# Why did US planners think Japan had to be invaded? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 18, 2014, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786 "2014-09-18T01:27:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2014, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/162 "2014-11-03T16:50:49Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > If you are unconcerned with the definition of “belligerent”, them why the hell did you ask me for proof of my statement > > How is it possible to be unconcerned if they are civilians or belligerents when that is the entirety of what you are questioning? > > Of course it applies, the Allies were bombing undefended towns, villages, dwellings or buildings. > > Cities that are defended by armies are sieged. The Allies were clearly not besieging German or Japanese cities they were dropping firebombs on, nor was there a defending army in the city under siege by an Allied one just outside of it. > > . No, those cities were defended. They had AA guns, garrisons, etc. They were not “Open Cities”. The definition of “belligerent” is beside the point. It has always been legal to attack enemy cities. Your cites do not say otherwise. > **[Open city](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_city)** > > In war, an open city is a settlement which has announced it has abandoned all defensive efforts, generally in the event of the imminent capture of the city to avoid destruction. Once a city has declared itself open, the opposing military will be expected under international law to peacefully occupy the city rather than destroy it. According to the Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, it is forbidden for the attacking party to "attack, by any means whatsoever, non-defended localities". The int Also the Law had not been updated. > **[Aerial bombardment and international law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_bombardment_and_international_law#International_law_up_to_1945)** > > Air warfare must comply with laws and customs of war, including international humanitarian law by protecting the victims of the conflict and refraining from attacks on protected persons. > These restraints on aerial warfare are covered by the general laws of war, because unlike war on land and at sea—which are specifically covered by rules such as the 1907 Hague Convention and Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions, which contain pertinent restrictions, prohibitions and guidelines—ther... _Although the 1907 Hague Conventions IV – The Laws and Customs of War on Land and IX – Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War prohibited the bombardment of undefended places, there was no international prohibition against indiscriminate bombardment of civilians in defended places, a shortcoming in the rules that was greatly exacerbated by aerial bombardment. With the rise of aerial warfare, civilians became extremely vulnerable and were inevitably collateral targets in such warfare potentially on a much larger scale than previously.[6][7]_ - However, due to the absence of positive or specific customary international humanitarian law prohibiting illegal conducts of aerial warfare in World War II, the indiscriminate bombing of enemy cities was excluded from the category of war crimes … - I just love how some non-lawyer reads a hundred year old treaty, which was modified many times by other codicils etc, and thinks he’s a legal expert, superior to the greatest jurists of the 20th century. (rolleyes) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2014, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/163 "2014-11-03T22:02:08Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > I just did; clearly you are either arguing in bad faith or incapable of understanding written English. > [@DrDeth](#): > > I just love how some non-lawyer reads a hundred year old treaty, which was modified many times by other codicils etc, and thinks he’s a legal expert, superior to the greatest jurists of the 20th century. (rolleyes) You gentlemen are free to take your personal animosity to The BBQ Pit. Otherwise, knock it off. Keep the personal comments out of this discussion. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2014, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/164 "2014-11-03T22:18:22Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No, those cities were defended. They had AA guns, garrisons, etc. This has to be the singularly worst circular argument possible. They had AA guns _because they were being bombarded_. The Allies would much prefer that there be no AA guns, fighters or night fighters to deal with; they would have bombed the cities anyway. Do you imagine that had Germany ordered all AA guns to remain silent, all night fighters to stay on the ground, and all searchlights to remain turned off that the crews of Bomber Command would have said shucks, Jerry isn’t falling for it tonight, guess we go home without dropping incendiaries on German civilians tonight. > [@DrDeth](#): > > It has always been legal to attack enemy cities. Your cites do not say otherwise. It’s exactly what it says. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Also the Law had not been updated. > > [Aerial bombardment and international law - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_bombardment_and_international_law#International_law_up_to_1945) You should really read your own cites. > [@](#): > > The subordination of the law of air warfare to the law of ground warfare was arguably established by the Greco-German arbitration tribunal of 1927–30. It found that the 1907 Hague Convention on “The Laws and Customs of War on Land” applied to the German attacks in Greece during World War I:[12] This concerned both Article 25 and Article 26. > > Jefferson Reynolds in an article The U.S. Air Force Law Review argues that “if international law is not enforced, persistent violations can conceivably be adopted as customary practice, permitting conduct that was once prohibited.”[13] Even if the Greco-German arbitration tribunal findings had established the rules for aerial bombardment, by 1945, the belligerents of World War II had ignored the preliminary bombardment procedures that the Greco-German arbitration tribunal had recognized. > > … > > After World War II, the massive destruction of non-military targets inflicted during the war prompted the victorious Allies to address the issue when the Nuremberg Charter was enacted, establishing the procedures and laws by which the Nuremberg Trials were to be conducted. Article 6(b) of the Charter thus condemned the “wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity” and classified it as a violation of the laws or customs of war, therefore, making it a war crime. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2014, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/165 "2014-11-04T03:34:10Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > That’s really a false dichotomy, to be honest. > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > How so? > > Do you have any idea? Any idea at all? I’m curious about the thought process of starting a GD tread, spitting out random comments and not following up on it. > [@DrDeth](#): > > _Aim Points_?:dubious::rolleyes: Jesus, they considered themselves lucky to just hit the city. And with a Nuke it doesnt matter much. > > They picked the “Aiming point” for Hiroshima based upon the easiest target recognition. “\*The Aioi Bridge is an unusual “T”-shaped three-way bridge in Hiroshima, Japan. The original bridge, constructed in 1932, was the aiming point for the 1945 Hiroshima atom bomb because its shape was easily recognized from the air. \*” > > As for the second bomb, they didn’t even try to drop it on the original target (Kokura) as it was hidden by clouds and smoke, and even at Nagasaki the aim was off by about 3KM. > > The “aiming points” as you call them had nothing whatsoever to do with damage, the aiming points are to \*find the damn city in the first place. \* You are aware the US did attempt “precision” bombing in WWII, right? The problem was that they couldn’t come close enough with conventional bombs, but they could with nuclear ones. They were targeting the center of the cities and not the military areas. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2014, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/166 "2014-11-04T03:39:52Z")
Let’s just say that a thinking process that believes, “Our only options are burning innocent civilians alive in horrible agony or letting people die in China elsewhere in large numbers by the day” really lacks for problem-solving creativity. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2014, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/167 "2014-11-04T05:59:11Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > The Doolittle Raiders were ordered to not bomb the Imperial palace. That has always struck me as odd. Destroying their Emperor, believed to be divine, would have been a great way to lower morale and illustrate how determined and strong the United States was. Or given the Japanese _hoi polloi_ a real and definite reason to be angry at the US and keep fighting to the bitter end. Bomb their shit and you can still say “hey, your Emperor is the one making us do this, take it up with him”. Bomb their Emperor and they can say “these dogs killed a living god ! You think they’ll stop before \*everyone \*is dead ?!” [QUOTE=Dissonance] This has to be the singularly worst circular argument possible. They had AA guns _because they were being bombarded_. [/QUOTE] No, quite the opposite in fact. The history of air defence is quite paradoxical : first came WW1 bombers that dropped their loads on the front lines and military installations (that were away from cities). This caused a fear that the development of bigger, better bombers would let unscrupulous individuals shell civilians with impunity, and so first laws were drafted to forbid that, then (because laws and war… yeah) AA guns were installed in major cities - thus turning them into legit military targets per the conventions on the laws of war at the time. Military materiel present = military target. And since there were already lots of AA guns there people figured that hey, why not \*also \*put military industries & troop barracks around major cities, where they’d be protected by all that flak ? Compounding the “legit military target” aspect of course. And thus, the paradox : out of a will to protect defenceless civilians from bombers, strategic minds ended up putting them dead center in the crosshairs. But then, I guess it’s easier to spot the flaw in hindsight. This isn’t to say that Allies and Axis alike didn’t \*also \*go out of their way to blow up civvies - they sure did. Shit, Bomber Harris was pretty open about the fact that his goal in life was to “de-house” as many Germans as he could. Such a charming euphemism… And presumably they would have done that even absent the “we’re attacking military targets, honest” rationale at some point anyway, as the brutalization of the war went on incrementally. But we’ll never know. As it stands, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legit military targets. [QUOTE=TokyoBayer] They were targeting the center of the cities and not the military areas. [/QUOTE] Considering we’re talking nukes here, would shifting the target half a klick this or that way have made any meaningful difference wrt the end result ? ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2014, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/168 "2014-11-04T06:24:00Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Let’s just say that a thinking process that believes, “Our only options are burning innocent civilians alive in horrible agony or letting people die in China elsewhere in large numbers by the day” really lacks for problem-solving creativity. Or, in other words, you have no idea. ---
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2014, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/169 "2014-11-04T07:02:11Z")
I don’t remember which city it was (Nagasaki of Hiroshima), but there was a coastal plain and mountains terminating at the plain - creating valleys up from the plain - these valleys became the residential areas. There were two - one was predominately Christian, the other Buddhist. The idea was to bomb the (industrial and commercial) coastal plain. 1945 bomb sights caused the bomb to hit a residential area - the Buddhist one at that. Bad Karma. Anyway, with the Japanese of the time big on the Samurai Ethic - they were preparing to fight machine guns with spears, for crying out loud - yeah, I can see planners thinking that they had to be absolutely defeated - either by house-to-house slaughter or a couple of bombs. A huge shame-inducing term of surrender was the stationing of foreign (and round-eyes at that) on sacred Japanese soil. Whatever else was accomplished, Japan is no longer big on the Samurai Ethic of “Death Before Surrender”, and are one of the biggest fans of Pacifism. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2014, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/170 "2014-11-04T14:55:09Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Or given the Japanese _hoi polloi_ a real and definite reason to be angry at the US and keep fighting to the bitter end. > Bomb their shit and you can still say “hey, your Emperor is the one making us do this, take it up with him”. Bomb their Emperor and they can say “these dogs killed a living god ! You think they’ll stop before \*everyone \*is dead ?!” Close, but the argument has more substance. Please see my post earlier in this very thread. > [@](#): > > Considering we’re talking nukes here, would shifting the target half a klick this or that way have made any meaningful difference wrt the end result ? This was just a little side track where the poster was attempting to pick a nit instead of offering a meaningful argument. > [@usedtobe](#): > > I don’t remember which city it was (Nagasaki of Hiroshima), but there was a coastal plain and mountains terminating at the plain - creating valleys up from the plain - these valleys became the residential areas. There were two - one was predominately Christian, the other Buddhist. The idea was to bomb the (industrial and commercial) coastal plain. 1945 bomb sights caused the bomb to hit a residential area - the Buddhist one at that. > Bad Karma. Nope. Please read the thread. > [@](#): > > Anyway, with the Japanese of the time big on the Samurai Ethic - they were preparing to fight machine guns with spears, for crying out loud - yeah, I can see planners thinking that they had to be absolutely defeated - either by house-to-house slaughter or a couple of bombs. One shouldn’t take _The Last Samurai_ as a documentary. It, like this, is fiction. It may resemble the truth is you squint hard enough, but it’s a gross characterization. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2014, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/171 "2014-11-04T18:10:26Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > The history of air defence is quite paradoxical : first came WW1 bombers that dropped their loads on the front lines and military installations (that were away from cities). This caused a fear that the development of bigger, better bombers would let unscrupulous individuals shell civilians with impunity, and so first laws were drafted to forbid that, then (because laws and war… yeah) AA guns were installed in major cities - thus turning them into legit military targets per the conventions on the laws of war at the time. Military materiel present = military target. > > And since there were already lots of AA guns there people figured that hey, why not \*also \*put military industries & troop barracks around major cities, where they’d be protected by all that flak ? Compounding the “legit military target” aspect of course. Cities have long had military industries and troop barracks in and around them; that does not make the entire city and all of the civilian inhabitants in it in and of themselves a legitimate target. There is of course a difference between what is legitimate and allowed and what can and realistically is expected to actually happen. Prophets of air power in the inter-war years such as Giulio Douhet openly advocated the mass bombing of enemy cities with the intention of breaking the [enemy’s will to fight](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Douhet#Aerial_strategy): > [@](#): > > \*\*ut Douhet identified the five basic target types as: industry, transport infrastructure, communications, government and “the will of the people”. > > The last category was particularly important to Douhet, who believed in the principle of total war. > > The chief strategy laid out in his writings, the Douhet model, is pivotal in debates regarding the use of air power and bombing campaigns. The Douhet model rests on the belief that in a conflict, the infliction of high costs from aerial bombing can shatter civilian morale. This would unravel the social basis of resistance, and pressure citizens into asking their governments to surrender. The logic of this model is that exposing large portions of civilian populations to the terror of destruction or the shortage of consumer goods would damage civilian morale into submission. By smothering the enemy’s civilian centers with bombs, Douhet argued the war would become so terrible that the common people would rise against their government, overthrow it with revolution, then sue for peace. He also advocated the use of poison gas; again because it could realistically be expected to be used regardless of its legality, as it already had been on a wide scale in WWI: > [@](#): > > On a tactical level he advocated using three types of bombs in quick succession; explosives to destroy the target, incendiaries to ignite the damaged structures, and poison gas to keep firefighters and rescue crews away. > > The entire population was in the front line of an air war and they could be terrorized with urban bombing. In his book The War of 19-- he described a fictional war between Germany and a Franco-Belgian alliance in which the Germans launched massive terror bombing raids on the populace, reducing their cities to ashes before their armies could mobilize. Because bombing would be so terrible, Douhet believed that wars would be short. As soon as one side lost command of the air it would capitulate rather than face the terrors of air attack. In other words, the enemy air force was the primary target. A decisive victory here would hasten the end of the war. Thankfully the world was at least spared that particular horror in WW2. The mass bombing of cities and civilians was fully expected to happen though; Britain evacuated 3.5 million civilians from cities in [Operation Pied Piper](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evacuations_of_civilians_in_Britain_during_World_War_II) starting September 1, 1939, two days before Britain was even at war. It’s actually more surprising that it took until 1940 for mass bombing of civilians to begin in earnest. > [@Kobal2](#): > > And presumably they would have done that even absent the “we’re attacking military targets, honest” rationale at some point anyway, as the brutalization of the war went on incrementally. They did. Harris and LeMay didn’t bother with the “we’re attacking military targets, honest” fiction; they were quite open that their targets were the enemies cities and their civilian inhabitants. > [@Kobal2](#): > > But we’ll never know. As it stands, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legit military targets. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had legitimate military targets in them. The entire cities themselves were not legitimate targets outside of total war theory, in which everything is a legitimate target and no laws are relevant. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/172 "2014-11-05T01:10:04Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > They did. Harris and LeMay didn’t bother with the “we’re attacking military targets, honest” fiction; they were quite open that their targets were the enemies cities and their civilian inhabitants. Yes, and their superiors had to sign off on the orders as well. > [@](#): > > Hiroshima and Nagasaki had legitimate military targets in them. The entire cities themselves were not legitimate targets outside of total war theory, in which everything is a legitimate target and no laws are relevant. One of the largest considerations for targets was that the US wanted to cause as much destruction as possible, so they actually had a target cities not bombed prior to the atomic bombs. The planning shows that they were more concerned about creating a big hole rather than take out any specific targets. In fact, in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the military targets were out of the population centers. It seems to me that total war is judged as a war crime when the belligerent countries are utilizing that strategy for their own gain, but not a war crime when used to defeat said countries. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786.md?page=8)