Was there actually a need to drop the nukes on japan

twinytwo

Both Eisinhower and McAuthur said it was pointless and that japan had been been trying to surrender a week before they were dropped... but america had to flex its muscles against stalin........

Thoughts?

Latchy

The US had repeatedly asked Japan to surrender weeks before the dropping of the bomb and had rejected the idea .There was supposedly a last gasp effort by the Japanese to agree to some talks about surrendering but by then the decision to drop had being approved .It is estimated 1 million more US troops would have died , not to mention Jpanenese troops/civilians if the war against Japan had continued along conventional means .

Loomis

There is the more cynical argument that the US simply wanted to know exactly how much damage they would cause.

Latchy

Ending the war was as good excuse to testing the bomb as anything but in many peoples opinions to put mildly , morally wrong .It also sent out a warning to the other big power Russia, which in turn escalated into the arms race . .

twinytwo

personally i think there was no need to drop them.. japan was all but offically defeated no air force, no navy, army in bits. Granted now that the fire bombing of was it toyoko ?? killed more people than the nukes. The nazis were done for war crimes is the flash incineration of humans not to be considered a war crime??.... also why 2 not even the japanese would have taken two before surrendering. Lets face it it was the nly chance they would even get to test the bombs and get away with it.

BlaasForRafa

twinytwo wrote: »

personally i think there was no need to drop them.. japan was all but offically defeated no air force, no navy, army in bits. Granted now that the fire bombing of was it toyoko ?? killed more people than the nukes. The nazis were done for war crimes is the flash incineration of humans not to be considered a war crime??.... also why 2 not even the japanese would have taken two before surrendering. Lets face it it was the nly chance they would even get to test the bombs and get away with it.

Yes Tokyo was firebombed, also Kobe and Osaka I believe. The firebombings by all accounts were every bit as terrifying as a nuclear attack and resulted in enormouse casualties.

The fact though that one bomber per target could reduce a whole city to rubble rather than hundreds of bombers in a firebombing attack must have been a huge psychological shock to the japanese high command.

youcrazyjesus!

The nuclear bombs were quite literally the biggest terror attacks in history. It was the opinion of the vast majority of the American military opinion that dropping the bombs, or at least dropping them on a populated area like a city, was unnecessary. If they wanted to demonstrate their power they could have demonstrated them out at sea and warned the Japanese this terror was coming to their cities. Japanese surrender was all but imminent and this is the reason the bombs were dropped at that time, not to encourage it. There is not even a debate in my opinion when American military opinion agrees that it wasn't necessary.

dbar

The american public was getting fairly tired of war, (lots of bodybags coming home) there was a lot of pressure on the President to end it quickly. Remember, it took 2 bombs to convince them to surrender, if they were just about to surrender why didnt they do it after the first?
Even at that, there was a military coup to prevent the Emperor from broadcasting the surrender that thankfully didnt work.

Also they were looking at Germany, where the Nazis fought to the bitter end, and forced everyone to do the same even though the Army and civilian population wanted to surrender.
so imho the Japs were not going to surrender that easily.

Look at the bloody trail leading up to the bombings, the Yanks had well over 100 d-days in the Pacific every foot was paid for with a life.

The estimate of losses for invading Japan was massive, it was too much after 4 years of war.

You would have to place yourself in the Presidents shoes at the time, working with the information he had available to him.
At the end of the day, I think it came down to 'Us or them'

youcrazyjesus!

Look at the bloody trail leading up to the bombings, the Yanks had well over 100 d-days in the Pacific every foot was paid for with a life.

Incinerated civilians don't count but Americans soliders do?

You would have to place yourself in the Presidents shoes at the time, working with the information he had available to him.
At the end of the day, I think it came down to 'Us or them'[/quote]

The end of the war was imminent. I'm inclined to side with American military opinion on this which says dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. There is no justification for dropping it on a city.

97i9y3941

i think,the bomb also gave an awful aftermath to the catalist to the cold war itself,stalin succeded in getting the bomb in 1949,china was mad to get it too with the madman mao,they belive the nazis themselfs where close to actually getting the nuke bomb.

Mr. Presentable

No.
But it served a salutory lesson to the world thereafter.

sickpuppy

I think that there was an element of racism in the dropping of the bombs.
I dont think they would have been used in europe.
Of course the war in europe had ended at this time so we might never know.
America was war weary and the fanatical japanese even when faced with certain annialation would not lay down there arms Okinawa probably being the best example.With 50000 allied mostly usa casualtys and 12000 dead.
The death toll woul d have been higher on mainland japan not as high as 1million as one poster quoted.
American naval and airpower at this stage was almost uncontesed and the civilain casualties in such a densely populated would have been massive.

So you can save 10000s of your own men from getting slaughtured and show them Russians what you got stop where you are Joseph Stalin dont come anymore west in europe and you can get revenge for Pearl Harbour easy decison bombs away.
Not much sympathy for the japs after the way they treated the chinese mass killing mass raping nanking.
There forced death of many pows from torture starvation worked to death etc
this may have been the military but not many would care if the war ended so i think horrific and all as the effects are it was sthe right decison from an american point of view.

dbar

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Incinerated civilians don't count but Americans soliders do?

You would have to place yourself in the Presidents shoes at the time, working with the information he had available to him.
At the end of the day, I think it came down to 'Us or them'

The end of the war was imminent. I'm inclined to side with American military opinion on this which says dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. There is no justification for dropping it on a city.[/QUOTE]

I never said that, dont misquote me. I was trying to point out that it came down to loss of Japanese life or loss of American life, there was no third option.
How was the end of the war imminent? If anything the Yanks were gearing up for the invasion of Japan, most of the American Troops were getting ready for redeployment in the far East.
In any of the books I have read it never mentions that the American Military were not in favour of dropping the bomb, infact the Manhatten Project was so secret only the very closest to the President was aware of it.

twinytwo

dbar wrote: »

The american public was getting fairly tired of war, (lots of bodybags coming home) there was a lot of pressure on the President to end it quickly. Remember, it took 2 bombs to convince them to surrender, if they were just about to surrender why didnt they do it after the first?
Even at that, there was a military coup to prevent the Emperor from broadcasting the surrender that thankfully didnt work.

Also they were looking at Germany, where the Nazis fought to the bitter end, and forced everyone to do the same even though the Army and civilian population wanted to surrender.
so imho the Japs were not going to surrender that easily.

Look at the bloody trail leading up to the bombings, the Yanks had well over 100 d-days in the Pacific every foot was paid for with a life.

The estimate of losses for invading Japan was massive, it was too much after 4 years of war.



You would have to place yourself in the Presidents shoes at the time, working with the information he had available to him.
At the end of the day, I think it came down to 'Us or them'

There was no need to invade japan.. the armed forces were in tatters they had nothing left. They were defeted they just didnt know it yet. At least the japanese have some honour left

Frankiestylee

There's a very interesting documentary called "The Fog of War" and it pretty much asks the same question as this post.
Can't remember exact details, but a high ranking airforce officers was interviewed, told how they had decimated the Japanese with firebombing and there was no real point in bombing (nothing really left to bomb). Also said (with teary eyes) that he would have been tried as a war criminal if America had lost the war.
Very very honest and moving documentary, everyone with an interest should watch it.

Morlar

Frankiestylee wrote: »

There's a very interesting documentary called "The Fog of War" and it pretty much asks the same question as this post.
Can't remember exact details, but a high ranking airforce officers was interviewed, told how they had decimated the Japanese with firebombing and there was no real point in bombing (nothing really left to bomb). Also said (with teary eyes) that he would have been tried as a war criminal if America had lost the war.
Very very honest and moving documentary, everyone with an interest should watch it.

That was Robert McNamara - John F Kennedy's Defence Secretary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara
& the documentary is

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

The Cuban missile crisis and other nuclear close-calls make it well worth checking out. Also the Vietnam war background stuff is interesting too.

I think the arguments justifying dropping a-bombs on cities were (and are) that the Japaneese were unlikely to surrender. Without a surrender it would have boiled down to a fight to the death for every acre and the americans would have faced massive losses clearing up.

Towards the end the or the war americans and british came to some of the same conclusions that the germans had already reached about russian communism. I think a part of the reason why they did drop a-bombs on Japan was to flex their muscles for the benefit of russia in the knowledge that post-war things were not going to be easygoing.

marcsignal

sickpuppy wrote: »

I think that there was an element of racism in the dropping of the bombs.
I dont think they would have been used in europe.

+1

The Americans racial attitude towards the Japanese wasn't too far off the Nazis attitude towards the Jews imo.

Hookey

Its easy to make judgements in hindsight. The Americans had just fought on Iwo Jima, The Philippines and even worse, Okinawa where the Japanese fought pretty much to the last man. There was little doubt in American planner's minds at the time, that the mainland would be just as bad. In addition, all the peace overtures from Japan (and I do mean all), prior to, and even after Hiroshima, were utterly unrealistic, demanding retention of Japanese colonial power in Manchuko and Korea, the right to conduct their own internal war crimes trials without Allied interference, and of course the status of the Emporer was off-limits.

If you look at the behaviour of the American politicians and military at the time you can see that they hoped the Bombs would force the Japanese to surrender, but they were by no means certain in would happen, which is why they carried on firebomb raids even after the bombs, and planning for Operation Olympic (the invasion of Japan) continued unabated. Its also fairly clear that American politicians, in particular Truman (less than four months into the job)and Stimpson, didn't really appreciate what the Bombs would actually do; it was just regarded as a bigger and better weapon; the misgivings of some Manhatten Project scientists, particularly Leo Szilard, were lost on the politicians who by definition didn't understand the implications (certainly no-one really appreciated the effects of radiation).

With hindsight, we can see that the submarine blockade alone could damn near have finished off the Japanese, never mind XXI bomber group, and that probably all the Pacific invasions after the Marianas were unneccesary, but its ridiculous to think they Allies could have guessed any of that at the time. The Japanese weren't rational, and didn't take the rational route out of their predicament until after they'd lost 90% of their shipping, one third of their national wealth to air attack and a million Russians crossed the Manchurian border, and even then, most of the army wanted to continue the fight.

Most telling of all, repugnant as the bombs were, the Japanese would have lost far more than the numbers killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki if the bombs hadn't forced a surrender; every month they didn't surrender was costing them more than the 100,000 lives lost to each atom bomb.

the_syco

Bear in mind that Japan attacked the US, not the Germans. The US were happy to supply both sides with weapons, until it got attacked.

The US then attacked back, but as Hookey said; "the Japanese fought pretty much to the last man", and twinytwo mentions how "the japanese have some honour left", but seeing how the Japanese government made suicide falsely "honourable", you'd wonder how far they'd go?

So what better way to give the Japanese a shock than to use the new American weapon.

youcrazyjesus!

the_syco wrote: »

Bear in mind that Japan attacked the US, not the Germans. The US were happy to supply both sides with weapons, until it got attacked.

The US then attacked back, but as Hookey said; "the Japanese fought pretty much to the last man", and twinytwo mentions how "the japanese have some honour left", but seeing how the Japanese government made suicide falsely "honourable", you'd wonder how far they'd go?

So what better way to give the Japanese a shock than to use the new American weapon.

I love the way people ignore the bulk of American military opinion which says dropping the bomb was unneccessary. It was a terror attack, designed to inflict terror by incinerating tens of thousands ordinary citizens, it was militarily unnecessary but politically necessary, if your objective is empire that is.

But if it doesn't fit in your opinion continue ignoring it.

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."
- Dwight Eisenhower.


Others who disagreed included Douglas MacArthur and Nimitz.

Hookey

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

I love the way people ignore the bulk of American military opinion which says dropping the bomb was unneccessary. It was a terror attack, designed to inflict terror by incinerating tens of thousands ordinary citizens, it was militarily unnecessary but politically necessary, if your objective is empire that is.

But if it doesn't fit in your opinion continue ignoring it.

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."
- Dwight Eisenhower.


Others who disagreed included Douglas MacArthur and Nimitz.

All statements made after the fact to distance themselves from the decision. As for MacArthur and Nimitz; both were serving their own agendas (as was Curtis LeMay who also thought the bombs were unneccesary) not because they thought there was anything particularly morally wrong about atomic attack, but because they were pushing their own service's agendas. LeMay was convinced the firebombing alone was doing the job anyway, Nimitz felt the same way about the submarine blockade (and was almost certainly closest to being correct) and MacArthur had been pursuing his own vainglorious quest since 1942. The Pacific war was a massive turf war between the US Navy and the Army, each pushing its own agenda.

In reality it was the bombs that made the Emperor make a decision, where he'd singularly failed to do so with all the other forms of military action against him. If the emperor hadn't spoken out, the military would have carried on. Of course they would have lost, but at a far higher cost to the allies and the Japanese.

the_syco

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

But if it doesn't fit in your opinion continue ignoring it.

Where did I ignore it? As for the bomb being necessary, it neither was, nor was not necessary. It ensured a quick end.

Every island that they took from the island, they had to kill every last Japanese soldier, as they wouldn't surrender, and would fight to the last man. After the bombs had been dropped, the Americans found 25 rocket jet planes in their final stages: the Japanese had intended to fight to the bitter end. TAI found almost 12,000 combat planes hidden in Japan's hidden underground factories and airfields (beyond the American bombing range) after the war.

I admit that the US didn't know about these planes at the time, but if you have to kill every last soldier on an island to island basis, how do you think they would have thought a land invasion of Japan would have progressed?

=-=

Eisenhower made no secret of how he preferred to use tank warfare. I'd say Eisenhower would have thought tanks would be a better option to use against Japan.

Manic Moran

They may also have just been the contemporary versions of the Battleship Admirals, who were reluctant to hand over their position to some upstart group like the aviators. Why have a proper Navy when you can just fly over and drop an A-bomb on someone? There's a lot of politics integral to that level of the military. At any rate, there is absolutely no logic that I can see which states that as few American lives would have been lost in a conventional invasion and occupation as were lost by dropping two A-Bombs.

A further possibility would be that Russia had just launched its attack into Japan, which would absolutely have sealed the deal, but better to have Japan surrender before the Russians captured territory than afterwards. (There is also the argument that neither bomb forced Japan to surrender, it was the thought of all those Russians coming for them)

NTM

deadhead13

Perhaps dropping the 2 bombs in unpopulated areas of Japan could have had the same effect.

Joey the lips

Despite the loss of life all the history movies make you believe it was necessary. The thing is I think one would have been enough and I do think it necessary

One of the inventors of the bomb has written to the goverment asking them not to drop it, that not enough was understood about its effects

Caoimhín

I think there was an element of sabre rattling at Stalin. Its a very complicated matter really, i dont think it is a black and white issue.

youcrazyjesus!

Hookey wrote: »

All statements made after the fact to distance themselves from the decision. As for MacArthur and Nimitz; both were serving their own agendas (as was Curtis LeMay who also thought the bombs were unneccesary) not because they thought there was anything particularly morally wrong about atomic attack, but because they were pushing their own service's agendas. LeMay was convinced the firebombing alone was doing the job anyway, Nimitz felt the same way about the submarine blockade (and was almost certainly closest to being correct) and MacArthur had been pursuing his own vainglorious quest since 1942. The Pacific war was a massive turf war between the US Navy and the Army, each pushing its own agenda.

In reality it was the bombs that made the Emperor make a decision, where he'd singularly failed to do so with all the other forms of military action against him. If the emperor hadn't spoken out, the military would have carried on. Of course they would have lost, but at a far higher cost to the allies and the Japanese.

I always find accusing an individual or group of having an "agenda" is a very weak, piss poor in fact, argument. By virtue of being an individual or group, branch, organisation - you have an agenda. Ghandi and Jesus had agendas. That does say anything about their integrity, ULTERIOR motives for actions and statements and things like that.

The World at War is being shown on BBC on weekdays. Today's is on Japan. "A look at Japan's fight for survival in 1944, as the country was crippled by shortages of food, metals and fuel". The fact is Japan would have surrended anyway and many of the most senior military figures said it was not necessary to incinerate tens of thousands of civilians. Japanese surrender was inevitable, they did not have the resources to resist much longer and this was known. That's all there is to it imo.

Morlar

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Japanese surrender was inevitable, they did not have the resources to resist much longer and this was known. That's all there is to it imo.

You are not offering much to back that up. Ideologically they were not likely to surrender regardless of the realities & logistics of their situation.

Likewise Nazi Germany did not surrender until their capital/reichstag/leader etc fell.

If the same was applied to the Japaneese scenario american losses in the closing stages (in order to get Japan to the point where their leader was dead, capital fell etc) would have been incredibly high.

So from an american perspective the japaneese were not 'bound' to surrender anytime soon.

This is leaving aside the detail of how the 'surrender' would be manifested. Surrender can mean a lot of things depending on the strength of the sides - ie withdrawal & cessation of hostilities or dismantling its armed forces & reparation terms ?

I would agree with the poster who said that the americans should have dropped the bomb in an uninhabited area. And if that did not force a total surrender then drop one in an inhabited area. However right or wrong it was Japan were not about to surrender anytime soon and without forcing them to one way or another american losses would have been staggering.

Hookey

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

I always find accusing an individual or group of having an "agenda" is a very weak, piss poor in fact, argument. By virtue of being an individual or group, branch, organisation - you have an agenda. Ghandi and Jesus had agendas. That does say anything about their integrity, ULTERIOR motives for actions and statements and things like that.

The World at War is being shown on BBC on weekdays. Today's is on Japan. "A look at Japan's fight for survival in 1944, as the country was crippled by shortages of food, metals and fuel". The fact is Japan would have surrended anyway and many of the most senior military figures said it was not necessary to incinerate tens of thousands of civilians. Japanese surrender was inevitable, they did not have the resources to resist much longer and this was known. That's all there is to it imo.

No-one disputes that Japan would have eventually surrendered, the argument is when would they have surrendered? As I said in an earlier post, hindsight is a wonderful thing; its easy for us to see now that the Americans had effectively won by late 1944, but the Americans themselves couldn't know that; and events on Okinawa and Saipan made them extremely nervous about the Japanese fighting to the last man (and woman) as they did on those islands.

And anyway, all I was pointing out was that statements made by Macarthur etc about the need for the bomb have to be viewed in context; whether you like it or not; all those people did have "an agenda", and in the case of all them their agendas are a matter of record (read Max Hastings' excellent Nemesis for a good critique of this). In fact to take your example of Macarthur; he had absolutely no qualms about advocating the use of Nuclear weapons during the Korean War, which should make you seriously question any pontification on his part about the morality of nuking Japan!

cyrusdvirus

Casualty estimates for Operation Olympic were in excess of 1,000,000 American/Allied service men. As has been stated here, the Japanese had shown a willingness to fight to the last man, which they almost regarded of a divine right/expectation.

It is entirely possible that dropping the bomb actually saved lives. The idea of surrender was not something that entered the warrior culture of Japan of that era, and if they had fought to the last man, then the Japanese as a race of people COULD have been wiped out....

jimmmy

gatecrash wrote: »

Casualty estimates for Operation Olympic were in excess of 1,000,000 American/Allied service men. As has been stated here, the Japanese had shown a willingness to fight to the last man, which they almost regarded of a divine right/expectation.

It is entirely possible that dropping the bomb actually saved lives. The idea of surrender was not something that entered the warrior culture of Japan of that era, and if they had fought to the last man, then the Japanese as a race of people COULD have been wiped out....

True.

borisbullrunner

of course there was a need. 1. it was a test to see the awesome power of such a weapon. 2. the japs would never have surrendered unless their economy, and the home islands were compromised dramatically. and 3. the loss of life was japanese and not allied, which is the whole reason for it.

obviously the leaders of the free world weighed it up, and even if the a-bomb killed 1 hundred million japanese the americans still wouldve dropped it because it'd be better than the loss of a million more allied soldiers

Manic Moran

Today's is on Japan. "A look at Japan's fight for survival in 1944, as the country was crippled by shortages of food, metals and fuel".

What, kindof like the British in 1940/1941? Deprivation didn't make the British surrender, even if there was harsh rationing which continued for a few years after the war ended, and they went as far as to go back to building aircraft out of wood and not metal due to shortages.

To give an example of the expected casualties, The US military did not mint any new Purple Hearts for the rest of the century. They had stocked up so many to cover the expected casualties in the invasion of the Home Islands that they lasted all the way through Korea, Vietnam and there are still a tens of thousands in stock.

http://hnn.us/articles/1801.html