Dropping atomic bomb was a right choice - Page 2


Read more about There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it was the correct decision at the time. (1) The Allies had fought a long and costly war against a very determined aggressor.


  International Military Forums > >
User Name
Password

 
June 25th, 2006   #11
LeEnfield
 
 
The Japanese may have been beaten but were they ready to surrender, the only idea of surrender was on their terms. The Allies had always insisted that there should be an unconditional surrender of the Axis forces as they did not want a replay of WW1, where the Germans surrendered and then claimed they had never been beaten and this helped to set of WW2. If the Allies had sent a landing force ashore I strongly believe that it would had met by force and the people would have died fighting, if you have any doubts about this just look at the way they killed them selfs by throwing them selfs of cliffs rather than fall into American hands once the Americans had started to take control of the Islands around Japan. The bomb brought the war to a quick end, and even though the casualties were quite high in those cities but they were nothing compared to the American fire raids on Tokyo. It is so easy for those who were not around at the time to be influenced by books and teachers who have there own point of view and also were not around when all this happened.


LeEnfield Rides again

 
June 25th, 2006   #12
Chief Bones
 
 
The philosophy of the Japanese people at the end of WWII was still essentially feudal with the Emperor being viewed as a God ... it was also a fact that the military was the basic driving force behind the stated plan to meet the enemy "at the shoreline' and fight to the death. The plan was to make the death toll for the allies so high that they would seek peace at any price. The aim of the allies was that they were NOT going to allow the Japanese to dictate peace terms ... complete capitulation was the ONLY end result America was willing to accept. WWIII wasn't going to be allowed to happen. Even though Japan had been on the receiving end of the fire bombing of Tokyo, the Japanese military leaders still believed that they could force peace on the allies on their terms.

There are those who would try to rewrite history ... after all ... history is written by the victors as was stated in another thread ... but ... reputable historians ALL believe that the decision to use the "new" weapon (atomic bomb), was the correct decision at the time ... nothing else could have broken the military hold on the political making decisions of the Japanese government at that time.

History viewed through the mist of time with the inherent ability of hindsight is sometimes 20/20 ... in this case that isn't possible. Even today (50+ years after the end of WWII), there are still remnants of the old-line Samurai living in Japan. Interviews with these "fossils" gives the uninformed an idea of just how deadly an amphibious attack of the mainland of Japan would have been. Even after 50+ years, their beliefs are still essentially the same as they were on VJ Day (peace treaty signed on this day).

THE DECISION TO DROP THE BOMB WAS THE CORRECT DECISION.
 
--
June 29th, 2006   #13
godofthunder9010
 
 
Whether or not the Japanese peasants were as fanatical as the military-hardliners would have become irrelevant very quickly. The other characteristic of the peasantry of Japan was the propensity to take what the Emperor and the ruling class told them to do as Gospel-truth and right (so to speak.) Japan's poor were not accustommed to thinking for themselves in the larger political scheme of things. It wouldn't have taken all that much for the Japanese military to whip them up into a terrified frenzy against the "American demons." Even after Japan surrendered, her people still had a lot of racist based hatred of Americans throughout their culture.


"It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too fond of it."
- General Robert E. Lee
Warning, critical pebkac error in the iD10t!! pebkac\wtflolurpwnzd\snafuroflmao.exe called iD10t, iD10t failed to respond!! System in danger!!

"It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. I am NOT a big man." -Chevy Chase
 
June 29th, 2006   #14
Chief Bones
 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Whether or not the Japanese peasants were as fanatical as the military-hardliners would have become irrelevant very quickly. The other characteristic of the peasantry of Japan was the propensity to take what the Emperor and the ruling class told them to do as Gospel-truth and right (so to speak.) Japan's poor were not accustommed to thinking for themselves in the larger political scheme of things. It wouldn't have taken all that much for the Japanese military to whip them up into a terrified frenzy against the "American demons." Even after Japan surrendered, her people still had a lot of racist based hatred of Americans throughout their culture.
Your comment about the peasant class is fairly well on-point ... you have to remember though that the Emperor was viewed as a God and ANY program which had his blessing was viewed as an edict from on high ... the blood bath at the shoreline of mainland Japan, would have been devastating both for the allied forces as well as the Japanese.

The passage of time has somewhat moderated the hatred of the "White Devils" ... but ... there is still a rather large segment of Japanese society that still don't like "Ugly Americans". Some of these feelings come across in their dealings with American businesses which wish to ply their trades within the borders of Japan. Some Americans call these actions protectionism ... what it really amounts to though are the true feelings of dislike of Americans surfacing within the business field.
 
June 29th, 2006   #15
AussieNick
 
I believe it was right for 2 reasons.
1. It prevented thousands of Allied casualties and the nearly certain destruction of mainland Japan.

2. It showed the world what nuclear weapons can do.... and although we have threatened each other with them since, nobody has got the moxy to use them.

Strategically it was correct as well, in the sense it targeted a critical vulnerability and therefore dislocated Japan's centre of gravity and brought around surrender.
 
July 19th, 2006   #16
filmmaker
 
 
one of reasons that most of people in eastern asia still loves America is because American helped them liberate their countries and gave them justice by dropping atomic bomb to Japan.For most of people in east asian countries, the light of explosion from atomic bomb was most beautiful thing in wwii because in their eyes two atomic bombs were the equivalence of the freedom and end of suffering.
these two atomic bombs were the price which japanese had to pay for their aggression.
 
July 19th, 2006   #17
bulldogg
 
 
That is a very beautifully written and powerful statement filmmaker.


"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental." - John Steinbeck
 
July 19th, 2006   #18
moving0target
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmmaker
one of reasons that most of people in eastern asia still loves America is because American helped them liberate their countries and gave them justice by dropping atomic bomb to Japan.For most of people in east asian countries, the light of explosion from atomic bomb was most beautiful thing in wwii because in their eyes two atomic bombs were the equivalence of the freedom and end of suffering.
these two atomic bombs were the price which japanese had to pay for their aggression.
I must say it's rather chilling to hear it put that way, but I cannot disagree either. Interesting to hear a difference perspective.
 
January 13th, 2007   #19
Gator
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullpup11
During World war Two, On August 6 and 9, 1945, the US dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. People were surprised about the injuries of the two cities but the decision was right.

If atomic bombs were not dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, victims of the Japanese army would have been increased. During the war Japan had a powerful army and captured Asia. The army tortured other countries’ armies, made cruel tests to “Maruta” who were Korean, Chinese or other countries’ victims, raped, pillaged, massacred an infinite number of other Asian peoples and committed lots of war crimes. For example, the Rape of Nanjing where the capital of China was during Sino-Japanese war, the Japanese army occupied the capital and in 6 weeks killed around 250,000 to 400,000 Chinese. The victims were more than two atomic bombs’ dead people.

The Japan government was not capitulating to the Allies even after Hiroshima was attacked by an atomic bomb. If they still wanted to fight and had not dropped atomic bombs, there would have been more dead or injured peoples and damages because the Soviet Union also wanted to participate in the battle. Japan would be socialist, poor and Korea also would not have independence.

A result of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world knew the danger of nuclear bombs. 140,000 people in Hiroshima directly died and after five years, another 60,000 people would die of effect of the bomb, in Nagasaki a total of 140,000 died within five years.

“The population of Hiroshima had reached a peak of over 380,000 earlier in the war but prior to the atomic bombing the population had steadily decreased because of a systematic evacuation ordered by the Japanese government. At the time of the attack the population was approximately 255,000. This figure is based on the registered population, used by the Japanese in computing ration quantities, and the estimates of additional workers and troops who were brought into the city may be highly accurate.”

After the attack in Hiroshima’s trace:
Hiroshima was burnt to Ashes; the building was the former Hiroshima prefecture Industrial promotion Hall, Where special products of Hiroshima were exhibited and various gatherings were held until the A-bomb was dropped. Since it was located just under the center, blast pressure was vertically exerted on the building and only the dome-shaped framework and part of the outer wall remained. It has come to be called “the A-bomb dome””

The population of Nagasaki:
“Another report issues a different residential number, speaking of Nagasaki’s population which dropped in one split-second from 422,000 to 383,000 thus 39,000 were killed and over 25,000 were injured.”

After the attack on Nagasaki’s trace:
“‘A Japanese report on the bombing characterized Nagasaki as “like a graveyard with not tombstone standing.””

Now some Japanese have not admitted their fault and have taught students like they were victims of World War Two, But they started the war, killed around 5,000,000 Korean and Chinese, did merciless war crimes and they closed their eyes to the real situation and wanted to fight. The US, dropped the atomic bombs on Japanese cities, it was the right decision for Japanese citizens and other nations.



1. http://www.answers.com/topic/atomic-bombings-of Hiroshima-and-nagasaki?methoud=22
2. http://www.gensuikins.org/english/photo.html
3. http://www.world-war-2.info/atomic-bomb/
The first device dropped on Japan.....


was a gun/silo type Uranium Bomb.

While the second device dropped....


Was a Plutonium Bomb.

I just have a thing about talking about both Bombs as if they were the same type of device. I'll also point out that we would have gotten more of the Japanese with the second device dropped if the Bomb had not missed its target by well over a mile.


http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/image.php?u=5496&type=sigpic&dateline=1336693617
INITIAL SUCCESS✫orTOTAL FAILURE
 
April 12th, 2007   #20
RVN67-68
 

Dropping the Atomic Bomb info


The correspondents in this thread have all made some good points on the end of WW II and the use of the atomic bomb. The unfortunate circumstances seem to be that even though the Japanese had lost any hope of victory the majority of them (the Japanese) did not know the true situation and the minority who did know chose not to accept the inevitable.

The possibilities that were at hand to avoid the use of nuclear weapons seem to have been:
  • Continued bombing—likely to have produced many more casualties on both sides
  • Naval blockade—possibility of mass starvation (already in progress) with little effect on the leadership. There was also the possibility of Soviet intervention with numerous post war political consequences (as has been pointed out by others in this thread).
  • Negotiated truce—not likely due to US views on the nature of warfare (Hanson, 2001).
  • Invasion of the home islands—high risk of massive casualties on both sides.
The risks inherent in any of the above solutions would include killing far more Japanese than the nuclear weapons (at that time) killed. This is not to say that 160,000 killed and many more injured civilians are a trivial matter. The need for decisive and devastating action seems to have sprung from the US requirement to convince the Japanese leadership that the war was going to end or Japan would cease to exist.

Keep in mind that by the summer of 1945, the US public was growing tired of the war. Life was beginning to return to normal in some sectors at home and public support was on the wane. The political effect of an invasion of the Japanese home islands would have been a disaster in the public eye. The war would probably have dragged on for at least another year to dramatically declining public support (sounds familiar).

The Japanese mindset (the government mindset) was still under the influence of the warlords. The Japanese centers of political power needed a serious wake up call. In addition to the above, the official US war effort was still going strong (despite the waning public interest). The generals had a new weapon and no doubt, a number of them wanted to use it.

The last comment was and is not a criticism of the US or Japan, it is simply a refection of my personal analysis. My thinking was influenced by an excellent work by Victor Davis Hanson, Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power, 2001 (see full citation below). Hanson does not specifically discuss the Atomic Bomb in his book, rather he reviews the western mind set on warfare versus the eastern mindset. The work compares and contrasts the western concept of total war (destroy the enemy’s ability to wage war) with the eastern concept of “drive out the enemy” and go home. I recommend the book as a good source work for understanding behavior in conflicts over the centuries.

Clearly (hopefully) the atomic or nuclear option is not on the table for any of today's world conflicts. Though I believe it was the single best option in 1945, I would not wish to see it brought out in today's world.


Hanson, V. (2001). Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of
Western Power. Doubleday, New York.

Last edited by RVN67-68; April 13th, 2007 at 12:10..
 



Tags
atomic, hiroshima, japanese, nagasaki, war

Similar Topics
This day in military history..
name two atomic bombers from the a bomb to now
Atomic bomb.
What If Iran Gets the Bomb? Good Analysis