US bombing of Japan in WW2

silverharp

As someone who has a passive interest in WW2, I’ve watched a lot of documentaries over the years but had a thought the other day that I know next to nothing about the US bombing campaign over Japan. Any thoughts on why there doesn’t seem to be any accounts of this? compare to the allied bombing of Germany where I must have seen dozens of accounts from all perspectives. Does it come down to some guilt over the A-bombs or that all other related events pale in comarisson.

TerrorFirmer

The bombing campaign against Japan wasn't remotely as effective as it was against Germany. The campaign started relatively late as well, since the Japanese mainland was out of generally effective reach of the US until 1944, and didn't start becoming 'useful' in the context of producing noticable results until 1945.

Not very knowledgable in general in the Pacific theatre myself so it's something I could do with brushing up on. Here's a fairly well synopsized view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#United_States_strategic_bombing_of_Japan

Jfla

There are a few doumentarys on the bombing, One entitled 'The Enola Gay' I think. I personally think that they were right to bomb Japan. There was no sign of Japan surrendering, there world was tired of war and an invasion of Japan would have been more bloody for the americans than any battle that was seen in europe. Countless more Americans would have been killed. How would you feel after 6 years of war?

odonnell

Jfla wrote:

There are a few doumentarys on the bombing, One entitled 'The Enola Gay' I think. I personally think that they were right to bomb Japan. There was no sign of Japan surrendering, there world was tired of war and an invasion of Japan would have been more bloody for the americans than any battle that was seen in europe. Countless more Americans would have been killed. How would you feel after 6 years of war?

Whilst fairly rusty on my WWII pacific theatre history myself, i do know from forming this opinion years ago that i felt it was a wholly unrequired bombing in terms of ending the War. Japan were already on the verge of surrender and had very little resistance to offer - bombing their two major cities did little more than break the back of someone who is already crippled. There would have been no need to invade - Japan offered little or no threat outside its own waters at that time.

HOWEVER!!! - let me offer up this theory, as offered to me by older and wiser relatives, books and endless documentaries etc etc etc - i happen to be of the firm belief that the major concern at the end of WWII was not Japan or Germany - they were buckling, the tide had long since turned and they were on the backfoot. I believe attention was turning to Russia.... and by dropping those two bombs, the US and the rest of the allies i suppose to a certain degree, were infact demonstrating their power outwith the world war and sending a message. I dont think theres any coincidence that shortly after the war we have NATO and the beginning of the cold war...

Also remember the main focus of invading allied forces rummaging their way through Germany was to pick up as many scientists, technicians etc, and to confiscate as much military equipment and technology as they could! There are reports of groups of soldiers from US and Russian sides competing to get to specific scientists first for extraction!!!

Nah - the bombs couldnt have been to end the war - they were a statement in order to prevent the next one.

jmayo

Jfla wrote:

There are a few doumentarys on the bombing, One entitled 'The Enola Gay' I think. I personally think that they were right to bomb Japan. There was no sign of Japan surrendering, there world was tired of war and an invasion of Japan would have been more bloody for the americans than any battle that was seen in europe. Countless more Americans would have been killed. How would you feel after 6 years of war?

Actually the US was only at war since December 1941, unlike UK, Germany, France and USSR (yes they invaded Finland, Baltic states and Poland in 1939) who were at it since the start.

brianthebard

Odonnell with respect I don't believe Japan was anywhere near surrendering, kamikaze attacks show us how dedicated they were to the war. If anything the atom bombs served to increase the USSR's desire for nuclear weapons so that they could be on equal footing with the US again. I do think it was in some way at least a statement of the absolute power of the US at the same time though.

silverharp

HavoK wrote:

The bombing campaign against Japan wasn't remotely as effective as it was against Germany. The campaign started relatively late as well, since the Japanese mainland was out of generally effective reach of the US until 1944, and didn't start becoming 'useful' in the context of producing noticable results until 1945.

Not very knowledgable in general in the Pacific theatre myself so it's something I could do with brushing up on. Here's a fairly well synopsized view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#United_States_strategic_bombing_of_Japan

Were their bombers able to avoid flac or fligh higher then the japs? I never came across stories about pilots having to bail out etc?


Some of ye went off topic fairly quickly, I hope ye are better at answering the questions asked in exams ;-)

Jfla

jmayo wrote:

Actually the US was only at war since December 1941, unlike UK, Germany, France and USSR (yes they invaded Finland, Baltic states and Poland in 1939) who were at it since the start.

Obviously!

I thought that was taken for granted

Jfla

odonnell wrote:

Whilst fairly rusty on my WWII pacific theatre history myself, i do know from forming this opinion years ago that i felt it was a wholly unrequired bombing in terms of ending the War. Japan were already on the verge of surrender and had very little resistance to offer - bombing their two major cities did little more than break the back of someone who is already crippled. There would have been no need to invade - Japan offered little or no threat outside its own waters at that time.

HOWEVER!!! - let me offer up this theory, as offered to me by older and wiser relatives, books and endless documentaries etc etc etc - i happen to be of the firm belief that the major concern at the end of WWII was not Japan or Germany - they were buckling, the tide had long since turned and they were on the backfoot. I believe attention was turning to Russia.... and by dropping those two bombs, the US and the rest of the allies i suppose to a certain degree, were infact demonstrating their power outwith the world war and sending a message. I dont think theres any coincidence that shortly after the war we have NATO and the beginning of the cold war...

Also remember the main focus of invading allied forces rummaging their way through Germany was to pick up as many scientists, technicians etc, and to confiscate as much military equipment and technology as they could! There are reports of groups of soldiers from US and Russian sides competing to get to specific scientists first for extraction!!!

Nah - the bombs couldnt have been to end the war - they were a statement in order to prevent the next one.

I believe you have a point about the use of the A-bomb to make a point, but the Japonese were not going to surrender. There would have been a terrible man to man battle when the american's invaded. Iwojima on a grander scale!

odonnell

Jfla wrote:

I believe you have a point about the use of the A-bomb to make a point, but the Japonese were not going to surrender. There would have been a terrible man to man battle when the american's invaded. Iwojima on a grander scale!

Whilst i can understand the view that the Japanese werent on the verge of surrender - I cant help but to question whether there would really have been a real requirement for the invasion Japan? Im not being smart here im just asking the question - is there really a need to invade a country pinned back to its native territory?

jmayo

From March 1945 through to the end of the war, many Japanese cities were subjected to area bombing with incendiaries. A lot of Japanese cities were made up of low woooden structures which burnt easily.
Tokyo, Osaka, and many other cities were burned out by firestorms.
These bombings may have killed as many as 500,000 people.

Remember the Americans had the B-29 Superfortress at this stage.
Once Saipan fell the B29 was within range of Tokoyo.
Then once Iwo Jima and Okinawa fell they could easily operate over Japan.

Okinawa was a foretaste of what was to come, it and Iwo Jima were the first real Japanesse islands encountered.

On Okinawa, American losses are put at 72,000 casualties with over 12,000 dead.
Japanese losses were put at 66,000 killed and only 7,000 captured.
This not count the number of native civilians killed (over 100,000).

The losses involved in trying to take the mainland islands would have been huge on both sides.

So yes dropping the atom bomb was seen as a way of demostrating to Emperor and government that they could not win.
I know the Emperor was figurehead but the government still needed him to convince people to fight to the death.

The question is why dfid they drop the second, was it to prove the first was not just a one off capability?

humanji

It always seemed to me that the second bomb was partly revenge and partly posturing by the US. Granted, I wasn't there at the time, but that's just the way it seems.

As for the original question, I think that there's little about the bombings of Japan, because all focus is on the the A-bombs that were dropped. It's the same with many of the operations that happened during the war. They were just out shone by more impressive events that stick out more clearly.

brianthebard

odonnell wrote:

Whilst i can understand the view that the Japanese werent on the verge of surrender - I cant help but to question whether there would really have been a real requirement for the invasion Japan? Im not being smart here im just asking the question - is there really a need to invade a country pinned back to its native territory?

In WWII yes, they had let Germany surrender in WWI and in a sense that was as much a cause of WWII as any. Many, maybe most Germans believed they had never lost the war. November criminals etc. The level of involvement of the German people by 1918 was staggering, the concept of Total War, well Total. WWII was about crushing the opposition or facing the consequences yet again. A very do or die sort of environment. So the A bombs allowed the USA to crush Japan, yet without having to invade.

Domster

The question is why dfid they drop the second, was it to prove the first was not just a one off capability?

Hiroshima was bombed on August 6th. Two days later, on August 8th the Soviets began attacking the Japanese in Manchuria (Obviously wanting a piece of the pie). The day after, August 9th, Nagasaki was bombed.

Personally, I thought the second bomb was dropped to let the Russians know they weren't gonna be getting a piece of the pie.

The invasion of Japan was planned for November. I remember reading somewhere that a study was done after the war (take this with a pinch of salt, lol), that without the A-bombs and without the need for invasion, just plain 'ole Aerial bombardment, the Japanese would have had to surrender by November anyway. How true that is, I dunno, it's just a matter of opinion I s'pose. I'm sure all sorts of studies were done after the war that came out with all kinds of theories and conclusions.

Did they need to drop the A-bombs? As horrific as they were, I believe that there was a need for it, if only to stop the Soviets in their tracks. They were still a few years away from making one themselves but had already infiltrated the Manhattan Project since 1942 so were well on their way.

liamdubh

silverharp wrote:

As someone who has a passive interest in WW2, I’ve watched a lot of documentaries over the years but had a thought the other day that I know next to nothing about the US bombing campaign over Japan. Any thoughts on why there doesn’t seem to be any accounts of this? compare to the allied bombing of Germany where I must have seen dozens of accounts from all perspectives. Does it come down to some guilt over the A-bombs or that all other related events pale in comarisson.

The Americans were eager to launch the atomic bombs before Japan had a chance to surrender so it's not surprising that those attacks and other war crimes aren't discussed all that much. Japan realised the war was over at the time they were dropped, the only real question for them was how to bring the war to an end.

In my opinion America and her Allies had no choice. The deffo did the right thing.... Its a pitty they didnt drop one on Moscow.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

it's an interesting mindsight that views the incineration of thousands of innocent people as 'the right thing'

neccesary is debateable, unavoidable is debatable but the right thing.. that's just frightening.

Shutuplaura

God, i swore i wouldn't get invlved in another one of these discussions. However...
It was probably necessary to drop one of the bombs. The second was a demonstration to the Soviets to show them that they had more than one of these weapons available to use against them if required. If fairness to the yanks the decision wasn't taken lightly and they considered the cost to Japanese civilians as well as their own army. the battle for defense of Okinawa was very stubborn and was a taste of things to come on the mainland. It was costly for Japanese civilians and the Japanese army besides the americans. A massive invasion of Japan surely would have caused horrible numbers of deaths amung the japanese poputation as a whole besides turning Japan into a bigger mess.

Blockading Japan and letting it wither on the line was probably possible but would also have caused horrendus suffering to Japan. They were a net importer of food for one thing. So all in all the most humane way to deal with an enemy determined (seemingly - i don't know if the Japanese government was close to surrender - i doubt it was tbh, but the americans definately didn't know it either) to resist to the end was a quick end to the war.

Finally, as someone pointed out, a japan that hadn't been occuopied and made fully aware of how badly they lost the war would have been dangerous to world peace. As it is Japanese people look on the war very differently to say German people do. Its not seen as a national disgrace by the majority of people by any means, even after events like the rape of Nanking. China is constantly pissed off by Japans refusal to acknowledge their warcrimes. If Japan hadn't been occupied god knows what far eastern international relations would be like now.

The superfortresses were the only heavy bomber of the war to remain in operation for a significant time after 1945. They were the business, miles ahead of lancasters or flyiong fortresses which were becoming dated in 1945. They were pressurized , had sinchronized mechanized turrets, a nice jacks, bunks and the works. The Japanese air defenses were not to much of a problem - they were supposed to repressurise over japan in case the hull was damaged and sudden depressurisation occured but they never bothered because they know that probably wouldn't occur. Enola Gay went over on its own at daylight because they knew it would probably be okay.

liamdubh

Deleted User wrote:

In my opinion America and her Allies had no choice. The deffo did the right thing.... Its a pitty they didnt drop one on Moscow.

Soviet tanks would have been at the Atlantic by tea-time (a few weeks anyway).

liamdubh

Here's a question, why did Japan "have" to be occupied and made surrender unconditionally after the war? Why was that absolutely necessary? Answers on a postcard.

Japan was close to bringing the war to an end at the time the bombs were dropped. The Americans knew this and were actually worried about whether Japan would surrender before they dropped the bomb, not that they would incinerate civilians.

(This isn't "anti-American" by the way, the Soviets, Japanese, British, Germans would all have launched a nuclear bomb with glee if they had one, but the fact is it is the Americans who did drop it, completely unneccessarily)

odonnell

it was a joint effort though, and the development of the bomb and attack on japan werent solely carried out by americans - a lot of parties were involved in the lead-up. It was an allied mission, developed, planned and executed. (in the case of the US, the UK, Canada and their partners.... how much the soviets knew about it though - is another question)

just doing some further reading and i didnt realise this until now but there were several more bombs planned for throughout that august - 2 groups of 3 i believe. This being the case - it sort of negates the possibility of the Americans merely wishing to show they could do it more than once - because to drop two is just.... unnecessary - but 6 more!? Thats just brutality! What possible reason could there be for that!!!??

Shutuplaura

The Yanks had another bomb ready to drop in late august , three that could be ready for september and three for october as far as i know. If you are right then that would be horrific but I don't think its the case.

A section of the japanese government was for peace and sent out feelers through russia but there was another section around the emporer all for continuing to the bitter end. When the government finally responed to the allied call for immediate surrender in late july 1945 it was to say that they would never surrender but were ready to fight to the end. In response to this the A bomb was dropped days later. Surely the Japanese governments refusal to fact the facts could be blamed just as much as the americans desire to impress trhe world?

PHB

Here's a question, why did Japan "have" to be occupied and made surrender unconditionally after the war? Why was that absolutely necessary? Answers on a postcard.

For the same reason Germany had to. Their entire society had to be reformed, and it was. It's why Germany and Japan are now leading democracies in the world. It's because of their forced un-conditional surrender.

Ultimately, more were killed in most single bombing raids than were killed by the atomic bomb, and it was war. I wouldn't have asked them to stop their bombing campaigns anymore than I would have asked them not to use the nuke.

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

O'Leprosy

Deleted User wrote:

In my opinion America and her Allies had no choice. The deffo did the right thing.... Its a pitty they didnt drop one on Moscow.

I suppose this is just an assshole trolling, but this is a ridiculus statement. What purpose for humanity could dropping a nuclear bomb on millions of innocent Russians be for ? The dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan was a War Crime. I cannot understand how people could justify the murder of over 200.000 innocent civilians. The Americans could have dropped it on an offshore island to demonstrate to the Japanese they had it and the power of it. As fanatical as the Japanese government was, they would have capitulated to the US, and hence the terrible loss of 200,000 innocent lives could have been avoided. But I would agree with some of the comments regarding the US dropped the bomb to show the Soviets that they had it and would not hesitate to use it.

Shutuplaura

O'Leprosy wrote:

I suppose this is just an assshole trolling, but this is a ridiculus statement. What purpose for humanity could dropping a nuclear bomb on millions of innocent Russians be for ? The dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan was a War Crime. I cannot understand how people could justify the murder of over 200.000 innocent civilians. The Americans could have dropped it on an offshore island to demonstrate to the Japanese they had it and the power of it. As fanatical as the Japanese government was, they would have capitulated to the US, and hence the terrible loss of 200,000 innocent lives could have been avoided. But I would agree with some of the comments regarding the US dropped the bomb to show the Soviets that they had it and would not hesitate to use it.

I'd just ignore that pleasant person who I like so much... [Edited by PHB]
Regarding the bomb though, as far as I know noone was aware of the possibility of nuclear fallout at the time? They just thought they had a really, really powerful bomb. The yanks were also concerned that if they gave the Japanese a demonstration of its effect and it didn't work then the Japanese would think they were bluffing. Also, Germany had been boasting about spectacular revenge weapons that didn't amount to much really so I guess they thought the Japanese wouldn't believe them. As to whether any deliberate targetting of civilians through economic blockade or terror bombing is a warcrime, I really don't think I'd like to say because not everything is black and white - unless you are an absolute pacifist, which I'm not.

liamdubh

Shutuplaura wrote:

The yanks were also concerned that if they gave the Japanese a demonstration of its effect and it didn't work then the Japanese would think they were bluffing

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The whole point of a demonstration would be to PROVE that they weren't bluffing and they did in fact possess this weapon. They had detonated a bomb before they dropped one on Hiroshima. They knew it worked.

odonnell

O'Leprosy wrote:

I suppose this is just an assshole trolling, but this is a ridiculus statement. What purpose for humanity could dropping a nuclear bomb on millions of innocent Russians be for ? The dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan was a War Crime. I cannot understand how people could justify the murder of over 200.000 innocent civilians. The Americans could have dropped it on an offshore island to demonstrate to the Japanese they had it and the power of it. As fanatical as the Japanese government was, they would have capitulated to the US, and hence the terrible loss of 200,000 innocent lives could have been avoided. But I would agree with some of the comments regarding the US dropped the bomb to show the Soviets that they had it and would not hesitate to use it.

The thing about warcrimes though mate is that they subject to ciscumstance... what i mean to say is - take iraq, if we go and bomb the living hell out of baghdad - well.... we'd be the worst kind of people for sure - as frankly, since when has Iraq or those insurgents ever been a real threat to us in our daily lives? Same goes for Vietnam (willy peters and agent orange id say were verging on weapons of war crimes (indiscriminate with lingering after effects) as opposed to strategic weapons) - but in WWII - the world at war... could it not be construed as a case of do unto others as they would do unto you? First to die loses sort of thing.... I dont condone the use of nukes - the fact that they exist frightens me, and i would like to sorta 'roll-back' weapons technology to WWII levels just to be safe. However, i wouldnt necessarily say it was a war crime under the circumstances.

But then - an interesting angle on this: in the 'wild west' in the days of Billy the Kid - a fight only lasted as long as it took for someone to pull a gun and shoot the opposition. It was considered fair to kill your opponent by whatever means possible because you couldnt take the chance of them not fighting fair! He who fights fair, gets killed! Maybe that mentality rules the military decisions of the USA these days too!

brianthebard

liamdubh wrote:

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The whole point of a demonstration would be to PROVE that they weren't bluffing and they did in fact possess this weapon. They had detonated a bomb before they dropped one on Hiroshima. They knew it worked.

Yes but they only had two more. And given the tenacity of the Japanese forces that far into the war there was a strong fear that Japan would not surrender after the first or even second bomb then America would have no answer, save a full on invasion.

O'Leprosy

Shutuplaura wrote:

The yanks were also concerned that if they gave the Japanese a demonstration of its effect and it didn't work then the Japanese would think they were bluffing.

I have no intelligent response to that statement, so therefore I will insult you [Edited by PHB ]

liamdubh wrote:

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The whole point of a demonstration would be to PROVE that they weren't bluffing and they did in fact possess this weapon. They had detonated a bomb before they dropped one on Hiroshima. They knew it worked.

Exactly.

Shutuplaura wrote:

As to whether any deliberate targetting of civilians through economic blockade or terror bombing is a warcrime, I really don't think I'd like to say because not everything is black and white - unless you are an absolute pacifist, which I'm not

Jayus, your a real blood n' guts Rambo aren't you. For a country like this that suffered so much from imperial thuggery and mass murder, I would have thought an Irish person would instinctively question the injustice of conquering armies and feel some sympathy for the victims.

brianthebard

O'Leprosy wrote:

Jayus, your a real blood n' guts Rambo aren't you. For a country like this that suffered so much from imperial thuggery and mass murder, I would have thought an Irish person would instinctively question the injustice of conquering armies and feel some sympathy for the victims.

You what? Japan attacked America. It took over half the pacific. They were the conquering army during WWII. Jesus how do you come up with this ****?

O'Leprosy

brianthebard wrote:

You what? Japan attacked America. It took over half the pacific. They were the conquering army during WWII. Jesus how do you come up with this ****?

Pearl Harbour was a war crime, the rape of Nanking was a war crime, the abuse and deaths of thousands of Allied soldiers in capitivity by the Japanese was a war crime, etc. When I point out an injustice, do I have to qualify it by pointing out the injustice carried out by the other side everytime ?

brianthebard

That would be great, thanks. :rolleyes:

burnedfaceman

good thread, i dont think this has been mentioned here but there is a book which covers this topic in depth i would recommend it to all interested on topic, the decison to drop the atomic bomb by gar alperovitz

OS119

O'Leprosy wrote:

The Americans could have dropped it on an offshore island to demonstrate to the Japanese they had it and the power of it. As fanatical as the Japanese government was, they would have capitulated to the US, and hence the terrible loss of 200,000 innocent lives could have been avoided.

had the US dropped the weapon on an offshore island in a highly visable warning, as had been considered, the US believed the Japanese would of taken such a decision as proof that the US hadn't the will to invade the mainlands, and as such wouldn't of demonstrated anything but weakness. to drop yet another weapon in the same circumstances would of proved even greater weakness.

this seems bizaare to people who understand how far and hard the US had fought across the Pacific theatre to get to Japan, but there were some seriously deluded people in the Japanese government.

given the casualties on Okinowa - 200,000 dead Japanese alone - including one third of the civilian population, its not surprising that the US extrapolated that data, overlayed it on to Japan 'proper' and said 'fcuk that'.

given that the US was going to utterly destroy Japan, utterly dominate it, as the most fundamental of its war aims, using the two weapons on real targets in quick sucession - with the publicly declared intention to just keep up with the bombing until Japan either surrendered unconditionally or ceased to exist - certainly killed far fewer Japanese civilians than the inevitable invasion and land battles on the Japanese mainland.

10 atomic bombs each killing 90,000 would still of - as believed by the US after their experience on Okinowa - killed less than an invasion.

hard, nasty, but still true.

liamdubh

brianthebard wrote:

Yes but they only had two more.

They were unable to build any more bombs ever? And you're wrong, they had more and the capability to build more.

And given the tenacity of the Japanese forces that far into the war there was a strong fear that Japan would not surrender after the first or even second bomb then America would have no answer, save a full on invasion.

Can you be any more vague? "Strong fear", "feeling", "expectation"....who, what, when where?

The fact is the Japanese were at the point of surrendering at that time, possibly only days from doing so. They were almost defenseless against mass bombing raids which had been going on for months by the time the Americans had dropped the atomic bomb. There was a fanatical fight-to-the-last-man wing to the Japanese establishment but there were other factions and a lot of pragmatists in the Japanese government. The Americans knew this. The real "fear" was Japan would surrender before they could drop the bomb. The fact is, the purpose of the bomb was not to bring the war to an end (it was over bar the surrender) but to demonstrate American power to the world before the war was over. As pure an example of mass terrorism as you're ever likely to get.

The plan to invade existed alright, as did casualty estimates of millions dying, but atomic bomb or no atomic bomb Japan was going to surrender and no invasion would have been necessary. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

liamdubh

PHB wrote:

For the same reason Germany had to. Their entire society had to be reformed, and it was. It's why Germany and Japan are now leading democracies in the world. It's because of their forced un-conditional surrender.

Ultimately, more were killed in most single bombing raids than were killed by the atomic bomb, and it was war. I wouldn't have asked them to stop their bombing campaigns anymore than I would have asked them not to use the nuke.

The only reason Japan "had to" surrender unconditionally is because it was a condition imposed by the Allies. That's the only reason. Anything else is a subjective moral judgement. I actually agree in Germany's case that it was necessary.

brianthebard

liamdubh wrote:

The only reason Japan "had to" surrender unconditionally is because it was a condition imposed by the Allies. That's the only reason. Anything else is a subjective moral judgement. I actually agree in Germany's case that it was necessary.

Why do you agree in terms of Germany's surrender but not Japan's? if anything the Japanese people were even more dedicated to their Emperor and the war than the German people.

PHB

The only reason Japan "had to" surrender unconditionally is because it was a condition imposed by the Allies. That's the only reason. Anything else is a subjective moral judgement. I actually agree in Germany's case that it was necessary.

Well everything is subjective. But my point is that unconditional surrender was required in order for the US tot take over Japan for the next 15-20 years.

Shutuplaura

O'Leprosy wrote:

I have no intelligent response to that statement, so therefore I will insult you [Edited by PHB ]



Exactly.


Jayus, your a real blood n' guts Rambo aren't you. For a country like this that suffered so much from imperial thuggery and mass murder, I would have thought an Irish person would instinctively question the injustice of conquering armies and feel some sympathy for the victims.

Yeah, I'm a real blood and guts rambo.

I figure its more realistic to blame the Japanese government of the time for forcing the americans hands on the matter. As for the bomb not working - It makes sense to me - a detonation from the air hadn't been attempted before and it has never been tried in combat. It was also only the second nuclear detonation ever wasn't it. If it hadn't worked perfectly - The americans would have been left looking stupid, and their claims to have a secret weapon left looking a lot like the Germans with their V weapons. Also, telling the japanese they are going to drop it on an offshore island. We will be sending one plane accross to bomb an offshore island on X date at y time. Please don't shoot it down as its carrying something important to show you. Come on! Maybe they could have asked the Japanese government to suggest a suitably barren island to ensure no innocent goats got nuked.

War is bloody murder and don't think I'm some sort of old glory waving twat just becasue I say its not all black and white. How was nuking japan worse than targeting its population by sending almost their entire merchant fllet to the bottom. Given that the Japanese were a net importer of food it was a pretty rough thing to do. How were the Yanks going to win the war without restricting the Japanese merchant fleets ability to supply its armies. How would this lengthing of the war have helped Javanese slave labourers being worked to death all over the greater east asia co prosperity sphere. It surprises me that you don't have more sympathy for poor suffering starving peoples in asia given the Irish spud famine's terrible effect on the irish people. Actually - an island race, sea empire, monarchy, great naval tradition, drink a lot of tea... hey now that you mention it the japanese look a lot like another country not a million miles away that you seem to love having a hammer at.

The war had closed down international trade around the most densly populated areas of the world. Hardly the Yanks fault in fairness. People were starving to death at a rate of something like 200,000 a month by the summer of 1945 (according to wikipedia). Thinking about it - ending a war quickly by dropping a nuke - after asking them to surrender to avoid further loos of life was definately the best of a bad lot.

O'Leprosy

Shutuplaura wrote:

Yeah, I'm a real blood and guts rambo.

I figure its more realistic to blame the Japanese government of the time for forcing the americans hands on the matter. As for the bomb not working - It makes sense to me - a detonation from the air hadn't been attempted before and it has never been tried in combat. It was also only the second nuclear detonation ever wasn't it. If it hadn't worked perfectly - The americans would have been left looking stupid, and their claims to have a secret weapon left looking a lot like the Germans with their V weapons.

I would have thought that if their was a high risk of it not detonating the US would have tried exploding it on a remote offshore island first, rather than dropping it on an urban area where it could be easily salvaged, and examined, copied by the Japanese if it failed to go off ? Surely it would have been better to " look stupid" by taking the risk of dropping it from a plane on an offshore island and would have been worth the risk at saving the lives of 200,000 innocent people ? Other people have posted that they were capabale of producing more atomic bombs in the weeks and months following, surely so many lives could have been spared.

Shutuplaura wrote:

Also, telling the japanese they are going to drop it on an offshore island. We will be sending one plane accross to bomb an offshore island on X date at y time. Please don't shoot it down as its carrying something important to show you. Come on! Maybe they could have asked the Japanese government to suggest a suitably barren island to ensure no innocent goats got nuked.

Where did I state the US should have told the Japanese govt. where they were going to drop it on ?

Shutuplaura wrote:

War is bloody murder and don't think I'm some sort of old glory waving twat just becasue I say its not all black and white. How was nuking japan worse than targeting its population by sending almost their entire merchant fllet to the bottom. Given that the Japanese were a net importer of food it was a pretty rough thing to do. How were the Yanks going to win the war without restricting the Japanese merchant fleets ability to supply its armies. How would this lengthing of the war have helped Javanese slave labourers being worked to death all over the greater east asia co prosperity sphere. It surprises me that you don't have more sympathy for poor suffering starving peoples in asia given the Irish spud famine's terrible effect on the irish people. Actually - an island race, sea empire, monarchy, great naval tradition, drink a lot of tea... hey now that you mention it the japanese look a lot like another country not a million miles away that you seem to love having a hammer at.

The war had closed down international trade around the most densly populated areas of the world. Hardly the Yanks fault in fairness. People were starving to death at a rate of something like 200,000 a month by the summer of 1945 (according to wikipedia). Thinking about it - ending a war quickly by dropping a nuke - after asking them to surrender to avoid further loos of life was definately the best of a bad lot.

Probably the dropping of the atomic bomb to releif the starving millions in Asia would have been the last thing on the mind of the military decision makers. Don't try to make out that it was. " It surprises me that you don't have more sympathy for poor suffering starving peoples in asia ". Don't know how I indicated that I didn't have sympathy for starving people in Asia. You just draw your own conclusions anyway.

brianthebard

O'Leprosy wrote:

I would have thought that if their was a high risk of it not detonating the US would have tried exploding it on a remote offshore island first, rather than dropping it on an urban area where it could be easily salvaged, and examined, copied by the Japanese if it failed to go off ? Surely it would have been better to " look stupid" by taking the risk of dropping it from a plane on an offshore island and would have been worth the risk at saving the lives of 200,000 innocent people ? Other people have posted that they were capabale of producing more atomic bombs in the weeks and months following, surely so many lives could have been spared.

Its a nuke, not a bullet. There's no way they could have copied it within a year, at the very least. Look how long the Nazi's spent fruitlessly trying to build a similar bomb. Someone claimed they were capable of building another one, but I don't believe they were. I'll have to look for an article to back that up, but I think the length of time it took to build them and the fact that they hadn't built, say three, instead of two, is a pretty strong indicator that America did not have the capacity to produce another atom bomb within six months, never mind a month.
Edit: I'll continue to look for an article that properly outlines this event, but for now we know that the Manhattan project, which was dedicated to figuring out how to create atomic weapons, began in 1939 and it was only in 1945 that they had managed to build two bombs. It took the USSR years to build a atom bomb, even after they stole the plans from the US and basically built an exact replica. There is no way that Japan could've recovered an undetonated bomb and build another one in any sort of useful time.

Where did I state the US should have told the Japanese govt. where they were going to drop it on ?

So you just drop a bomb and hope they'll care? How will they know what it was? How will they know that it wasn't just a fancy lights show?

Shutuplaura

O'Leprosy wrote:

I would have thought that if their was a high risk of it not detonating the US would have tried exploding it on a remote offshore island first, rather than dropping it on an urban area where it could be easily salvaged, and examined, copied by the Japanese if it failed to go off ? Surely it would have been better to " look stupid" by taking the risk of dropping it from a plane on an offshore island and would have been worth the risk at saving the lives of 200,000 innocent people ? Other people have posted that they were capabale of producing more atomic bombs in the weeks and months following, surely so many lives could have been spared.

Where did I state the US should have told the Japanese govt. where they were going to drop it on ?

Probably the dropping of the atomic bomb to releif the starving millions in Asia would have been the last thing on the mind of the military decision makers. Don't try to make out that it was. " It surprises me that you don't have more sympathy for poor suffering starving peoples in asia ". Don't know how I indicated that I didn't have sympathy for starving people in Asia. You just draw your own conclusions anyway.

So You really really think that the american government should have picked an uninhabited island off the coast of japan, secretly bombed it and then told the japanese government that if they didn't watch out they would be next? God, what if the Japanese said, "err, no we are too busy with something else to check on some remote far away lump of rock at the moment."? And as for the Japanese cloning the nuke, I am pretty sure that this was beyond them in 1945, even if they knew what this thing that landed on them was.

And as for the americans not wanting to end the war to stop famine in asia, I admit it probably wasn't number 1 on their list but how can you say it wasn't one of a number of considerations?

And about your lack of sympathy - well tbh it was made on the back of your comments about my supposed lack of sympahy for the Japanese killed but it also does seem like you are more interested in bashing the yanks than considering the facts. It is more fun than bashing the Japanese I suppose. Sorry if you think I'm drawing my own conclusions - its something you are very fond of in fairness.

O'Leprosy

brianthebard and Shutuplaura - Yeah, ok.

patto_chan

Book suggestion:
The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes

spooiirt!!

Ive read a japanese book which explained that the entire japanese population would have fought against the invaders - old men, women, wounded etc. In the book the female narrator described the old man next door cutting bamboos which were to be used as weapons against the usa.
they would all have died before they surrendered. After the bombs were dropped the emperor addressed his people by radio that they were not to fight till the death after all, Bbecause he saw that the americans didnt have to bother invading japan, they could just wipe the whole country out with nuclear weapons if japan didnt surrender.
I think it was right to drop the bombs.

O'Leprosy

spooiirt!! wrote:

Ive read a japanese book which explained that the entire japanese population would have fought against the invaders - old men, women, wounded etc. In the book the female narrator described the old man next door cutting bamboos which were to be used as weapons against the usa.
they would all have died before they surrendered. After the bombs were dropped the emperor addressed his people by radio that they were not to fight till the death after all, Bbecause he saw that the americans didnt have to bother invading japan, they could just wipe the whole country out with nuclear weapons if japan didnt surrender.
I think it was right to drop the bombs.

And what about baby eating as well, you forgot that one :rolleyes:

Erin Go Brath

spooiirt!! wrote:

Ive read a japanese book which explained that the entire japanese population would have fought against the invaders - old men, women, wounded etc. In the book the female narrator described the old man next door cutting bamboos which were to be used as weapons against the usa.
they would all have died before they surrendered. After the bombs were dropped the emperor addressed his people by radio that they were not to fight till the death after all, Bbecause he saw that the americans didnt have to bother invading japan, they could just wipe the whole country out with nuclear weapons if japan didnt surrender.
I think it was right to drop the bombs.

You can't surely be condoning the dropping of A-bombs in an urban area killing tens of thousands of people?? Does life not mean anything anymore?? The Americans, along with the British are one of the most despised nations in the world because of their disgraceful history of mass killing acts.

spooiirt!!

Whereas fighting the japanese population till they die because they cant bear the idea of the great japanese empire surrendering is sooo much more humane eh?

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

The Americans, along with the British are one of the most despised nations in the world because of their disgraceful history of mass killing acts.

any excuse :rolleyes:

Victor

O'Leprosy wrote:

Pearl Harbour was a war crime

Only insofaras it was agression.