Atomic bombings of Japan

[Frodo]

Both were necessary -and I say this as someone who has a Japanese mother who grew up in the immediate aftermath of the war. 

[Jake]

Those estimates are based on what?

Overblown estimates of what would happen if the US landings on Kyushu failed miserably, the Japanese survived famine in the winter, and the US was foolish enough to launch a second landing in the spring which someone would be resisted. In other words, they are based on fantasy.

[??????????]

I'm convinced that the surrender of Japan was imminent, regardless of the bombs.

Ok, you go believe that. The military generals even after the second bombing didn't want to surrender. They almost overthrew the emperor the keep the war going.

[Rin-chan]

I would have supported both given what they knew then. Given what I know now, only the first - my understanding is that they wanted to surrender after the first, but the effects of EMP had knocked out their communications and there was much confusion. I probably would have spaced out the second bombing more as well as have sent an ultimatum to see if it wasn't necessary.

^^^^^

That is odd because from the research I did for a paper a few years ago it seemed like Japan believed we'd never drop another one so they weren't going to surrender after the first one.

It was only what I'd heard. That could also be right.

I researched it last year for a debate, and that's what I found as well.  My opponents tried to say it wasn't true and that they would surrender, but they were just speculating.  I had sources.

Rin-chan

[Rin-chan]

Although many people have died as a result of the atomic bombings and probably are still dying, I most likely would have supported the bombings.

One reason would be that if anyone knows anything about Japanese culture, it is they do not surrender unless you force them to fear you.  Bushido does not allow for that.

Another is that if the war in the Pacific did not end quickly, more and more people would have died.  In Indonesia, China, and other Asian countries, Japan had taken over and created work camps.  100,000 people died every month from starvation alone.  This isn't counting malaria, or dysentry, or pure exhaustion.  I knew a woman who was a Dutch Indonesian.  She was a child during the war and was in a prison camp because she was too young to work.  She still had divots in her muscles from the malnutrition.  She told me how horrible the Japanese were to people, how they killed for fun, how they murdered her loved ones.  I wouldn't want her or anyone like her to be in such a place for one second more than they had to.  If you want an example of the atrocites the Japanese committed, look up the Rape of Nanking.

A nation that would have contests as to who could chop off more heads and rape the most women and children wouldn't surrender with simple negotiations.

They needed to be smacked in the face and shown they are not all powerful.  That we are stronger.

This is why I would have supported them then and why I still support them today.

Besides, it already happened.  There's no use crying over spilt milk.

Rin-chan

Well put!  Also, my grandfather was in the amphibious unit in the Navy and was looking at being deployed to Japan.  If we invaded via land, we were looking at 500,000 deaths.

Thanks!

I'm glad your father didn't have to fight in a battle he would have almost surely died in.  It would have been a suicide mission.

The Japanese soldiers would have stopped at nothing to kill your grandfather and fight for the honor of their families.  The women and children would probably be fighting too.

Besides, would we still have Sony and Toyota if we invaded and somehow won?  Or would we have been able to end the war in Europe if we didn't end it when we did?  Hitler wanted us to be spread thinly between two fronts.  We would have been giving him too much of what he wanted.

Rin-chan

[Gustaf]

Given what they knew then, both. Given what we know now, probably both again.

One has to keep in mind that nuclear weapons didn't have the nasty ring it has now...

[MasterJedi]

Both

[Inmate Trump]

There is no good excuse for using atomic weapons in 1945 or 2006.

[Q]

I'm convinced that the surrender of Japan was imminent, regardless of the bombs.

Ok, you go believe that. The military generals even after the second bombing didn't want to surrender. They almost overthrew the emperor the keep the war going.

Take a look at the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, published by the Government Printing Office in 1946, particularly the chapter "Japan's Struggle to End the War."

And the U.S. was adverse to a land invasion of Japan anyway.

[dazzleman]

I support both.

The atomic bombs saved lives.  Many more lives would have been lost if we'd been forced to invade.  And if we'd ended the war leaving that regime in power, it would have been like the Treaty of Versailles.

The atomic bomb gave the Japanese a face-saving way to surrender, which they were hell-bent against doing.

[dazzleman]

I would have originally said both, but through my recent research into the topic, I'm convinced that the surrender of Japan was imminent, regardless of the bombs.  The U.S., I think, was looking for a place to demonstrate its nuclear capabilities, and for that reason it still detonated these weapons.  Perhaps in the long run this saved lives by making nuclear exchange feared and thus avoided during the Cold War, but I do not believe that these actions saved any lives during World War II.

That's revisionist propaganda with an obvious political agenda behind it.  Japan was so hell-bent against surrendering that it pioneered the kamikaze tactic of suicide bombing, a forerunner to todays crazed muslims.

I don't believe they would have surrendered without a horrific bloodbath.  As it was, the militants came very close to disobeying the emperor, and attacking the surrender ceremony about the USS Missouri on Sept. 2, 1945.

[Ebowed]

Besides, it already happened.  There's no use crying over spilt milk.

One could apply the same standard to the Holocaust.

[GMantis]

Even if a demonstration didn't work, a nation which regards itself as the greatest democracy in the world should have attempted it before killing 200 000 people. And even if the bombing was necessary, a military target could have been used. (I should note that Truman lied and said that Hiroshima was a military base).
It is obvious that the main target of these bombings (apart from forcing the Japanese surrender) was to demonstrate the might of the American military
to the Soviets and a convenient way to test the atomic bombs in real condition.

[TX_1824]

Let's just say this. The number of Purple Hearts ordered for the invasion of Japan have not been exhausted to this day. That includes Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I & II, Afghanistan and all other smaller conflicts in between. That in itself is saying something.

I support both.