Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[EagleSmack]

I know I'll probably get railed for asking this, but it's simply for curiousity's sake.

Do you guys think it would have been possible for the U.S. to end the war without releasing the nukes and having much fewer casualties in the process?

I agree with Bear, this is not a bad question.

Sure, we could have given into the Japanese demands and ended the war on their terms. That was their initial overtures. Early in January 1945 the Japanese reached out through neutral channels to end the war and as I they put it...

"in terms favorable to Japan"

That would have ended the war and they could have even claimed a partial victory or at least that they weren't beaten. Today, even in total defeat Japan still teaches their people they were not all so bad, that the US forced them into war, and the Rape of Nanking is a myth. Can you imagine if the allies (including Canada) did not demand Unconditional Surrender?

If we did not nuke them the next step would be to invade and casualties for everyone would be insane. That is what the Japanese were counting on. So we nuked them.

GAME OVER.

Was Roosevelt of healthy mind with only a physical illness?

.

Roosevelt was dead before the A-Bomb was dropped. Truman made the decision.

 

[Curiosity]

I agree with Bear, this is not a bad question.

Sure, we could have given into the Japanese demands and ended the war on their terms. That was their initial overtures. Early in January 1945 the Japanese reached out through neutral channels to end the war and as I they put it...

"in terms favorable to Japan"

That would have ended the war and they could have even claimed a partial victory or at least that they weren't beaten. Today, even in total defeat Japan still teaches their people they were not all so bad, that the US forced them into war, and the Rape of Nanking is a myth. Can you imagine if the allies (including Canada) did not demand Unconditional Surrender?

If we did not nuke them the next step would be to invade and casualties for everyone would be insane. That is what the Japanese were counting on. So we nuked them.

GAME OVER.



Roosevelt was dead before the A-Bomb was dropped. Truman made the decision.

Thanks EagleSmack

I often wondered if he was capable of making those insurmountable decisions during his last days as president.

Did Truman knee-jerk do you think? He seemed like a short-hair trigger kinda man.

What do I know..... I couldn't make decisions like that .... I have no idea how people can and remain sane.

One of my most fierce anxieties is that one day I'll be picked to sit on a jury involving first degree.

 

[EagleSmack]

Thanks EagleSmack

I often wondered if he was capable of making those insurmountable decisions during his last days as president.

Did Truman knee-jerk do you think? He seemed like a short-hair trigger kinda man.

What do I know..... I couldn't make decisions like that .... I have no idea how people can and remain sane.

One of my most fierce anxieties is that one day I'll be picked to sit on a jury involving first degree.

I don't know if dropping the bomb in 1945 could be considered knee jerk after being in the war since 1941.

Truman refused to use nukes on China so I think he knew what he was doing 5 years earlier. How many millions have died world wide since 1939... tens of millions?

It was time to end the war. The Japanese said no...we will all die and take you all with us. Dropping the A-Bombs basically said...

"No, we will drop these bombs and you cannot do anything but die."

I just checked. Two more A-Bombs were close to completion. One would have been ready in September 1945 and one in October 1945. We would have used them too I am sure.

 

[JLM]

Thanks EagleSmack

I often wondered if he was capable of making those insurmountable decisions during his last days as president.

Did Truman knee-jerk do you think? He seemed like a short-hair trigger kinda man.

What do I know..... I couldn't make decisions like that .... I have no idea how people can and remain sane.

One of my most fierce anxieties is that one day I'll be picked to sit on a jury involving first degree.

I guess Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrendous in terms of loss of human life, but in comparison other acts of war, pretty typical. Hitler certainly had no qualms about exterminating any segment of society including schools in England. The Japs weren't too merciful either and at least Truman put an end to the war. Things have improved since then, at least Bush's prime target in Iraq was infrastructure, not human life.

 

[EagleSmack]

I guess Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrendous in terms of loss of human life, but in comparison other acts of war, pretty typical. Hitler certainly had no qualms about exterminating any segment of society including schools in England. The Japs weren't too merciful either and at least Truman put an end to the war. Things have improved since then, at least Bush's prime target in Iraq was infrastructure, not human life.

And if Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Soviets, the British had the bomb at that time they surely would have used it.

 

[JLM]

And if Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Soviets, the British had the bomb at that time they surely would have used it.

Absolutely although Nazi Germany was the original aggressor, followed quickly by Japan at Pearl Harbour. I'm not sure just what brought the Soviets into it but Stalin was as cruel as the rest of them. Of course Italy joined up with Hitler not that the Italians were very good at fighting.

 

[EagleSmack]

Absolutely although Nazi Germany was the original aggressor, followed quickly by Japan at Pearl Harbour. I'm not sure just what brought the Soviets into it but Stalin was as cruel as the rest of them. Of course Italy joined up with Hitler not that the Italians were very good at fighting.

The Germans brought the Soviets into it by invading the Soviet Union in June 1941.

The Soviets were just as bad and it was both a German-Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939. The Germans and Soviets split Poland and the Soviets massacred thousands of Polish intellectuals, military officers, cops, teachers, artists, etc. Look up Katyn.

 

[earth_as_one]

The only two Picasso paintings that ever made sense to me, especially Guernica, the top one.......painted as an illustration of the mass bombing of that city in Spain. The city was bombed by the fascists in the Spanish Civil War.

But, back on topic........it is fine to be critical...........would you have prefered that the allies invade Japan.........and kill millions?

What would YOUR actions have been, were you Mr. Truman in the summer of 1945??

I doubt a non-violent pacifist would ever end up US President.

But assuming I was. I'd like to think the images and data coming back from the test would have caught my attention. Based on that, I would have demo'd two nukes to Japanese government and military representatives and offered them an ultimatum... If the Japanese didn't surrender, I'd start bombing stuff based on what would lead to the fastest most decisive end to the war.

All of Truman's options involved killing people. So its not a place I'd like to be.

I guess Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrendous in terms of loss of human life, but in comparison other acts of war, pretty typical. Hitler certainly had no qualms about exterminating any segment of society including schools in England. The Japs weren't too merciful either and at least Truman put an end to the war. Things have improved since then, at least Bush's prime target in Iraq was infrastructure, not human life.

Does their cruelty justify our cruelty?

If they attack and kill innocent civilians, does that give us the right to attack and kill their innocent civilians?

 

[Colpy]

I doubt a non-violent pacifist would ever end up US President.

But assuming I was. I'd like to think the images and data coming back from the test would have caught my attention. Based on that, I would have demo'd two nukes to Japanese government and military representatives and offered them an ultimatum... If the Japanese didn't surrender, I'd start bombing stuff based on what would lead to the fastest most decisive end to the war.

All of Truman's options involved killing people. So its not a place I'd like to be.

I'd ask you to look to Eaglesmack's post below........or let me quote....

" Two more A-Bombs were close to completion. One would have been ready in September 1945 and one in October 1945."

I understand your position....actually, it used to be my own, until I learned a few things.....

First, the allies did NOT have the capacity to mass produce nukes. They had limited access. Considering the Japanese did NOT surrender after the first "demonstration" on Hiroshima, I doubt bombing unpopulated areas would have impressed them at all. They had to be convinced the allies could destroy a city every few days.......

Secondly, the Japanese withstood conventional attack (on Tokyo) far worse than any single atomic attack........I'm not sure an nuclear attack every couple of months would have ended the war soon and saved lives, especially as the war throughout the East would have continued,

We can never be sure how history would have unfolded had things been different......but it is clear that Truman had limited options, and there is a high possibility that any other choice than the one he made would have cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more lives.

He opted for the quick fix, and I don't think we have nearly enough evidence to be second-guessing the decision.

BTW, thanks for answering the question.........it is an interesting discussion.

 

[earth_as_one]

I considered nuclear bomb production rates. The Americans could produce about three bombs a month.

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The U.S. expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October.[82] On August 10, Major General Leslie Groves, military director of the Manhattan Project, sent a memorandum to General of the Army George Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, in which he wrote that "the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or August 18." On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, "It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President."[82] There was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs in production until Operation Downfall, the projected invasion of Japan, had begun. "The problem now [August 13] is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer the tactical use rather than other use."[82]

The team on Tinian responsible for dropping nukes were told to expect a six month tour of duty...

 

[EagleSmack]

I considered nuclear bomb production rates. The Americans could produce about three bombs a month.

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The team on Tinian responsible for dropping nukes were told to expect a six month tour of duty...

That was good info and I think we would have continued to use them until the end.

 

[CDNBear]

But assuming I was. I'd like to think the images and data coming back from the test would have caught my attention. Based on that, I would have demo'd two nukes to Japanese government and military representatives and offered them an ultimatum... If the Japanese didn't surrender, I'd start bombing stuff based on what would lead to the fastest most decisive end to the war.

That's pretty much what the US did.

Do you think Japanese intel missed all the tests?

 

[earth_as_one]

That was good info and I think we would have continued to use them until the end.

The Japanese could not know the American production rate. Make two demonstrations a week apart, to prove it wasn't a fluke. Drop mock up bombs on cities at the same time to demonstrate capability. Then if the Japanese didn't surrender, the Americans would have a clear conscience about resorting to nukes.

BTW, I'm not implying that Americans don't have a clear conscience, only that it people can argue that the Americans did not take all steps possible to avoid unnecessary civilian deaths.

As it is now, people can claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary. I disagree with this opinion which is based on hindsight and does not accurately reflect decisions made at the time with less knowledge about nuclear weapons than what is known today.

 

[EagleSmack]

The Japanese could not know the American production rate. Make two demonstrations a week apart, to prove it wasn't a fluke. Drop mock up bombs on cities at the same time to demonstrate capability. Then if the Japanese didn't surrender, the Americans would have a clear conscience about resorting to nukes.

Like bring them to Los Alamos?

Perhaps we should have attacked their carriers at Midway with buckets of paint and after say...

"See... we could have sunk your carriers if we wanted."

BTW, I'm not implying that Americans don't have a clear conscience, only that it people can argue that the Americans did not take all steps possible to avoid unnecessary civilian deaths.

We do have a clear conscience.. Sure you have some whacko libs that go silly every year but for the most part our consicience is crystal about what we did.

As it is now, people can claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary. I disagree with this opinion which is based on hindsight and does not accurately reflect decisions made at the time with less knowledge about nuclear weapons than what is known today.

Of course. But me and many others could care less.

BOMB AWAY!

BTW, I'm not implying that Americans don't have a clear conscience, only that it people can argue that the Americans did not take all steps possible to avoid unnecessary civilian deaths.

.

It's funny to hear the Japanese say....

"Gee I know we started the war but why did you have to kill so many of our civillians"

...while ignoring the millions of Chinese civillians they killed.

Did the Japanese take all neccessary steps to avoid the deaths of their own civillians? Do you want to touch that?

 

[earth_as_one]

The trinity test at the Alamogordo Bombing Range would not prove the ability to deliver. They'd have to drop one in a remote location in Japan. How about taking the top off Mt Fuji?

I suspect that would have shocked Japan's leaders.

 

[CDNBear]

The trinity test at the Alamogordo Bombing Range would not prove the ability to deliver. They'd have to drop one in a remote location in Japan. How about taking the top off Mt Fuji?

I suspect that would have shocked Japan's leaders.

And the tree huggers that view history with a contemporary eye, like yourself, would the ones screaming today...

 

[EagleSmack]

The trinity test at the Alamogordo Bombing Range would not prove the ability to deliver. They'd have to drop one in a remote location in Japan. How about taking the top off Mt Fuji?

I suspect that would have shocked Japan's leaders.

I'll ask again...

Did the Japanese take all steps neccessary to avoid further suffering of their civillians?

 

[earth_as_one]

I consider deliberately slaughtering civilians to be a war crime or on the scale of the Rape of Nanking, a crime against humanity. One slaughter doesn't justify the other. it just makes both sides guilty.

 

[EagleSmack]

I consider deliberately slaughtering civilians to be a war crime or on the scale of the Rape of Nanking, a crime against humanity. One slaughter doesn't justify the other. it just makes both sides guilty.

So...

I shall ask again...

Did the Japanese government take all steps neccessary to save their civillian population from further death and suffering?

 

[CDNBear]

So...

I shall ask again...

Did the Japanese government take all steps neccessary to save their civillian population from further death and suffering?

I guess saying "don't hold your breath" would be redundant eh?