The atom bombing of Japan.

[miffed]

Wasn't really going to bother making this, but the bombs keep coming back up in the other thread. And I do want to discuss this further to get a better view on the events.

To start off, my perception of the events. The bombs were dropped on cities, not military bases or anything. The military didn't have a specific target, just a list of cities to choose from depending on the conditions when the plane was in the air and over Japan. Knowing this I thought that killing civilians, who were on the verge of surrendering, to save the lives of american soldiers was fairly despicable. I specifically say American soldiers because the government told everyone that unless the bombs were dropped, 800,000 more american soldiers would die. I thought that was questionable since japan was on the verge of surrendering and had their munitions and industries firebombed. However if those civiliians were trained and ready to fight as soldiers, that does cast a different light on the matter. I was not really aware of that until Pedersen mentioned it. So was killing civilians really the best way to go? What about a starvation blockade the navy was ready to do?

I thought that the way the military also handled the bombings was suspicious. the first bombing was pretty much done in secrecy, but then on the second bombing they allowed a reporter to tag along and watch. I figured the reason for that was they were unsure of the first bombing and how people would react, but then they wanted to make sure their side of the story was told so they allowed a reporter to come on the 2nd run. Also the article itself seemed like a propaganda piece. (if I can find it online, I'll be sure to link to it.)

I am starting to see how the bombing might have been needed to scare the Japanese people from fighting, but was dropping two bombs really necessary? Wouldn't just one have gotten the point across? The fact that two, different type bombs were dropped contributed itself to my suspicion that the military partly just wanted to experiment.

Would a ground battle on Japan really have been inevitable if the bombs had not been dropped? I read that a starvation blockade was already prepared by the Navy, wouldn't that have done anything?

[protege]

It wasn't done to save just our soldiers. What about the civilians who wanted no part of any of this? They'd simply be caught in the cross-fire. From what I understand, many people were prepared to fight to the death, and with any means necessary.

Also, Japan was largely an agrarian country at that time. They were nowhere near as industrial as they are now. With that said, I'm not sure a starvation blockade would have worked...considering that rice is a staple of their diet. Sure, it might have cut down on the fishing, but that's probably it. Military blockades sometimes aren't successful--East Germany found that out when they attempted to starve out West Berlin...that fell apart because of Operation Vittles :)

In the long run, I do think dropping the bombs has saved lives. After seeing all that destruction, nobody has had the balls to use nukes. Not only did it scare the shit out of people, but it also raised new awareness of the horrors of warfare...but also what people are capable of doing to each other.

[DesignFox]

Not to mention the fact that a starvation blockade sounds pretty damn terrible. If I'm going to die no matter what, I'd rather be nuked and not know what hit me than slowly starve to death. :eek:

I really hope our government wouldn't do something that terrible...

[Slytovhand]

Not to mention the fact that a starvation blockade sounds pretty damn terrible. If I'm going to die no matter what, I'd rather be nuked and not know what hit me than slowly starve to death. :eek:

I really hope our government wouldn't do something that terrible...

Lucky you aren't in Burma at the moment...

As for the "I'd rather be nuked..." - you only get to say that now, because you know what it can do. Back then, they didn't (not the world population as a whole..).

While I'm damn sure there were multiple motives going on, one that has managed to withstand the test of time is that no further nukes have been targeted against civilians since (and I'm certainly not a 'we need bombs to keep the world at peace' person).

As Protege mentioned, starvation blockade wouldn't have done squat! Especially if you consider that the longer a war goes on, the less mouths you need to feed.

Perhaps it was in reality, an means justifying an end, and the 'good of the whole' idea...

Not everything will have a happy ending....

[rahmota]

The atomic bombing of japan was a very complex situation. The military leaders where expecting some severe resistance from the civilian population. Like was mentioned before the japanese population where making preperations to quite litterally fight to the last person in defense of their homeland.

The propaganda the citizens where told was that american and allied soldiers where rapists, baby eating, evil creatures of darkness that wanted to destroy the entire japanese culture and people. Look at the way the defenders of Iwo and all the rest of the atolls and islands of the pacific reacted. Some garrisons fought to the last man. Heck some of them where staying and hiding in the jungle for years after the war ended rather than surrender.

Now given how much trouble and pain and loss of materials and personnel the allies had getting the islands on the way to japan the thought of invading the homeland concerned quite a few of the leaders. The expected resistence was predicted to be quite extreme.

Into that equation came the superbombs. A promise of ending the war with a single bomb being dropped on a single city. Remember the war in europe had already changed the attitude of civilian bombing. Civilians and the factories they worked at that produced goods for the war machine where declared valid targets. In the theory that remove the production capacity of the ball bearings that the tanks/planes etc...needed the tanks would no longer roll.

So if by dropping a single bomb from a single plane ona single city the thousands to a million allied soldiers lives would be saved it was felt was a safe and acceptable tradeoff.

Personally the atomic bombing of japan for the time and information available was a valid operational decision. One that I myself would probably have authorised if I had been in the position of Truman with his knowledge. Or at least the publically available knowledge of what he knew.

[kamn]

Not to mention the fact that a starvation blockade sounds pretty damn terrible. If I'm going to die no matter what, I'd rather be nuked and not know what hit me than slowly starve to death. :eek:

I really hope our government wouldn't do something that terrible...


Are you sure you would rather be nuked? It is not 100% that you will be killed immediately. And if you are going to die slowly from radiation...

[Greenday]

The Japanese were fighting to the death. Dropping one atomic bomb didn't result in a surrender. Dropping the second bomb did the trick. It ended the war MUCH sooner than if we had done any other path. God only knows how long a blockade would have taken, if it would have worked at all. Maybe more people would have died from starvation than from the bombings. We don't know.

All I know is, we dropped two atomic bombs and it worked. The war ended and wasn't dragged on any longer.

[Boozy]

Dropping one atomic bomb didn't result in a surrender.

Truman did not allow enough time for the Japanese to surrender before dropping the second bomb.

They had a second bomb, could make more, and wanted the Reds to know it. That was the primary motivation for the bombing of Nagasaki. The war with Japan was over after Hiroshima. The US was looking ahead towards new enemies.

[Pedersen]

Well, let's see: Little Boy was dropped August 6, 1945, over Nagasaki. Fat Man was dropped August 9, 1945, over Hiroshima.

Japan surrended August 14, 1945.

I looked those dates up, expecting the timeline to be shorter than it was for the surrender, and longer than it was between the bombs. I found myself surprised.

So, Boozy, I think you're right. They should have waited longer before dropping the second bomb.

Just thought I'd put those facts out for anybody else that might need to go looking for them.

[Boozy]

Well, let's see: Little Boy was dropped August 6, 1945, over Nagasaki. Fat Man was dropped August 9, 1945, over Hiroshima.

Good info, although you've got the cities backwards; Hiroshima was August 6th, Nagasaki on the 9th.

Less than 72 hours between the bombings.

[Greenday]

Wait, wait, wait. Three days isn't enough time to surrender? They had radios. We had people IN Japan at the end of the war. They had more than enough time to surrender. They should have surrendered immediately.

[AFPheonix]

I imagine that dealing with a crisis of that magnitude would make getting something as complicated as a surrender of an entire country a little interesting, especially in less than 72 hours.

[Greenday]

I'm sure we would have accepted an unofficial surrender and not bombed them a second time in a heartbeat.

[BlaqueKatt]

I imagine that dealing with a crisis of that magnitude would make getting something as complicated as a surrender of an entire country a little interesting, especially in less than 72 hours.


especially since the terms of surrender were to also turn over all arms at the time of surrender-and all radios would have been rendered useless from the EMP----nice wiki article here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse) for that

[Greenday]

The EMP felt from the first bomb wouldn't have knocked out every radio in the entire country though. Only in a certain affected area.

[BlackIronCrown]

I specifically say American soldiers because the government told everyone that unless the bombs were dropped, 800,000 more american soldiers would die. I thought that was questionable since japan was on the verge of surrendering and had their munitions and industries firebombed.

This is a difficult question as viewpoints on the issue depend on the historian you're talking to.
Generally, it is conceded that the Japanese government of the time would NOT surrender for any reason and would order the civilian population to attack invading soldiers barehanded. There is evidence that this would have happened; Emperor worship was still prevalent and there were many Japanese who were prepared to throw babies and the American soldiers and then charge screaming. Or not. As I said, depends on who you ask.

Operation Downfall, known popularly as Olympic, was the plan for the invasion. Here were its assumptions, taken from what was known of the current Japanese government and its hold over the population:

- That operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population."
- "That approximately three (3) hostile divisions will be disposed in Southern KYUSHU and an additional three (3) in Northern KYUSHU at initiation of the OLYMPIC operation."
- "That total hostile forces committed against KYUSHU operations will not exceed eight (8) to ten (10) divisions and that this level will be speedily attained."
- "That approximately twenty-one (21) hostile divisions, including depot divisions, will be on HONSHU at initiation of that operation Coronet and that fourteen (14) of these divisions may be employed in the KANTO PLAIN area."
- "That the enemy may withdraw his land-based air forces to the Asiatic Mainland for protection from our neutralizing attacks. That under such circumstances he can possibly amass from 2,000 to 2,500 planes in that area by exercise of rigid economy, and that this force can operate against KYUSHU landings by staging through homeland fields."

As for casualties, the 800,000 was for deaths alone The actual total estimate of casualties, wounded and dead, was higher:

"A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan"

So, they think an invasion would have meant anywhere from 6.7 to 14 million dead and wounded on both sides. That was a prime consideration.



I am starting to see how the bombing might have been needed to scare the Japanese people from fighting, but was dropping two bombs really necessary? Wouldn't just one have gotten the point across?

Possibly. There was some experimentation mentality, I am sure. I truly think they did NOT know what the effects of the nuclear bomb were at the time. For instance, in Operation Downfall, if we had invaded there were plans to drop SEVEN nuclear bombs on targets...and then send in OUR troops for mop-up 48 hours later because the fallout and radiation would have dissipated by that time.

That's right. 48 HOURS. Not days, not years.
People just did not understand the long-term effects of these weapons then.


Would a ground battle on Japan really have been inevitable if the bombs had not been dropped? I read that a starvation blockade was already prepared by the Navy, wouldn't that have done anything?

Most people agree that the starvation blockade would have been effective in reducing the number of casualties, but that an invasion would still have been necessary.

Most of that has to do with the nature of Japanese fascism...it bears resemblence to Islamofacist characteristics. Starve to death in the name of the Emperor and then attack the American! To do so is holy and in the service of your God.

[repsac]

The dropping of the atomic bombs really wasn't tactical so much as revenge. Thing is it was part of a larger campaign that featured a number of atrocities committed against the Japanese.

It's ironic in a way, that in the European theater of war, that the United States Army Bomber Corps went to a great deal of trouble NOT to bomb civilian targets. (RAF's night bombing couldn't guarantee that they wouldn't hit non military targets.) The precision of the Norton bomb sight allowed the US a great deal of accuracy, so they didn't carpet bomb the civilian targets.

Curiously in Japan it's exactly the opposite.

The US bomber corps went to a great deal of trouble to ensure they got as many civilian casualties as they could. The question begs to be asked, "Why?" Like I said, it was revenge.

At the time the attitude was that here you had this country that wasn't the size of some of the states suddenly rearing up and giving the US military, the strongest military of the era, a serious black eye. How DARE they attack! How dare they have the gall to think they could do better than US?

The Japanese of the day were seen as very backward. For one they still had an Emperor, and for another their culture was so vastly different that it meant they (the japanese) must be either ignorant or backward. So when they suddenly attacked at Pearl, it didn't fit with what the typical US citizen thought should be. It didn't help that they weren't Christian, (well for the most part) and thust they HAD to be evil.

I'm not saying that the Japanese didn't commit atrocities also, but I doubt it warranted dropping atomic bombs upon them.