Hiroshima & Nagasaki

Great Debates
41

chowder:

That would’ve been a hypothetical, though. My cites believe Japan would’ve surrendered before that anyway, a-bombing or no.

Also, I’m not aware of any plans for an invasion of the United States by Japan or Germany. If Midway had gone their way I believe Japan would have invaded Hawaii and patrolled/attacked the Western coast of the U.S., probably also dipping down to destroy the Panama Canal. If the Axis were going to somehow invade the U.S. it would have been far into the future. They would have to consolidate and maybe take South America first. Somehow I think Germany would’ve attacked Japan before that, but then we’re getting into pretty weird territory, although certainly interesting counterfactual history.

42

What I’ve always wondered-suppose we decided not to drop the bomb on a city, but instead, give a “demonstration”. We drop the "fat Man: bomb 10 miles out at sea, from Tokyo. We give advance notice, so everybody is looking-and now, thousands of japanese are BLINDED by the blast-would be be condemned for this as well? If the Imperial General Staff, and the Emperor actually saw this thing blow up, would they have been persued to surrender?

43

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I think you have to consider other factors also. The Japanese had been sending suicide missions to destroy the navel forces of the U.S. These missions were successful, a lot of ships were damaged and destroyed. One of the landings were put in such danger by the Japanese planes that it was almost called off. So the U.S. feared a landing on the Japanese mainland would have resulted in staggering deaths. I think their were right, after the war it was determined that Japan had over 5000 of these suicide planes in reserve for the landings. The atomic bomb was a sad but necessary choice.
[/QUOTE]

Here is a section of the wiki article.

Cite

So, bad, but hardly enough to have stopped or even slowed down an invasion. Most of the ships destroyed were small ones, which reduced the impact.

44

[QUOTE=marshmallow]
chowder:

That would’ve been a hypothetical, though. My cites believe Japan would’ve surrendered before that anyway, a-bombing or no.

Also, I’m not aware of any plans for an invasion of the United States by Japan or Germany. If Midway had gone their way I believe Japan would have invaded Hawaii and patrolled/attacked the Western coast of the U.S., probably also dipping down to destroy the Panama Canal. If the Axis were going to somehow invade the U.S. it would have been far into the future. They would have to consolidate and maybe take South America first. Somehow I think Germany would’ve attacked Japan before that, but then we’re getting into pretty weird territory, although certainly interesting counterfactual history.
[/QUOTE]

With hindsight I guess you’re right about certain things.

Time to re-read Harry Turtledove :stuck_out_tongue:

45

[QUOTE=ralph124c]
What I’ve always wondered-suppose we decided not to drop the bomb on a city, but instead, give a “demonstration”. We drop the "fat Man: bomb 10 miles out at sea, from Tokyo. We give advance notice, so everybody is looking-and now, thousands of japanese are BLINDED by the blast-would be be condemned for this as well? If the Imperial General Staff, and the Emperor actually saw this thing blow up, would they have been persued to surrender?
[/QUOTE]

No. The previous mass devastation didn’t. Why would one large bomb do the job?

People these days really don’t seem to understand that there’s nothing special abut a nuclear weapon. It’s a really big, powerful, indiscriminate one. That’s it. Nothing more or less.

46

[QUOTE=chowder]
Your closing paragraph.

It’s extremely doubtful if the American people would have allowed 40 million Japanese to starve to death.

Americans may have hated the Japanese for what they did at Pearl Harbor but to let 40,000,000 starve is not in the American psyche
[/QUOTE]

Nice to think, but they would have starved out of our sight. I doubt the Japanese would have sent pictures, and there was no live TV. Second, American opinion might well have been that to stop the starvation, all they had to do was surrender. Third, the Japanese were demonized enough - who was going to lead a humanitarian movement to let them escape the consequences of their actions? FDR had made unconditional surrender the very basis of ending the war. There was plenty of scope for humanitarian assistance in Europe, both in the former occupied countries and in Germany.

Without going into details of Iraq, sanctions before GW II certainly caused some people to die, in a country we were not at war with and which was no threat to us.

47

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
No. The previous mass devastation didn’t. Why would one large bomb do the job?

People these days really don’t seem to understand that there’s nothing special abut a nuclear weapon. It’s a really big, powerful, indiscriminate one. That’s it. Nothing more or less.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, I don’t think that’s true at all.
Not only do nukes cause damage FAR away from their intended target (potentially many hundreds of miles), but they also kill a large percentage of their victims in a very painful slow manner, unlike most conventional weapons.

48

[QUOTE=beowulff]
Oh, I don’t think that’s true at all.
Not only do nukes cause damage FAR away from their intended target (potentially many hundreds of miles), but they also kill a large percentage of their victims in a very painful slow manner, unlike most conventional weapons.
[/QUOTE]

They also leave parts of the target radioactive which prevents rebuilding.

49

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
No. The previous mass devastation didn’t. Why would one large bomb do the job?

People these days really don’t seem to understand that there’s nothing special abut a nuclear weapon. It’s a really big, powerful, indiscriminate one. That’s it. Nothing more or less.
[/QUOTE]

How old are you? I ask because today we are used to them, but then nuclear weapons were considered very, very different from conventional weapons. One bomb destroying a city was exactly science fiction come to reality. Popular culture in the late '40s and early '50s was termendously influenced by the bomb.

I visited the nuclear testing museum in Vegas recently, and they had an interesting section on the influence of the bomb on culture - but I have tons of sf magazines that show the same thing.

50

[QUOTE=ralph124c]
What I’ve always wondered-suppose we decided not to drop the bomb on a city, but instead, give a “demonstration”. We drop the "fat Man: bomb 10 miles out at sea, from Tokyo. We give advance notice, so everybody is looking-and now, thousands of japanese are BLINDED by the blast-would be be condemned for this as well? If the Imperial General Staff, and the Emperor actually saw this thing blow up, would they have been persued to surrender?
[/QUOTE]

From what I’ve read, they weren’t all that sure the bomb would work. Imagine a dud during a demonstration. If the Hiroshima bomb had failed, it would be bad, but not nearly so bad as a dud in front of a Japanese delegation.

51

I don’t think I’d want to be in a situation where I have to choose between being firebombed or fission bombed to death. On one hand, if you’re close to the center of a nuclear blast you can die instantly, not even knowing what hit you. If you’re far away enough it will indeed be a nasty demise, and you might even be unlucky enough to…live! With horrible pain and scars, of course.

Or you could be roasted alive in an inferno that burns down the entire city, or maybe even die from asphyxiation as all the available oxygen is used to feed the fifty foot tall flames.

No thanks.

52

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Nice to think, but they would have starved out of our sight. I doubt the Japanese would have sent pictures, and there was no live TV. Second, American opinion might well have been that to stop the starvation, all they had to do was surrender. Third, the Japanese were demonized enough - who was going to lead a humanitarian movement to let them escape the consequences of their actions? FDR had made unconditional surrender the very basis of ending the war. There was plenty of scope for humanitarian assistance in Europe, both in the former occupied countries and in Germany.

Without going into details of Iraq, sanctions before GW II certainly caused some people to die, in a country we were not at war with and which was no threat to us.
[/QUOTE]

OK, but out of sight isn’t out of mind, US citizens would have been aware of the starvation through newspapers and radio and yes photos would somehow have reached the US much the same as smuggled pictures of the Nazi death camps did.

Admittedly the Japanese were demonized but even so, I repeat, the American public would IMO not have allowed 40million humans to starve to death, the very thought of so great a number starving is a terrible thought indeed

Even in wartime there are enough humanitarians would who protest at such a thing

53

I tend to agree that the bomb saved a lot of Japanese lives. One thing to remember about the quotes from the military leaders is that they tend to see the world in the terms of their service. Air Force guys have for years claimed that bombing would cause a country to surrender - I don’t think it has ever actually happened. Generals see things in terms of invasions and ground troops. A nuclear bomb was well outside their comfort level. The boffins had come up with some nice things before, but never a war changing thing.

I think that the bomb might have saved millions or billions of lives. Blowing up an island, or a model town, is noithing like seeing the impact of the bomb on real people. It isn’t that hard to go from Hersey’s Hiroshima to your town. There are some images from Hiroshima that turn up time after time in after the war stories.

Impossible to know for sure, but going for over 60 years without a bomb detonated in anger is a lot better than anyone thought we’d do in the early '50s. Plus, even if a bomb is detonated, it’s unlikely it would become a general mass war.

54

[QUOTE=chowder]
OK, but out of sight isn’t out of mind, US citizens would have been aware of the starvation through newspapers and radio and yes photos would somehow have reached the US much the same as smuggled pictures of the Nazi death camps did.

[/quote]

Excellent example. I’m not sure how much these got broadcast, since the pictures distributed when the camps were liberated caused such a stir, but we didn’t do diddly to reduce the number of deaths in the camp, including bombing rail links into them. If there was outrage about this before the end of the war, I’ve never seen an indication of it.

Tens of millions of innocent people had already died. Given that the starvation would be over the moment the Japanese warlords would surrender, I doubt that there would be that many tears shed. You clealy have a rosier view of the prevalence of humanitarianism than I do.

ETA: I forgot about censorship. You think the papers would really be allowed to print the pitiful plight of the enemy? With pictures of starving babies? It would more likely be gungho stories on how they Japs were hurting, deservedly, and how the military was fat and happy.

55

[QUOTE=Pleonast]
I’ve never heard that Japan was looking to conquer any part of North America. Can you point to anything to suggest that they were?

Japan’s alliance with Germany doesn’t really speak to Japan’s strategic goals.
[/QUOTE]

I dunno, every time I play Axis and Allies they try to invade the US…

56

Not so much a rosier view my friend more of a knowledge of Americans I’ve met on my travels.

Admittedly these travels were taken in peacetime but even so my opinion of Americans as a whole is that they are pretty decent bunch despite what most of the world seem to think.

And no, I’m not being sycophantic

57

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I tend to agree that the bomb saved a lot of Japanese lives. One thing to remember about the quotes from the military leaders is that they tend to see the world in the terms of their service. Air Force guys have for years claimed that bombing would cause a country to surrender - I don’t think it has ever actually happened. Generals see things in terms of invasions and ground troops. A nuclear bomb was well outside their comfort level. The boffins had come up with some nice things before, but never a war changing thing.

I think that the bomb might have saved millions or billions of lives. Blowing up an island, or a model town, is noithing like seeing the impact of the bomb on real people. It isn’t that hard to go from Hersey’s Hiroshima to your town. There are some images from Hiroshima that turn up time after time in after the war stories.

Impossible to know for sure, but going for over 60 years without a bomb detonated in anger is a lot better than anyone thought we’d do in the early '50s. Plus, even if a bomb is detonated, it’s unlikely it would become a general mass war.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with your post on every count.

First, the Air Force argues that the war was over because they had been bombed into submission.

The Navy argues that the war was over because they had been starved to death due to the blockade.

The Army argues that the was over because they had been pushed back to Japan.

McArthur (who later wanted to use the atomic bomb against China of all places) argues that we wasn’t consulted. His ego had it’s own gravity.

Americans had been dying fighting on two fronts for four years. We had lost over 400,000 lives fighting the war. By today’s population, that would be pushing one million men. We’ve lost under 4,000 in Iraq and you’d think the world has come to an end (No disrespect to those killed or wounded in the Iraq war. But from a strategic sense, 4K out of 300 million is nominal) Men were being shifted from the European theatre to the Pacific for the invasion of Japan. The war was expensive in terms of treasure and blood. So what were we supposed to do? Just wait it out and hoped that Japan would surrender, when they had shown no inclination to do so?

And what if we hadn’t used the bomb then? When would it have been used? What would have been the death toll then? And would it have then become just another big weapon to be used at will, without the stigma that has been attached to it after WWII?

58

[QUOTE=chowder]
Not so much a rosier view my friend more of a knowledge of Americans I’ve met on my travels.

Admittedly these travels were taken in peacetime but even so my opinion of Americans as a whole is that they are pretty decent bunch despite what most of the world seem to think.

And no, I’m not being sycophantic
[/QUOTE]

I wish you were right, but the evidence of lack of American interest in the Holocaust during the war doesn’t make me think you are. After they Japanese would have surrendered, everyone would have been horrified. Before, the anger, such as there was, would have been directed to the Japanese warlords, not our government.

Remember, Japanese in the US were interned having done absolutely nothing wrong besides being Japanese. We’ve come a long way since 1945 (I hope.)

59

[QUOTE=denquixote]
I don’t know if this is relevant to the OP but I read somewhere that the bomb was used to demonstrate its effectiveness to he Soviet Union as much as it was to cow the Japanese. This of course required it to be used effectively.
[/QUOTE]

This was a very popular argument from around the time of the Vietnam war on, popularized by Gar Alperovitz’s 1965 book Atomic Diplomacy. Most of Alperovitz’s arguments have been discredited, but the book itself was very influential in reopening discussion on the decision to drop the bomb. He wrote a new take on his argument in 1995 (just in time to cash in on the 50th anniversary) called The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth, which is a little better. IIRC his basic argument was that the Japanese were desperate for peace and that there was therefore no military necessity for the bombings. The declassification of documents from the war after the book was released very much undercut that idea.

60

[QUOTE=Mr. Miskatonic]
They were nowhere near the terms demanded by the allies in any case. It was basicly an attempt to get a ‘half-time’ so they could recover and resume their wars at their leisure. In other words, not in good faith.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure of that. I think that the Foreign Minister at the time, Togo Shigenori, was acting in good faith, and he was the primary proponent of peace in the Japanese cabinet at the time. Sure, the military would never go along with any realistic peace terms, but they weren’t involved. I don’t think that the attempts at peace were meant to be some sort of ruse.