Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[Vizier]

So today is the 65th "anniversary" of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Nagasaki was nuked on August 9. What do you think of the use of atomic weapons back then?

Also, this year is the first time USA attends the commemoration in Hiroshima, as well as England and France.

Those nuclear bombs were child's play compared to weapons developed later on, by both Americans and Russians. Either way, they killed thousands and thousands of people in an instant.

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

Thoughts on this?

[Raziel]

http://static.open.salon.com/files/coconut_strawberry_cake1226877577.jpg

[Trix Are For Kids]

In retrospect I don't think it was a great idea to drop the bombs. Perhaps if they were concentrated on Japan's naval fleets and slightly less dangerous then they would be a good idea. A nuclear explosion on the epicenters of their country just wasn't a very tactful tactic. Imagine if we were Japan at the end of WW2. First off, we are fighting a pointless war in alliance with someone who has just given up. Second, our tech can't compete and we know it.

In my opinion it was a dick move to nuke Japan, simply for the fact that there was barely any warning. And even when there was a warning, how did we honestly expect Japan to evacuate its people? They couldn't possibly, not with their pride and 'honor' systems. They were out, and we knew it; it was like spitting on a dead man's grave. The same damage could have been accomplished with a few strategic smaller bombings and a blockade, plus there would be far fewer casualties.

[Vizier]

From another point of view, you have to admit how much Japan progressed after the bombings. Their economical and technological growth has been impressive since that happens.

I do agree that those nukings were pretty much overkill on America's part. It was so rushed, considering those were the 2nd and 3rd nuclear weapons to ever be detonated on the planet.

[Midnight Sun]

The less slanteyes the better

65 years of bliss:D

[DestroyedMatter]

The less slanteyes the better

65 years of bliss:D

http://randomfunnypicture.com/wp2/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/animated-gif-asians-supplies-closet-surprise.gif

[Trix Are For Kids]

From another point of view, you have to admit how much Japan progressed after the bombings. Their economical and technological growth has been impressive since that happens.

I do agree that those nukings were pretty much overkill on America's part. It was so rushed, considering those were the 2nd and 3rd nuclear weapons to ever be detonated on the planet.

This is true. I'd have to say that the use of nuclear weapons propelled many otherwise unprogressive states into a time of proactiveness. It even accelerated the U.S.

[007GoldenShower]

Bastards deserved it

[AliceWut]

Didn't the firebombing of Tokyo cause more damage and have more casualties then the two atomic bombs?

[Vizier]

Didn't the firebombing of Tokyo cause more damage and have more casualties then the two atomic bombs?

The rough estimate of those bombings is around 100,000 casualties. These happened in a span of months.

Hiroshima had 90,000-166,000 deaths and Nagasaki 60,000-80,000. Half of these deaths happened in the first day.

[eesakiwi]

Didn't the firebombing of Tokyo cause more damage and have more casualties then the two atomic bombs?

It could of, who cares? It ended the war.


& the bit I don't get is...

Fuck, the Japanese were making their own Atomic bomb & the only reason they didn't drop it on Pearl Harbour was because they hadn't made it yet.

Some of Americas best Atomic scientists after the war were Japanese.

[AliceWut]

The rough estimate of those bombings is around 100,000 casualties. These happened in a span of months.

Hiroshima had 90,000-166,000 deaths and Nagasaki 60,000-80,000. Half of these deaths happened in the first day.

Hm. I remember my teacher saying that the firebombs were worse then the atomic bombs. Oh well.

As for the bombs, it was a freaking war. We wanted it over, with us winning, so we did. End of story.

[Mantikore]

I thought japan's war council was still split 50/50 on whether they should have surrendered after the first bomb was dropped. between the two bombs, the russians had spilled into china and wiped out much of the kwantung army, which formed the bulk of japan's total military force would have seriously contributed to victory too.

at this time, japan's war economy was already on its last legs, thanks to use of incendiaries on industrial areas in the previous several months. relatively slow production of key ships such as aircraft carriers compared to the US shows this.

i think the nukes were really just the last nail in the coffin for them. they probably wanted to use the nukes anyway, since they had already won in europe

[Trix Are For Kids]

Bastards deserved it

Eh kind of.

Didn't the firebombing of Tokyo cause more damage and have more casualties than the two atomic bombs?

It probably did. Look at this.

http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm
"70,000 probably died as a result of intial blast...5 year death toll may have reached or even exceeded 200,000." -Hiroshima

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
"roughly 100,000 deaths...1.5 million people lived in burned-out areas"

Either way, the nukes were overkill. They could have easily firebombed instead of nukes. It would do the same damage with less casualties.

[Vizier]

I wish that instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki there would be a "Mecca and Vatican" in the near future.

[AliceWut]

I wish that instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki there would be a "Mecca and Vatican" in the near future.

What the hell, why? You intolerant bastard.

[thendoftheline]

Check out number one in this Cracked article. (http://www.cracked.com/article_18644_5-world-changing-decisions-made-ridiculous-reasons_p2.html)

It's in the wiki too, but it doesn't seem to be emphasized. I thought it was interesting. The rest of the article is good too.

[Vizier]

What the hell, why? You intolerant bastard.

Tell that to the priest sodomizing a child or a misogynist, suicide bomber; spreading ignorance and fear for centuries now.

[Vizier]

Check out number one in this Cracked article. (http://www.cracked.com/article_18644_5-world-changing-decisions-made-ridiculous-reasons_p2.html)

It's in the wiki too, but it doesn't seem to be emphasized. I thought it was interesting. The rest of the article is good too.

Heh, yeah. Nagasaki was nuked instead of Kyoto because the Secretary of War had spend his honeymoon in Tokyo. The city of Kokura got saved by muthufuckin clouds, lol.

[944]

While their economy was collapsing, their factories had been destroyed, and their loosing the war was all but set in stone. The Japanese where not going to quit, without someone delivering a catastrophic blow.
From my point of view, we (the US) were right in what we did. If we invaded Japan we'd have lost lots of troops that didn't need to die, and the war could have gone on for many more years

[Midnight Sun]

I wish that instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki there would be a "Mecca and Vatican" in the near future.

out of every thanks i have ever given, this one is the most deserving of it in my recent memory.

[AliceWut]

Tell that to the priest sodomizing a child or a misogynist, suicide bomber; spreading ignorance and fear for centuries now.

Radicals and corruption.
That doesn't mean you have to bomb the actual sites, those places are sacred to a whole lot of fucking people.

And people besides priests sodomize children.

Go after the people, not the sites.

[Midnight Sun]

Radicals and corruption.
That doesn't mean you have to bomb the actual sites, those places are sacred to a whole lot of fucking people.

And people besides priests sodomize children.

Go after the people, not the sites.

I wish you'd get violently sodomized

[AliceWut]

I wish you'd get violently sodomized

You know what, at least i'm trying to actually contribute unlike SOMEONE. You call me a shit poster, you don't do anything but bitch about how Neptune isn't in front of your window yet.

Why don't you back the fuck off when i'm trying to contribute ideas, keep this shit in BC.

[Vizier]

Radicals and corruption.
That doesn't mean you have to bomb the actual sites, those places are sacred to a whole lot of fucking people.

And people besides priests sodomize children.

Go after the people, not the sites.

Raidcals and corruption also stem from religion. Besides, sacredness is something we made up. You think nature is gonna give a fuck when it decides those sacred places look like a good site to make a fucking volcano erupt or open another sea?

It's not like you can kill millions and millions of people with your bare hands in order to preserve a site that serves to spread lies. Nuke the hell out of them, and then nuke Jerusalem and Pyongyang while you're at it.

[Midnight Sun]

You know what, at least i'm trying to actually contribute unlike SOMEONE. You call me a shit poster, you don't do anything but bitch about how Neptune isn't in front of your window yet.

Why don't you back the fuck off when i'm trying to contribute ideas, keep this shit in BC.

http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/picture.php?albumid=262&pictureid=2558

your "ideas" are naive, worthless garbage, now fuck off

[AliceWut]

Raidcals and corruption also stem from religion. Besides, sacredness is something we made up. You think nature is gonna give a fuck when it decides those sacred places look like a good site to make a fucking volcano erupt or open another sea?

It's not like you can kill millions and millions of people with your bare hands in order to preserve a site that serves to spread lies. Nuke the hell out of them, and then nuke Jerusalem and Pyongyang while you're at it.
So what are you going to do when over half the human population goes batshit because you bombed their faith's "headquarters".

[Vizier]

So what are you going to do when over half the human population goes batshit because you bombed their faith's "headquarters".

Enjoy the fireworks :cool:

[Morb]

The hard, brutal fact is that the death and destruction the world would have seen if those bombs had not been dropped would make Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like a footnote by comparison.

[Ebola]

The hard, brutal fact is that the death and destruction the world would have seen if those bombs had not been dropped would make Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like a footnote by comparison.

The war was already ending. With Iwo Jima captured, strategic conventional bombing was going well. Germany had already capitulated and Japan was getting thoroughly beaten. Regardless of the nukes, the war was grinding to an end.

The actual bombings were totally unnessecary and over-kill in regards to the strategic outcome of WWII, dropped only to test and show the World that US now was a nuclear power.

[tariel]

Hm. I remember my teacher saying that the firebombs were worse then the atomic bombs. Oh well.

As for the bombs, it was a freaking war. We wanted it over, with us winning, so we did. End of story.

I think you are thinking of Dresden. The casualties there, from firebombing, were greater then those sustained at, and in the years following, Nagasaki.

[Vox Ducis]

I wish that instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki there would be a "Mecca and Vatican" in the near future.

Why not Jerusalem ? Are you Jewish ?

[virgil caine]

for the first time america sent a delegation their for the anaversary of the bomb drop

the fucking japs want an apology if obama gives it to them im going to be fucking ripshit

maybe the japs should apologize for the rape of nan king of wake island the only

apology they need is that were sorry we didint turn tokyo into glass

[virgil caine]

The war was already ending. With Iwo Jima captured, strategic conventional bombing was going well. Germany had already capitulated and Japan was getting thoroughly beaten. Regardless of the nukes, the war was grinding to an end.

The actual bombings were totally unnessecary and over-kill in regards to the strategic outcome of WWII, dropped only to test and show the World that US now was a nuclear power.

what kind of hippie bullshit is this are you fucking insane the japs were fanatical to the last man they would of fought the us invasion force with everything they had the bomb saved the lives of millions of americans and japanese.

there the ones that invented the suicide everything planes submarines they were insane

if it wasent for the bomb a lot of us wouldent even be here because our ancestors would of died trying to take japan

[Firemind]

Bastards deserved it

No, the Americans did. They dealt arms with Hitler and instigated Pearl Harbor's destruction.

The hard, brutal fact is that the death and destruction the world would have seen if those bombs had not been dropped would make Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like a footnote by comparison.

What do you mean? I'm sure Japanese had already been losing before the bombing.

[47 47 47]

http://static.open.salon.com/files/coconut_strawberry_cake1226877577.jpg

http://members.arstechnica.com/x/asgard/the%20cake%20is%20a%20lie.jpg

[Ebola]

what kind of hippie bullshit is this are you fucking insane the japs were fanatical to the last man they would of fought the us invasion force with everything they had the bomb saved the lives of millions of americans and japanese.

there the ones that invented the suicide everything planes submarines they were insane

if it wasent for the bomb a lot of us wouldent even be here because our ancestors would of died trying to take japan

Learn to punctuate and please read up on the historical facts and not just the propaganda you have been feed.

Japan´s leaders were already trying to get negotiatons going with the Russians about a potential peace. The country was beaten. Study more (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html)if you wish to stray from the propaganda.
E.g. "Apart from the moral questions involved, were the atomic bombings militarily necessary? By any rational yardstick, they were not. Japan already had been defeated militarily by June 1945. Almost nothing was left of the once mighty Imperial Navy, and Japan's air force had been all but totally destroyed. Against only token opposition, American war planes ranged at will over the country, and US bombers rained down devastation on her cities, steadily reducing them to rubble."

[Nightshade]

Totally and completely justified.

Japan was not defeated militarily and was not beaten. Granted their military capacity was greatly diminished by June of 1945 but the fact of the matter is it was not defeated and broken. Consider the following assumptions from the Sutherland Notes of Operation Downfall, based on intelligence in early 1945:

(1) That the Japanese will continue the war to the utmost extent of their capabilities and will prepare to defend the main islands of JAPAN with every means available to them. 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.

(2) 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.

(3) That total hostile forces committed against KYUSHU operation will not exceed eight (8) to ten (10) divisions and that this level will be speedily attained.

(4) That approximately twenty-one (21) hostile divisions, including depot divisions, will be on HONSHU at initiation of that operation and that fourteen (14) of these divisions may be employed in the KANTO PLAIN area.

(5) 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.

(6) That the attrition caused by our continued land-based and carrier-based air preparation and support, and by our destruction of aircraft manufacturing and maintenance facilities, will reduce the hostile capability for air action against our landings to suicide attacks of uncertain proportions at an early phase of the operations.

(7) That hostile fleet elements will be forced to withdraw to the YELLOW SEA or Western SEA OF JAPAN. That the enemy will maintain the capability of a suicide attack against KYUSHU landings with the approximate strength of a typical carrier task group. That his remaining submarines and large numbers of small suicide craft will oppose our landings and that mines will be used in large numbers.

(8) That hostile sea communications across the JAPAN SEA, while relatively unimpaired prior to KYUSHU landings, will be progressively and rapidly restricted to complete interdiction by the time air is operating from HONSHU.

(9) That during continuation of Russian neutrality, the production capacity of hostile industries and raw material sources in MANCHURIA, North CHINA and KOREA will remain relatively unimpaired.

(10) That hostile logistic position will permit determined defense in areas of projected operations by hostile ground forces enumerated in (3) and (4) above.
Source: http://www.blackvault.com/documents/wwii/marine1/1239.pdf

Japan´s leaders were already trying to get negotiatons going with the Russians about a potential peace. The country was beaten. Study more (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html)if you wish to stray from the propaganda.
E.g.

While Japan´s leaders were trying to get negotiations going with the Russians about a potential peace, the Russians were not interested. Why? Well Stalin was bound by the Yalta and Tehran Agreements to declare war on Japan three months after Germany surrendered. Stalin honored the Yalta and Tehran agreements when Foreign Minister Molotov informed Ambassador Sato that the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8th 1945. After the declaration of war Russia went to work invading Japanese-held Manchuria.

If the US did drop the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki they were considering using nuclear bombs as a tactical weapon during Operation Olympic, the invasion of the island of Kyūshū (Operation Cornet was going to be the invasion of Honshū). This was on the belief that General Marshall had, even after the dropping of the two strategic bombs on Japan, the empire would not surrender. So Marshall ordered Major-General Hull to evaluate the use of the bombs as a tactical weapon. Colonel Seeman reported that seven atomic bombs would be available for use as a tactical weapons by the time Operation Olympic began. So that would of been a potential total of nine atomic weapons dropped on Japan after the invasion. So let's see here, two vs. nine. Yeah you do the math. Also, it was recommended that no US forces go into an area that would of been irradiated by a bomb after 48 hours of the bomb's denotation. So not only the risk of fallout illness would of been more severe for the Japanese it would of also affected allied forces as well because the effects of fallout radiation was not well understood.

I would love to see how the historians would justify the potential million to a million and a half projected military casualties in Operation Downfall. Seems to me that would be much more harder to do than the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan. The fact of the matter is the US wanted to end the war as quickly as possible not only to save lives, but also a prolonged out war as Operation Downfall demanded would of been a serious morale issue not only for the military forces, but for the US citizens as well.

[Dr rocker]

Totally and completely justified.

Japan was not defeated militarily and was not beaten. Granted their military capacity was greatly diminished by June of 1945 but the fact of the matter is it was not defeated and broken. Consider the following assumptions from the Sutherland Notes of Operation Downfall, based on intelligence in early 1945:


Source: http://www.blackvault.com/documents/wwii/marine1/1239.pdf



While Japan´s leaders were trying to get negotiations going with the Russians about a potential peace, the Russians were not interested. Why? Well Stalin was bound by the Yalta and Tehran Agreements to declare war on Japan three months after Germany surrendered. Stalin honored the Yalta and Tehran agreements when Foreign Minister Molotov informed Ambassador Sato that the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8th 1945. After the declaration of war Russia went to work invading Japanese-held Manchuria.

If the US did drop the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki they were considering using nuclear bombs as a tactical weapon during Operation Olympic, the invasion of the island of Kyūshū (Operation Cornet was going to be the invasion of Honshū). This was on the belief that General Marshall, even after the dropping of the two strategic bombs on Japan, the empire would not surrender. So Marshall ordered Major-General Hull to evaluate the use of the bombs as a tactical weapon. Colonel Seeman reported that seven atomic bombs would be available for use as a tactical weapons by the time Operation Olympic began. So that would of been a potential total of nine atomic weapons dropped on Japan after the invasion. So let's see here, two vs. nine. Yeah you do the math. Also, it was recommended that no US forces go into an area that would of been irradiated by a bomb after 48 hours of the bomb's denotation. So not only the risk of fallout illness would of been more severe for the Japanese it would of also affected allied forces as well because the effects of fallout radiation was not well understood.

I would love to see how the historians would justify the potential million to a million and a half projected military casualties in Operation Downfall. Seems to me that would be much more harder to do than the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan. The fact of the matter is the US wanted to end the war as quickly as possible not only to save lives, but also a prolonged out war as Operation Downfall demanded would of been a serious morale issue not only for the military forces, but for the US citizens as well.

Got to love logical thought.

You can never defeat an enemy where an individual does not place value upon there own life unless it is a complete war of destruction. When nations recognise that that destruction can be made, the will to fight is weakened.

Hiroshima was such a display of potential destruction. It has been argued that the allies knew the Japs would surrender a couple of days after Hiroshima and that Nagasaki was done as an experiment.

My conscience is clear. Churchill and Truman had the agreement that it would be done. I am sure that both of them justified it to St Peter when they met him, knowing that conventional warfare would have resulted in X3 the casualties.

[adhesive tape]

Totally badass. :thumbsup: I wish we grew a pair again and started nuking motherfuckers.

[Struwwelpeter]

It never should have happened.

[AtrainV]

While I have mixed opinions on the dropping of the bombs (obviously it was a terrible thing and we continue to see ramifications of it even today--but the usual argument is that more lives would've been lost with a full-scale invasion), I have to say that the city of Hiroshima is a much more modern and well-planned out city as a result of the mass destruction.

[Ebola]

Totally and completely justified.

Japan was not defeated militarily and was not beaten. Granted their military capacity was greatly diminished by June of 1945 but the fact of the matter is it was not defeated and broken. Consider the following assumptions from the Sutherland Notes of Operation Downfall, based on intelligence in early 1945:

Source: http://www.blackvault.com/documents/wwii/marine1/1239.pdf

Japan WAS indeed defeated militarily by July 1945. The entire plan you link to incl. the assumptions were written in May 1945.

They had practically no air or naval forces by June and US heavy bombers were free to bomb targets as they saw fit with no need for fighter escort.
You are arguing that a land invasion (based on the info US had available before May 1945) would cause great US casualties; I´m not at all arguing for or against this but merely that since US had total control of the airspace, they were free to bomb for months if they wanted. They did not need to drop the nukes...

While Japan´s leaders were trying to get negotiations going with the Russians about a potential peace, the Russians were not interested. Why? Well Stalin was bound by the Yalta and Tehran Agreements to declare war on Japan three months after Germany surrendered. Stalin honored the Yalta and Tehran agreements when Foreign Minister Molotov informed Ambassador Sato that the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8th 1945. After the declaration of war Russia went to work invading Japanese-held Manchuria.

Well, the Russians were not interested in the peace as they wanted part of Northern Japan (Sakhalin and Kuril) to gain more control of the Pacific. Might this be a reason for the speeded US bombings? That US wanted to get control over Japan before they made deals with the Russians?


If the US did drop the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki they were considering ...

Again, this is based on info and assumptions pre May 1945.


I would love to see how the historians would justify the potential million to a million and a half projected military casualties in Operation Downfall. Seems to me that would be much more harder to do than the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan. The fact of the matter is the US wanted to end the war as quickly as possible not only to save lives, but also a prolonged out war as Operation Downfall demanded would of been a serious morale issue not only for the military forces, but for the US citizens as well.
Historians don´t justify anything (or need to); thats the job of politicians :) Historians research and try to find relations in the different sides of the story.
And I totally agree that US wanted to end it fast (and grab control of Japan before Russia) but that still does not justify nuking the two cities (or for that sake firebombing Hamburg, Dresden or Berlin, but targeting civilians was the way of the time). They had the option of running conventional strategical bombing for months more but they chose the faster option.
There is much more to this than just "avoiding 1.000.000 US casualties": the whole power-play between US and Russia, the science of weither a plutonium bomb would work, the propaganda/public oppinion (both in US to let the war go on and in Japan weither they should fight or not) not to mention the fact that US would officially show they were now "the most powerful nation" in the World.

[Nightshade]

Japan WAS indeed defeated militarily by July 1945. The entire plan you link to incl. the assumptions were written in May 1945.

While the information is based on assumptions written in May of 1945 none the less it was based on sound military intelligence gathered earlier that year. Also if Japan was defeated militarily by July of 1945 how were they able to muster up and have ready the deployment of nine divisions on Kyushu by the time of invasion?

On 4 August, the same day that the Joint War Plans Committee circulated a memorandum citing the much-larger-than-expected buildup on Kyushu and recommending examination of alternative invasion sites, intercepted messages confirmed that another new division was moving onto Kyushu-- the 351st. The intercepts also revealed that the 206th Division was moving from its position in the central area to the southern part of the island.

During the next few days the analysts would confirm that the 216th and 303rd divisions were at least in the process of deployment on Kyushu. The 303rd appeared headed for southern Kyushu. This would bring the number of divisions there to nine---three times what had been forecast for that area by invasion day. These deployments resulted in a hike of the Kyushu manpower estimate to 549,000. A short time later, when the full manpower of the 351st, 303rd, and 216th divisions was believed to be in place, the estimate would be raised to nearly 600,000.
Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/the-final-months-of-the-war-with-japan-signals-intelligence-u-s-invasion-planning-and-the-a-bomb-decision/csi9810001.html#rtoc6

They had practically no air or naval forces by June and US heavy bombers were free to bomb targets as they saw fit with no need for fighter escort.

You are arguing that a land invasion (based on the info US had available before May 1945) would cause great US casualties; I´m not at all arguing for or against this but merely that since US had total control of the airspace, they were free to bomb for months if they wanted. They did not need to drop the nukes...

Even though the US did have control of the airspace, they did not have control of the ground. To control the ground you need ground forces, along with air support to gain and hold territory. You cannot win a war with just air superiority alone. The Japanese military were prepared to fight a conventional war which would have caused hundreds of thousands of casualties when the US were forced to occupy each and every island. Therefore the dropping of the nukes was not necessarily a statement to the Japanese Military, but to the civilian government. This is because after the dropping of the bomb the imperial cabinet met and the military still wanted to fight on. The bombs served their purpose to put pressure on the civilian government to end the war when Emperor Hirohito said enough.

So essentially the firebombings failed where the atomic bombs succeeded, the unconditional surrender of the Japanese Empire.

Well, the Russians were not interested in the peace as they wanted part of Northern Japan (Sakhalin and Kuril) to gain more control of the Pacific. Might this be a reason for the speeded US bombings? That US wanted to get control over Japan before they made deals with the Russians?

It's a possibility and reasonable to conclude that. The Russians had always had an interest in Kuril since the Russo-Japanese war and the British and US never really trusted the Russians. Even before the war ended there was already signs of the cold war starting. If the Japanese surrendered to the US we would of helped rebuilt their country to foster goodwill to the Japanese and gain them as allies. Japan would be a big asset in the allied role because we would have an ally in the Cold War that is close to Russia and China. Even after the Cold War The US and Japan still enjoy each other as allies. Both countries have come a long way and learned a lot from each other since obliterating Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Again, this is based on info and assumptions pre May 1945.

Actually this information isn't based on assumptions pre May 1945. Even though I can't find the exact date General Marshall ordered General Hull to do an evaluation of atomic weapons in a tactical role in Operation Olympic, General Hull did telephone Colonel Seeman on August 13th (http://www.doug-long.com/marshall.htm). Since General Marshall believed that the two atomic weapons dropped on Japan would not bring the surrender of the empire it would be reasonable to say that General Marshall ordered General Hull to evaluate the use of atomic weapons in a tactical role sometime between August 9th and August 13th.

Despite the two bombs being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Marshall was going to use atomic weapons in a tactical role in Operation Downfall. So in that respect the historians presenting the idea that using atomic weapons was a bad idea is pretty much a moot issue because atomic weapons were going to be used regardless. The allies just happen to be lucky that the Japanese Empire surrendered when the US only used two atomic devices. It could of been a whole lot worse. One could only imagine the short-term and long-term causalities would be on both sides using up to a potential of nine atomic weapons on the Japanese home islands.

Historians don´t justify anything (or need to); thats the job of politicians :) Historians research and try to find relations in the different sides of the story.

Okay let's take the side of invasion. Let's say no atomic weapons were dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki because either they weren't ready or the military decided not to use them. Instead went to conventional bombing of the Japanese Islands. I am sure there will be historians who would be just as critical (if not more so) if the allies went forward with Operation Downfall. How would historians tell the relations and this side of the story with the following potential scenarios?

1. The allies suffered 750,000 casualties in Operation Downfall. This number is derived from the mid range of half a million to 1.5 million causalities that were projected in documentation at the time.

2. The morale of the troops and citizens at home suffers due the length of the war and the casualties suffered at Operation Downfall. Because of this the citizens want the war to end. This will put the US Government in a position to end the war with Japan with the conditional surrender that puts the empire in a favorable position. This happens despite the fact that the Japanese Empire attacked us at Pearl Harbor, Guam, and Wake Island, provoking World War II for the nation. It will put the U.S. in a place of weakness and will make us the laughing stock of the world because we could not get the Japanese Empire to surrender unconditionally even though Germany did.

3. Japan suffers long term radiological effects when the US used seven tactical nukes to take Kyushu. As a result of this the rebuilding of Japan takes longer due to the rebuilding crews coming down with radiation sickness. It is also of note that the allied ground forces who went in to a bombed area 48 hours after the dropping of atomic weapons died prematurely from leukemia and thyroid cancer, as well as other diseases related to radiation poisoning after the war ended. Some places are so heavily radiated that they are deemed unfit for human life.

Now I am sure that there would be more scenarios and of course this is all speculation but that's not the point. The point here is that something like this could of happened in the history of the US and if this happened, historians could of just as easily present this as a case to drop the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to force the empire to surrender unconditionally.

And I totally agree that US wanted to end it fast (and grab control of Japan before Russia) but that still does not justify nuking the two cities (or for that sake firebombing Hamburg, Dresden or Berlin, but targeting civilians was the way of the time). They had the option of running conventional strategical bombing for months more but they chose the faster option.

But there's nothing wrong with ending a war as fast as possible. In fact it is desirable that we don't fight long, drawn-out wars. It costs manpower and resources to wage war. Not to mention a drain on the morale of the soldiers and civilians at home.

With the bombings they didn't target civilians, well not intentionally. Targeted bombing really didn't exist all that much at that time. The only aircraft that was capable of targeted bombing was the dive bombers and most of them could only carry a single bomb. Even the V1 and V2 rockets the Germans lobbed over to Britain were really nothing more than dumb intercontinental ballistic missiles that dropped wherever their odometer said so. So the only way to really do damage to cities with military significance at that time was carpet bombing. But basically it boiled down to technology, specifically the lack thereof.

There is much more to this than just "avoiding 1.000.000 US casualties": the whole power-play between US and Russia, the science of weither a plutonium bomb would work, the propaganda/public oppinion (both in US to let the war go on and in Japan weither they should fight or not) not to mention the fact that US would officially show they were now "the most powerful nation" in the World.

The whole idea of the US to show that they are the most powerful nation in world by dropping the bombs is ludicrous I think. Many nations knew that the United States was a very powerful nation, if not the most powerful in the world, even though they didn't want to admit it (Brits were especially guilty of that). I think Admiral Yamamoto said it best when he called the US the "sleeping giant."

Now for the power play between the US and the Russians that is something the bombs could of played a role in. However I think this is an after-affect of dropping the bombs. The US wanted to get the war done and over with. That was their primary goal.

The science of the plutonium bomb does work. Fat man had a plutonium-239 core physics package that was based off the same package used by "gadget" in the Trinity test.

In the end though is we did drop the bombs and we will be damned for it regardless of the reasons, just as Japan was damned for China and Pearl, and Germany was damned for Poland. War has never been a pleasant business to conduct and really it should never be. If we make wars neat, clean, and tidy it will be easier to wage war and we'll never have debates like this.

[Nerd Fangs]

A 1944 opinion poll that asked what should be done with Japan found that 13% of the U.S. public were in favor of the extermination of all Japanese: men, women, and children.

[5.56 SS109]

My only regret is that we dropped only 2 bombs.

We should've melted every inch of Japan.

There were no "innocent" people that died in Japan. It was a total all out war, every Japanese citizen was a potential soldier and you can bet your ass that Japan would've used them if their current military was depleted.

Let's not forget that the "civilians" in Japan were helping the war effort by working in military plants building bombs and planes, and producing ammunition and weapons.

So, fuck them, they deserved it and a whole lot more.

[Vizier]

A nuclear war nowadays would be interesting to say the least.

[Morb]

It's the easiest thing in the world to say that the bombs dropped on Japan were horrible.

It's one of the harder things to say that those bombs were merciful. Those horrible bombs were far more compassionate than what would have happened without them.

[patton]

One aspect I often think about, yet never hear mentioned, in discussions of whether the bombs should have been dropped is the effect that the decision to drop the bombs had on later uses of nuclear weapons.

One has to wonder if the fact that the whole world got to see the sheer power and destructive capabilities of these weapons in a wartime scenario had any effect on the later arms race and cold war.

It's not something I've taken an awful lot of time to think about, and so I can't really elaborate on it more. I just have to wonder if maybe the fact that we dropped those bombs prevented nuclear weapons from being used in different scenarios with even more terrible consequences.

[THIS IS IMPORTANT GODDAMNIT]

Totally and completely justified.

Japan was not defeated militarily and was not beaten. Granted their military capacity was greatly diminished by June of 1945 but the fact of the matter is it was not defeated and broken. Consider the following assumptions from the Sutherland Notes of Operation Downfall, based on intelligence in early 1945:


Source: http://www.blackvault.com/documents/wwii/marine1/1239.pdf



While Japan´s leaders were trying to get negotiations going with the Russians about a potential peace, the Russians were not interested. Why? Well Stalin was bound by the Yalta and Tehran Agreements to declare war on Japan three months after Germany surrendered. Stalin honored the Yalta and Tehran agreements when Foreign Minister Molotov informed Ambassador Sato that the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8th 1945. After the declaration of war Russia went to work invading Japanese-held Manchuria.

If the US did drop the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki they were considering using nuclear bombs as a tactical weapon during Operation Olympic, the invasion of the island of Kyūshū (Operation Cornet was going to be the invasion of Honshū). This was on the belief that General Marshall had, even after the dropping of the two strategic bombs on Japan, the empire would not surrender. So Marshall ordered Major-General Hull to evaluate the use of the bombs as a tactical weapon. Colonel Seeman reported that seven atomic bombs would be available for use as a tactical weapons by the time Operation Olympic began. So that would of been a potential total of nine atomic weapons dropped on Japan after the invasion. So let's see here, two vs. nine. Yeah you do the math. Also, it was recommended that no US forces go into an area that would of been irradiated by a bomb after 48 hours of the bomb's denotation. So not only the risk of fallout illness would of been more severe for the Japanese it would of also affected allied forces as well because the effects of fallout radiation was not well understood.

I would love to see how the historians would justify the potential million to a million and a half projected military casualties in Operation Downfall. Seems to me that would be much more harder to do than the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan. The fact of the matter is the US wanted to end the war as quickly as possible not only to save lives, but also a prolonged out war as Operation Downfall demanded would of been a serious morale issue not only for the military forces, but for the US citizens as well.

Tactical nukes would be far less devastating than the strategic ones used on hiroshima/nagasaki.

The point of them being tactical is that they give the conventional forces an edge; that aint gonna happen if the entire island they're trying to get on is a nuclear wasteland.

Also, agree with the logic of your last post, but surely there was a more military dominated area that those bombs could'v fallen on, rather than a civillian city...

[Morb]

Let's not forget that Hitler was an inch from getting the bomb also. It was a race to end the war, and the war was going to end with an atomic blast no matter what. Luckily for all of us, Hitler didn't win the race.

[THIS IS IMPORTANT GODDAMNIT]

One aspect I often think about, yet never hear mentioned, in discussions of whether the bombs should have been dropped is the effect that the decision to drop the bombs had on later uses of nuclear weapons.

One has to wonder if the fact that the whole world got to see the sheer power and destructive capabilities of these weapons in a wartime scenario had any effect on the later arms race and cold war.

It's not something I've taken an awful lot of time to think about, and so I can't really elaborate on it more. I just have to wonder if maybe the fact that we dropped those bombs prevented nuclear weapons from being used in different scenarios with even more terrible consequences.

Very good point, I've wondered this as well.

But even still, surely the testing of nuclear weapons at home would make the respective super powers step back and go "shit, this is some serious shit, I definately don't wanna insight a war where these are raining on my country".

[patton]

But even still, surely the testing of nuclear weapons at home would make the respective super powers step back and go "shit, this is some serious shit, I definately don't wanna insight a war where these are raining on my country".

Well yeah I don't think anyone took nuclear weapons lightly at all. But still there's a difference between a test in the dessert in New Mexico, or on bikini atoll and a bomb being dropped in a war.

[Morb]

Very good point, I've wondered this as well.

But even still, surely the testing of nuclear weapons at home would make the respective super powers step back and go "shit, this is some serious shit, I definately don't wanna insight a war where these are raining on my country".

The Japanese had to get hit with two before they surrendered, but after that... yeah, nuclear weapons have prevented wars like WWII ever since. Humanity has been spared wars of that magnitude for going on 65 years now because of nukes. Interesting to think about.

[Duelist]

One aspect I often think about, yet never hear mentioned, in discussions of whether the bombs should have been dropped is the effect that the decision to drop the bombs had on later uses of nuclear weapons.
.


right. The USA had to assert itself as a leader at the beginning of the atomic age. SOMEONE was going to do it eventually. I think the logic was, lets end this war, lets prove to the world what we're capable of, lets control these weapons.


If the USA failed a military operation against the japanese homeland, who knows what the consequences could have been. The war could have dragged on forever.

As was stated by 5.56 the entire japanese archipelago would raise arms against us. A whole nation vs our boys, on their turf? I think we would see casualties on the scale of the eastern front (probably not as bad but very bloody) Why not seize the day with a multifaceted nuclear attack. It satisfies so many needs of the USA in 1945.

[patton]

right. The USA had to assert itself as a leader at the beginning of the atomic age. SOMEONE was going to do it eventually. I think the logic was, lets end this war, lets prove to the world what we're capable of, lets control these weapons.


If the USA failed a military operation against the japanese homeland, who knows what the consequences could have been. The war could have dragged on forever.

As was stated by 5.56 the entire japanese archipelago would raise arms against us. A whole nation vs our boys, on their turf? I think we would see casualties on the scale of the eastern front (probably not as bad but very bloody) Why not seize the day with a multifaceted nuclear attack. It satisfies so many needs of the USA in 1945.

Yeah I think now it's sorta like "okay, a nuke has been dropped in a war, we've gotten past that -- now let's try to avoid ever having to do it again."

As far the question of whether it was the "right" decision, I still have very mixed feelings. The japanese as a people absolutely did have the will to fight the Americans. The question of whether they had the capacity to do it effectively is a different question. Part of me thinks the best thing to do would have been to try and end it without the nuke. Maybe a week or two of heavy firebombing and bombing of military targets, and then a massive beachhead landing. If things didn't go well, I'm sure they could have used the nuke a month or two later. But then again what it may have been that really did the japs in was the fact that the Russians had just declared war on them -- so it was the combination of the nukes and the Russians. So I guess if we had waited, we'd have lost that one two punch.

[Morb]

Yeah I think now it's sorta like "okay, a nuke has been dropped in a war, we've gotten past that -- now let's try to avoid ever having to do it again."

As far the question of whether it was the "right" decision, I still have very mixed feelings. The japanese as a people absolutely did have the will to fight the Americans. The question of whether they had the capacity to do it effectively is a different question. Part of me thinks the best thing to do would have been to try and end it without the nuke. Maybe a week or two of heavy firebombing and bombing of military targets, and then a massive beachhead landing. If things didn't go well, I'm sure they could have used the nuke a month or two later. But then again what it may have been that really did the japs in was the fact that the Russians had just declared war on them -- so it was the combination of the nukes and the Russians. So I guess if we had waited, we'd have lost that one two punch.

Doing that would have killed a lot more people than the bombs did. The war needed to end when it did, to drag it further was unthinkable. The Japanese would not have surrendered from anything less, they would have fought literally to the last man.

[Auschwitz Nazi Disneyland]

Japan were a bunch of cunts in WWII. I don't understand why Germany gets so much stick and yet Japan gets glossed over. They deserved a few more.

[Morb]

Japan were a bunch of cunts in WWII. I don't understand why Germany gets so much stick and yet Japan gets glossed over. They deserved a few more.

I agree. The Japanese didn't have an evil grand scheme like the Nazis did, but in their own way they could be worse than the sickest SS Nazi sadist. There was no line, and I mean absolutely no line imaginable that the Japanese would not cross with relish (especially when it comes to what they did to the Chinese).

Those like Attila the Hun or Vlad the Impaler were amateurs compared to the Japanese when it came to pushing the envelope on what humans can do to each other.

[Yggdrasil]

Agreed, Morb. There's no more succinct a justification I can provide for the atrocities committed by both sides (the Allies and the Japanese) other than to reason, ''All's fair in love and war". The Japanese, if I may remind everyone, were the ones who threw down the gauntlet and declared an "It's on bitch" against the allied powers. The atrocities committed by the occupying Japanese were unspeakable, absolutely fucking unspeakable. Just look at the Rape of Nanjing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_nanking), where they systematically tortured, raped, beheaded and/or burned alive close to 300,000 Chinese civilians. Other actions by Japan were also pretty repugnant, such as the beheading of POWs.

An Aussie combatant about to be beheaded:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/85275-2/POW-BEHEADING
Pile of massacred Chinese children from Nanjing
http://www.someworthwhilequotes.com/images/graphics/murchildren1.jpg


So arguing that the use of the bomb was unethical can only come from warped thinking. The Japanese made it clear they were playing by no rules, and in the end, we chose to end the war with a no-rules, quick and clean surgical annihilation of two of their cities, which, in the end, was more than likely a far less bloody solution to the war than had we carried out Operation Downfall, which called for the ground invasion of the Japanese islands.

[Firemind]

I agree. The Japanese didn't have an evil grand scheme like the Nazis did, but in their own way they could be worse than the sickest SS Nazi sadist. There was no line, and I mean absolutely no line imaginable that the Japanese would not cross with relish (especially when it comes to what they did to the Chinese).

Those like Attila the Hun or Vlad the Impaler were amateurs compared to the Japanese when it came to pushing the envelope on what humans can do to each other.

Check out Joseph "Angel of Death" Mengele.

[Nightshade]

Tactical nukes would be far less devastating than the strategic ones used on hiroshima/nagasaki.

The point of them being tactical is that they give the conventional forces an edge; that aint gonna happen if the entire island they're trying to get on is a nuclear wasteland.

True and one would have to wonder how they would make the physics package smaller. Not only that but when they create the device they would have to install it on some type of bomb or rocket. I am going to say a smaller bomb because rocket technology was in its infancy at the end of the war. Perhaps they could get the physics package small enough to install it in a 2,000 pound bomb the Curtiss SB2C Helldivers used, since at that time precision bombing was limited to dive bombing and the Helldiver was the primary dive bomber aircraft in late WWII. If that was the case it would satisfy the tactical role of nuclear weapons quite well at that time.

Unfortunately there is no details that I could find on how General Marshall would get seven tactical atomic weapons, just that it would be delivered by the time Operation Olympic was underway. So you know, who knows. My scenario above is just my thinking of the best way they can use atomic weapons in a tactical role given the technology available at that time.

Also, agree with the logic of your last post, but surely there was a more military dominated area that those bombs could'v fallen on, rather than a civillian city...

Well unfortunately many military targets of significant strategic value are near or at large urban areas. There are very few cities that would be considered fully civilian. Some are obvious, such as military forts. Others not so. Many military strategists would consider dry docks and ship building docks targets of strategic importance for example. What it really boils down to is assessment, value, and priority when it comes to determining strategic targets.

Now with that said Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targets of unequal military value. Hiroshima was of very significant value as a military target. Japan's fifth division and 2nd army were headquartered there. They were responsible for the entire defense of southern Japan. Hiroshima was also considered a target of industrial significance as well. For those reasons Hiroshima was considered the primary target for the first mission.

Nagasaki was actually a alternate target in the second bombing run. The city of Kokura was the primary. The only thing Nagasaki had going for as a target of military value was its seaport and major industrial center. When Bockscar flew over Kokura the city was obscured by clouds enough to make a visual sighting of the target, as required by orders, impossible. They flew over Kokura a few times and conditions did not improve. So low on fuel they moved on to Nagasaki and well the rest is history.

[SnowmanJoe]

on behalf of my people fuck the japs. they're still not apologizing for their heinous crimes.
and they keep fuckin with us, thinkin that we're gonna blow their island into crumbs.
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Increased-Security-Reported-in-Beijing-Because-of-Expected-Protests-Over-Japan-Dispute-103132479.html
the yanks should've dropped a couple more nukes, just to be sure. i'm sure people could live without sushi or ps3s.

[Star Wars Fan]

no one mentioned this
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCgQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.doug-long.com%2Fquotes.htm&ei=gyzSTMTTLMnFnAechPwg&usg=AFQjCNECnjqkv3gvBWbmMsetnvy6RMPK9w&sig2=92EyiUDgqmFxi-yCIcZ7sQ

EDIT: looks like more right-wing propagands. sheese. Too bad Red Raven isn't her.....

In retrospect I don't think it was a great idea to drop the bombs. Perhaps if they were concentrated on Japan's naval fleets and slightly less dangerous then they would be a good idea.

Most of Japan's navy was taken out by that time in the war, their army units were more intact in China & whatnot. That could've been better...but the radiation afterwards wouldn't be good.

In my opinion it was a dick move to nuke Japan, simply for the fact that there was barely any warning.

Truman made that threat that if Japan doesn't surrender there would be "annihilation" or some shit that would happen - e.g. he referenced it. And Stalin and other people got those rumors flying around.

The same damage could have been accomplished with a few strategic smaller bombings and a blockade, plus there would be far fewer casualties.

The stupid thing is that is what the US -did- do to Japan and they still felt like testing new weapons on pristine cities was a good idea. Japan has been wanting peace ever since Midway & this entire aspect of the war could've been AVOIDED if the US did NOT piss off Japan & provoke it as they were by freezing assets, cutting off trade, etc. The US intentionally forced Japan into war as an excuse to get involved in the European theater of WWII

From another point of view, you have to admit how much Japan progressed after the bombings. Their economical and technological growth has been impressive since that happens.

Japan progressed before the bombings as well - that's how they became a world power in less than 100 years. Remember a century before WWII Japan was feudal and full of warlords fighting against the central government, as well as completely undeveloped. Look at Japan when Perry forced open trade vs. the Japan that beat up Russia in 1905.

So, no that isn't a good excuse either as Japan has a history of breakneck idnustrialization

I do agree that those nukings were pretty much overkill on America's part. It was so rushed, considering those were the 2nd and 3rd nuclear weapons to ever be detonated on the planet.

Those were also used as a method of intimidation on Stalin as well and to showcase the US willingness to massacre cities - though the US did that before over Germany & other Japanese cities.

This is true. I'd have to say that the use of nuclear weapons propelled many otherwise unprogressive states into a time of proactiveness. It even accelerated the U.S.

Given science fiction wrote about how nuclear weapons would be a gamechanger since the early 1900s (H.G. Wells wrote on that) i'd say the people had a good idea this was coming & what it meant (Heinlein wrote some non fiction on how that was a 'game changer' - he mentioned giving the atomic bombs to the new U.N. as a hypothetical way to avert nuclear standdown). The scientists didn't recognize it until it was tested in New Mexico because well, they were scientists & preoccupied with "does it work" and wanting to do this before Germany did it believing the USA would be the most morally righteous with this technology. Dear, Oppenheimer was pwned thinking that - as shown in this interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8H7Jibx-c0). And a bunch of the scientists both in the USA and USSR risked persecution in the 40s & 50s by working for peace with the other side & refusing to work any more on those weapons.

[Star Wars Fan]

It could of, who cares?

The people who got exterminated by instant sunshine, or the power of a thousand suns?

It ended the war.

Even though the Japanese wanted peace after the battle of Midway & were forced into war with the US due to american foreign policy intentionally designed to fuck over Japan's industries.



Fuck, the Japanese were making their own Atomic bomb & the only reason they didn't drop it on Pearl Harbour was because they hadn't made it yet.


I've looked that up, and actually no that is not true. The Japanese were not able to produce nuclear weapons and use them on pearl harbor. If they did, they would've used it at Midway or the Solomons or the Phillipines or somewhere where there was a massive US naval fleet at.

Hm. I remember my teacher saying that the firebombs were worse then the atomic bombs. Oh well.

They were. By sheer numbers. Some sources give that 6-700 thousand people died from the firebombing.

As for the bombs, it was a freaking war. We wanted it over, with us winning, so we did. End of story.

Even though the Japanese did not want war with the United States and wanted peace as soon as Midway, and the US simply refused to accept the conditions like keeping the Emperor intact due to State shintoism.....and the US kept the Emperor intact even though the surrender was "unconditional"....heh.

i think the nukes were really just the last nail in the coffin for them. they probably wanted to use the nukes anyway, since they had already won in europe

They simply used the nukes to test them and use them as political posturing. Oh, and the justify the money SPENT on the Manhattan Project which was fucking expensive for that time period.....

While their economy was collapsing, their factories had been destroyed, and their loosing the war was all but set in stone. The Japanese where not going to quit, without someone delivering a catastrophic blow.

Why did the Japanese keep asking for peace through the pacific theater of world war II and try all sorts of methods before entering war with the United States in the first place then? They were backed into a corner by the actions of other countries, and were doing the same thing other countries did at that time - yet the Japanese get dumped upon while the U.K. and France get off scot free for what they did.

The hard, brutal fact is that the death and destruction the world would have seen if those bombs had not been dropped would make Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like a footnote by comparison.

How do you know? Science fiction has LONG pointed that out, H.G.. Wells wrote on that DECADES ago on this being a "Time-changer".



maybe the japs should apologize for the rape of nan king of wake island the only

apology they need is that were sorry we didint turn tokyo into glass

Yes, and that's why the Japanese accepted the terms of surrender & made all those apologies for being caught up in the second world war...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan

what kind of hippie bullshit is this are you fucking insane the japs were fanatical to the last man they would of fought the us invasion force with everything they had the bomb saved the lives of millions of americans and japanese.

No, they weren't. The Japanese civilians were just like you and me. The difference is that their government go thijacked by militarists due to leftover trauma from Comodore Perry forcing open trade with Japan & the Japanese seeing what was happening to their prognitor civilization in China.

Totally and completely justified.

Japan was not defeated militarily and was not beaten. Granted their military capacity was greatly diminished by June of 1945 but the fact of the matter is it was not defeated and broken. Consider the following assumptions from the Sutherland Notes of Operation Downfall, based on intelligence in early 1945:

Then they could've let the Soviets walk all along into Manchuria, Korea and the rest of China then. Aka they could have NOT used nuclear weapons. The USA had no problems letting the Soviet Union do 80& of the fighting and dying in Europe against the European Axis powers & hid behind their manufacturing spam base in Europe for so long, why not in East Asia when the Soviets had an obligation?

<snip lists of the Allied invasion of Japan and its' casualty lists from war planning>

Even though the US could've kept the Tenno system (Emperor), whi was believed to be the descendant of the Sun goddess, Ameratsu. Seriously do you recognize how fucking important that system was in the state Shinto system set up? And before you diss this concept, remember that aspect of Shinto was relatively new - AFAIK Shinto was no made a state religion until the influence of Europeans brought that idea to them (same for a national anthem)

My only regret is that we dropped only 2 bombs.

We should've melted every inch of Japan.

There were no "innocent" people that died in Japan. It was a total all out war, every Japanese citizen was a potential soldier and you can bet your ass that Japan would've used them if their current military was depleted.

Let's not forget that the "civilians" in Japan were helping the war effort by working in military plants building bombs and planes, and producing ammunition and weapons.

So, fuck them, they deserved it and a whole lot more.

Let's have some fun with this.

My only regret is that we dropped only 2 bombs.

We should've melted every square inch of the United States

There were no "innocent" people that died in the USA. It was a total all out war, every American citizen was a potential soldier and you can bet your ass that the USA would've used them if their current military was depleted.

Let's not forget that the "civilians" in the United Stateswere helping the war effort by working in military plants building bombs and planes, and producing ammunition and weapons.

So, fuck them, they deserved it and a whole lot more.

yeah. that's the same logic McNamara used

*

* Why was it necessary to drop the nuclear bomb if LeMay was burning up Japan? And he went on from Tokyo to firebomb other cities. 58% of Yokohama. Yokohama is roughly the size of Cleveland. 58% of Cleveland destroyed. Tokyo is roughly the size of New York. 51% percent of New York destroyed. 99% of the equivalent of Chattanooga, which was Toyama. 40% of the equivalent of Los Angeles, which was Nagoya. This was all done before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which by the way was dropped by LeMay's command. Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve.

* LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War#Related_Quotes

YThe question of whether they had the capacity to do it effectively is a different question.

They had the capacity to resist, but they did not want to resist - they were forced by circumstance.

Japan were a bunch of cunts in WWII. I don't understand why Germany gets so much stick and yet Japan gets glossed over. They deserved a few more.
I agree. The Japanese didn't have an evil grand scheme like the Nazis did, but in their own way they could be worse than the sickest SS Nazi sadist. There was no line, and I mean absolutely no line imaginable that the Japanese would not cross with relish (especially when it comes to what they did to the Chinese).
Agreed, Morb. There's no more succinct a justification I can provide for the atrocities committed by both sides (the Allies and the Japanese) other than to reason, ''All's fair in love and war". The Japanese, if I may remind everyone, were the ones who threw down the gauntlet and declared an "It's on bitch" against the allied powers. The atrocities committed by the occupying Japanese were unspeakable, absolutely fucking unspeakable. Just look at the Rape of Nanjing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_nanking), where they systematically tortured, raped, beheaded and/or burned alive close to 300,000 Chinese civilians. Other actions by Japan were also pretty repugnant, such as the beheading of POWs

1. The reason Germany got shit for that was due to the white people considering the European theater being considered 'more important' than East Asia back then - the allies made a 'germany first' polcy - e.g. take out Germany first as it threatened the cores of the allied european empires. Japan was stealing european colonies & making new ones.
2. You're all "white" people from "western" countries & as such don't pay as much attention to affairs in East Asian nations - and I ASSURE YOU people bitch about world war II a LOT in East Asia. Especially over the Japanese in the Phillipines, Korea and China. (there's drama with 2ch & Baidu over this - internet wars and DDoS as example. Do you see western forums DDoSing & spamming each other over history?)
3. Western countries (I'm looking at you, UK, Spain, France & Belgium) got away with all sorts of fucked up shit - arguably more evil things given their longer times fucking over other countries - and yet they somehow don't have people saying that they deserved losing their colonies & being dissolved due to internal issues (e.g. Spain/Catolonia & The UK/Scotland). Care to point out the disparity in reactions? Oh wait they won. The Japanese did a lot of the SAME FUCKING SHIT to China that the western allies did yet they get the most dissing -e.g. before the second sino-japanese war a lot of those "Allies" were extoring China for unequal treaties/trying to preserve those unequal treaties.


So arguing that the use of the bomb was unethical can only come from warped thinking. The Japanese made it clear they were playing by no rules, and in the end, we chose to end the war with a no-rules, quick and clean surgical annihilation of two of their cities, which, in the end, was more than likely a far less bloody solution to the war than had we carried out Operation Downfall, which called for the ground invasion of the Japanese islands.

Even though the Japanese did -not- want war with the US in the first place, and was only placed into that situation due to the US response to Japan's actions in mainland China. Oh, and the Japanese wantign peace since Midway.

on behalf of my people fuck the japs. they're still not apologizing for their heinous crimes.

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

[Ebola]

The US intentionally forced Japan into war as an excuse to get involved in the European theater of WWII


^^ this!