the initial fear factor and surprise were not that special. The USA already had air superiority and the ability to induce more overall destructive force with many little bombs than they could with sporadic atomic bombings.

And Japan new the limitations and abilities of atomic warfare, its own atomic project was quite near completion and had been in the works longer than the American program.


So here is the question boiled down:

Is it better to incinerate, poison, scald, explode and mangle a few hundred thousand people with many small bombs or one big bomb?

My answer is paraphrased from General Stormin Norman from Desert Storm:

"There is no polite way to kill someone"
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
Again... Whaaa????

OP had nothing to do with two nuclear powers, and from what I can decypher from the rest, I'm thinking you write speeches for Miss America contentants. I'd love to respond ... but have to know what you're sayin', dude....

Wolf

Are you a ****ing idiot?

I'm not useing words to big for you am I? You managed to go to school at least long enough to read and write didn't you?

If you want to concern yourself only with the question in the OP then, "Hell Yeah" was the answer.

Which part are you confused about?

If you want to talk about the rest of it, great! Try and formulate some thought on it and get back to me. If you can't, manage that, then move along.
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
Quite frankly, when this is all boiled down (after removing people who like to blame Victors for being Victors), The question is this:

Is it better to incinerate, poison, scald, explode and mangle a few hundred thousand people with many small bombs or one big bomb?

Japan was not "on the verge of surrendering", nor did the bombs make them surrender. Japan had alot of fight in it, and actually a very viable plan for homeland defense based upon attrition and lack of willpower for the US to continue fighting (one employed in Vietnam, which had many ex-japanese soldiers training their military).

Japanese surrender was brought about more by the Soviets entering the war, simply because the Soviets had no qualms about losing the kind of manpower required to annex Japan, and its version of unconditional surrender bode far worse than unconditional surrender to the USA. Its Idea of using the USSR to broker piece fell into ash and it was now the whole world against Japan.

Atomic bombs really, after the initial fear factor and surprise were not that special. The USA already had air superiority and the ability to induce more overall destructive force with many little bombs than they could with sporadic atomic bombings.

And Japan new the limitations and abilities of atomic warfare, its own atomic project was quite near completion and had been in the works longer than the American program.


So here is the question boiled down:

Is it better to incinerate, poison, scald, explode and mangle a few hundred thousand people with many small bombs or one big bomb?

My answer is paraphrased from General Stormin Norman from Desert Storm:

"There is no polite way to kill someone"

Exactly and it's the mincing around now that is the cause of the majority of the problem. If there was something from the start that made a clear choice, blow all these people to kingdom come, good bad old and young alike in the thousands over a day or two, I think there would be a lot more will to hesitate to the last possible moment before getting into any war.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
... So sayeth the Soviets and the rest of modern day communist. More revisions.

Japan was not finished. Japan was going to lose but she had plenty of fight in her. Japan was asked to surrender according to the Potsdam Declaration which meant UNCONDITIONAL. Japan wanted to have a negotiated conditional surrender, trying to save face. They wanted to be able to say that they didn't lose the war.

Show me quotes or links of "just about every US Military leader" that opposed the use of the bomb. MacArthur, Nimitz, Eisenhower, Patton, Marshall, Smith, Halsey... those were the main players.

Gladly. http://tinyurl.com/26o3rg