Anniversary of Hiroshima - Page 3

quote

no effort to punish Japan once the war was over.

But punishing them by unleashing the deadliest weapon known to man during the war WAS justified? The only reasoning I've seen for using the bomb has been either A) taking out strategic coastal locations in support of an invasion campaign and B) to punish Japan for the war crimes they committed, mostly before the United States was even involved in the conflict. To A, I've stated with support that the United States had several scenarios to end the war without an invasion and without using the bomb on civilian targets, and to B I've argued that the United States military had no right to punish the people of Japan by dropping the bomb. If we're going to use ignorance of its effects as justification or to absolve our leaders from the guilt of unleashing atomic weaponry, we are assuming that our armed forces are reckless individuals with too much power in proportion to their reasoning skills, and when you add the fact that scientists attempted to warn the president about the possible effects of the bomb but were stopped by top military and government officials, we have a real problem on our hands.

quote trendyskaman

quote

no effort to punish Japan once the war was over.

But punishing them by unleashing the deadliest weapon known to man during the war WAS justified? The only reasoning I've seen for using the bomb has been either A) taking out strategic coastal locations in support of an invasion campaign and B) to punish Japan for the war crimes they committed, mostly before the United States was even involved in the conflict. To A, I've stated with support that the United States had several scenarios to end the war without an invasion and without using the bomb on civilian targets, and to B I've argued that the United States military had no right to punish the people of Japan by dropping the bomb. If we're going to use ignorance of its effects as justification or to absolve our leaders from the guilt of unleashing atomic weaponry, we are assuming that our armed forces are reckless individuals with too much power in proportion to their reasoning skills, and when you add the fact that scientists attempted to warn the president about the possible effects of the bomb but were stopped by top military and government officials, we have a real problem on our hands.

I might be wrong (it happens from time to time ) but I'm sceptical of your argument that Japan where willing to surrender without the bombs. They didn't surrender until after the second bomb.

If you are right and they where willing to surrender without the bombs (or an invasion) then i would change my opinion and say the bombs weren't justified.

Though the government was responsible, the people of Japan agreed.

As mentioned numerous times in this thread, virtually every single person in Japan was prepared to fight tooth and nail for every last inch of Japanese soil. If the Allies had opted for the "usual" invasion method, it is highly probably that it would've resulted in just as much civilian casualties + Allied casualties. The civilian casualties wouldn't have changed much either way, not to mention that the term "civilian" for Japan is very loosely defined.

You make some interesting points and it may be the case that Japan where willing to surrender without the bombs, I'm not 100% convinced of that though. Even if the only reason they dropped them was because of the threat the Soviet Union posed, surly the Soviet Union was just as much a threat (probably more of a threat) so maybe it was still the best option. If the point was simply to scare the Russians to prevent a further war (quite possible World War III) i would say it worked.

I can see where your coming from, I hate nuclear weapons and I don't like admitting in this case they might of had a positive influence on the world as it makes the case for them stronger but i think it probably was the right decision.

This message was edited by styot on Aug 08 2007.

quote

They were not willing to surrender, they were willing for an armistice. There is a big difference between the two and it is obvious why the government did not want what the Japanese offered.

But the article I linked to said that most politicians were willing to accept the terms of the Japanese surrender, which really only stipulated the safety of the Emperor, giving complete control of the government to Allied forces. The reason they refused the terms wasn't because the United States believed the terms of the Japanese surrender were unfair, they just didn't want to appear weak with the possibility of a Soviet invasion of the island imminent. Basically, you've got two big kids and one little kid, and one big kid has a toy that the other big kid doesn't have, so in order to show their supremacy they beat the little kid senseless with it. Does that work as an analogy?

quote

And don't give me any of that 'carpet bombing was wrong, too!' crap. Given the technology available to them at the time it was the only thing they could really do without leaving industrial centers alone, which would have only prolonged the war causing even more deaths.

Japan's an island nation with limited national resources, yes? Isn't that the whole reason they invaded surrounding terrorities and eventually attacked the American base at Pearl Harbor? Once we had them pushed back onto their own soil, who's to say that an Allied-controlled embargo of goods wouldn't have eventually forced the nation to crack under the pressure? That's one way to cripple a country's war effort without killing its civilians, there are many others that could have been used if we hadn't been pre-occupied with proving we were militarily superior to the Communists.

And am I to infer that you believe the bombing of Dresden was a necessary thing? Fire-bombing an entire town, entombing innocent civilians in their own home so they suffocated and died because of the shifting of the earth due to high melting temperatures and forcing American POWs to incinerate their bodies because extricating them from their house/tombs would be too dangerous was necessary to eliminate two or three urban targets in the city? Destroying a mecca of civilized Western culture for four hundred years was worth a military objective?

quote

Have you heard of them speaking out prior to the bombs completion? I doubt it. Yet again, I tell you this, they knew full well the potential for the weapon from the start. The only reason I see why Szilard, Einstein, and others like them were against it was that it wouldn't be used on Germany as they initially intended but did not want to come out and say that and so opted for the reason you're showing, to make them look like preservers of peace and not warmongerers.

The reason they waited so long in voicing their concerns was not a selfish desire for research funds, or a need to clear their names in case the bomb was used. It was because the scientists working on the bomb fully expected the enemy to come into possession of this technology, and so were working from a defensive standpoint that the United States needed the weapon as a safeguard against Germany and eventually the Soviet Union. Actually using the weapon, unless threatened by another country of an initial nuclear attack was not advocated by many of the scientists at work on the project, and they showed foresight in mentioning that using them without the direct threat of an atomic attack by an enemy would cause a global catastrophe, what we now call the Cold War:

quote Szilard Petition, July 3, 1945

Atomic bombs are primarily a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities. Once they were introduced as an instrument of war it would be difficult to resist for long the temptation of putting them to such use.

The last few years show a marked tendency toward increasing ruthlessness. At present our Air Forces, striking at the Japanese cities, are using the same methods of warfare which were condemned by American public opinion only a few years ago when applied by the Germans to the cities of England. Our use of atomic bombs in this war would carry the world a long way further on this path of ruthlessness.

Atomic power will provide the nations with new means of destruction. The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the first step in this direction and there is almost no limit to the destructive power which will become available in the course of this development. Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale.

Concerns over the possible ruthless nature of humanity if the bomb was unleashed should hardly be called selfish or self-serving, and as it stands, much of what is written in the Szilard doucment has come to pass. The world still lives in fear of nuclear war (though it is admittedly less likely than during the height of the Cold War) and our fear can be traced to the bomb actually being used by a nation on another group of people. No amount of tests, threats, or scientific studies can compare to what actually occurred when the bomb was used aggressively against another nation, and the tangible effects of that attack we can now see.

I think trendy's right regarding why the bomb was deployed against the Japanese. The politics behind it are abundantly clear, in my opinion. Yeah sure there was always a desire to "save American lives", but the politics underlying the decision to use a second bomb (which might have been unnecessary) turned out to be important as a factor.

The unleashing of the first bomb had the following effects:
1. It warned the Soviets that the Americans had figured out nuclear technology and were willing to use it.
2. It did the same thing for the Japanese who were forced to re-evalutate how much more blood they were willing to put into the war.
3. It got revenge for Pearl Harbour for many Americans.

The unleashing of the second bomb:
1. Pretty effectively marked the islands as off-limits to the Soviets.
2. It also alarmed both the Soviets and the Japanese who now were faced with the possibility that the United States already had a large arsenal of the weapons (which they actually didn't, so it was a good bluff).
3. And it was also overkill in the truest sense of the word. It did effectively stop the war cold.

The question would remain as to whether it was necessary to bomb Japan twice with such a devastating weapon. Trendy seems to think that diplomatic pressure and other tactics might have worked. Others disagree. I think that the war stopped faster once the second bomb was dropped, and in a sort of twisted way, it made working out the politics in the region less complicated. I think that had a more lengthy solution been allowed to proceed the Soviets might have manoeuvred themselves right onto the islands, and it would have ended up like another EAST/WEST Germany.

Of course it's hard to say though. And obviously bombing cities into oblivion isn't very nice, no matter how you put it.

So was it necessary? It did get the job done on more levels than simply the military level, that's really all it boils down to.

quote davidgrz

Incidentally the suggestion that the atomic bomb was primarily used to prove America's superiority to the soviets is laughable and reflects a poor understanding of the development of the cold war in itself.

And your statement reflects a poor understanding of international politics.

quote

I seriously burst out laughing at this when I read this. The Japanese home islands were running short on food by the end of the war. A blockade would have starved millions and would have been seen today as an atrocity of it's own. You'd be killing civilians and prolonging the war, killing even more from their side and your own.

A blockade is a classic military tactic, and was effective against the Japanese before the war. Some civilians would die of starvation, yes, but I highly doubt the government would have allowed the rate of starvation to approach the amount of casualties that occurred as a result of the atomic bomb and its fallout. Plus, the Japanese and American governments could effectively quantify the effects of an embargo, whereas in the case of the atomic bomb, neither side fully comprehended how much damage would occur.

quote

That in itself proves my point. It also shows how naïve they were of the world around them. When multiple people or nations are vying to be the first to obtain a certain technology one will get it first. If during a war they will use it to bring it to an end, either to break the enemies back or make them realize further resistance is fruitless. This is the case with the Japanese. They were attempting to make the same weapon but failed to build it first.

I don't think the Allied commanders expected Japanese scientists to discover atomic secrets all on their own, however there was evidence that Germany was actively pursuing such a program. That's why, as you say, the scientists pushed for its development in response to the crisis in Germany but after that threat died away many working on the project changed their minds about whether the bomb should be used or even developed.

I also agree with halo's assessment, that the Soviets might have tried to create a sphere of influence in Japan had the war not been ended on the island with nuclear weaponry, but I've yet to see an argument that states the United States would not have been able to settle with the Japanese peacefully before the Soviets invaded. The nuclear option was a manner in which the war could be ended in Japan, but I can't believe it was the best one, knowing what we know now. At the time, perhaps it was the best decision Truman could make with the information he had available, which was at best limited, but that doesn't make it the best decision that could have possibly been made.