Atomic bombings of Japan

[A18]

Discuss.

[Defarge]

both

[Rin-chan]

Although many people have died as a result of the atomic bombings and probably are still dying, I most likely would have supported the bombings.

One reason would be that if anyone knows anything about Japanese culture, it is they do not surrender unless you force them to fear you.  Bushido does not allow for that.

Another is that if the war in the Pacific did not end quickly, more and more people would have died.  In Indonesia, China, and other Asian countries, Japan had taken over and created work camps.  100,000 people died every month from starvation alone.  This isn't counting malaria, or dysentry, or pure exhaustion.  I knew a woman who was a Dutch Indonesian.  She was a child during the war and was in a prison camp because she was too young to work.  She still had divots in her muscles from the malnutrition.  She told me how horrible the Japanese were to people, how they killed for fun, how they murdered her loved ones.  I wouldn't want her or anyone like her to be in such a place for one second more than they had to.  If you want an example of the atrocites the Japanese committed, look up the Rape of Nanking.

A nation that would have contests as to who could chop off more heads and rape the most women and children wouldn't surrender with simple negotiations.

They needed to be smacked in the face and shown they are not all powerful.  That we are stronger.

This is why I would have supported them then and why I still support them today.

Besides, it already happened.  There's no use crying over spilt milk.

Rin-chan

[David S]

I think bombing both was the correct thing to do. It brought the war to a quick end and probably saved many American soldiers who would have been lost had we attempted an invasion. Its possible that conventional bombing might have worked too. Our bombing raids created firestorms that caused enormous damage. Maybe that would have eventually forced the Japanese to surrender as well, but not as quickly as the A-bombs.

[Q]

I would have originally said both, but through my recent research into the topic, I'm convinced that the surrender of Japan was imminent, regardless of the bombs.  The U.S., I think, was looking for a place to demonstrate its nuclear capabilities, and for that reason it still detonated these weapons.  Perhaps in the long run this saved lives by making nuclear exchange feared and thus avoided during the Cold War, but I do not believe that these actions saved any lives during World War II.

[minionofmidas]

1st was understandable (though unnecessary wit' hindsight.) 2nd worn't, really.

[Bdub]

They were both needed.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1st was understandable (though unnecessary wit' hindsight.) 2nd worn't, really.

^^^

[John Dibble]

I would have supported both given what they knew then. Given what I know now, only the first - my understanding is that they wanted to surrender after the first, but the effects of EMP had knocked out their communications and there was much confusion. I probably would have spaced out the second bombing more as well as have sent an ultimatum to see if it wasn't necessary.

[John Dibble]

I would have supported both given what they knew then. Given what I know now, only the first - my understanding is that they wanted to surrender after the first, but the effects of EMP had knocked out their communications and there was much confusion. I probably would have spaced out the second bombing more as well as have sent an ultimatum to see if it wasn't necessary.

^^^^^

That is odd because from the research I did for a paper a few years ago it seemed like Japan believed we'd never drop another one so they weren't going to surrender after the first one.

It was only what I'd heard. That could also be right.

[ilikeverin]

Both; far more US soldiers, Japanese troops, and Japanese civilians would have been killed in an amphibious invasion than were killed as a result of the atomic bombings.

[Nym90]

I would have supported them. While it was a horrible way to have to end the war, the other options would have been far worse.

In addition, the demonstration of the awesome power of the atom bomb in these instances probably acted as a deterrent to its future use.

[afleitch]

Both; far more US soldiers, Japanese troops, and Japanese civilians would have been killed in an amphibious invasion than were killed as a result of the atomic bombings.

^^^^^^^^^^

[Yates]

I would have supported both given what they knew then. Given what I know now, only the first - my understanding is that they wanted to surrender after the first, but the effects of EMP had knocked out their communications and there was much confusion. I probably would have spaced out the second bombing more as well as have sent an ultimatum to see if it wasn't necessary.

I concur.

[A18]

One was probably enough, though I don't know a whole lot about the situation.

What makes you think we saved more lives, on net, than we killed?

[Nym90]

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

This has quite a bit of information about the bombings as well as arguments both in favor and against their use.

[© tweed]

One was probably enough, though I don't know a whole lot about the situation.

What makes you think we saved more lives, on net, than we killed?

The other option was a convential invasion, which would have killed probably a million people. 

Also hundreds of thousands of Americans would have died, which is worse than a Jap dying.  (Or 110,000 Japs dying)

[afleitch]

Historians predict the war itself could have lasted through to 1947 and given the Communists more time to influence fragile war-torn Europe.

[TeePee4Prez]

Although many people have died as a result of the atomic bombings and probably are still dying, I most likely would have supported the bombings.

One reason would be that if anyone knows anything about Japanese culture, it is they do not surrender unless you force them to fear you.  Bushido does not allow for that.

Another is that if the war in the Pacific did not end quickly, more and more people would have died.  In Indonesia, China, and other Asian countries, Japan had taken over and created work camps.  100,000 people died every month from starvation alone.  This isn't counting malaria, or dysentry, or pure exhaustion.  I knew a woman who was a Dutch Indonesian.  She was a child during the war and was in a prison camp because she was too young to work.  She still had divots in her muscles from the malnutrition.  She told me how horrible the Japanese were to people, how they killed for fun, how they murdered her loved ones.  I wouldn't want her or anyone like her to be in such a place for one second more than they had to.  If you want an example of the atrocites the Japanese committed, look up the Rape of Nanking.

A nation that would have contests as to who could chop off more heads and rape the most women and children wouldn't surrender with simple negotiations.

They needed to be smacked in the face and shown they are not all powerful.  That we are stronger.

This is why I would have supported them then and why I still support them today.

Besides, it already happened.  There's no use crying over spilt milk.

Rin-chan

Well put!  Also, my grandfather was in the amphibious unit in the Navy and was looking at being deployed to Japan.  If we invaded via land, we were looking at 500,000 deaths.

[ilikeverin]

All this is from the book What If? 2, the what if being 'What if Operation Olympic was launched?'

Total American casualties: 464,000-527,000 (based on Pacific experience)
...Total American fatalities: 115,215-147,500
Total Japanese fatalities: 580,000-630,000
...Civilian fatalities: 380,000 (1 killed for every 10 civilians, lower than on Okinawa)
...Military fatalities: 200,000-250,000 (assuming 500,000 troops fighting)

And that's on Kyushu alone, let alone Honshu.

[J. J.]

I might have considered a demonstration bombing first.  I still don't think that it would have worked.

EMP was not a big factor.  A plane actually flew out of Hiroshima after the attack; a "99 Superior Trainer."  The message got out, well before the second attack three days later.

[A18]

One was probably enough, though I don't know a whole lot about the situation.

What makes you think we saved more lives, on net, than we killed?

The other option was a convential invasion, which would have killed probably a million people. 

Also hundreds of thousands of Americans would have died, which is worse than a Jap dying.  (Or 110,000 Japs dying)

Those estimates are based on what?

[Jake]

The first, only over Osaka. Then leave them for the winter. Pick up the pieces in the spring, repopulate with GIs, and you have the 49th state.

[© tweed]

One was probably enough, though I don't know a whole lot about the situation.

What makes you think we saved more lives, on net, than we killed?

The other option was a convential invasion, which would have killed probably a million people. 

Also hundreds of thousands of Americans would have died, which is worse than a Jap dying.  (Or 110,000 Japs dying)

Those estimates are based on what?

Memory

[Bugs]

My father was in Austria when the Germans surrendered.  He had walked most of the way from western France, in combat most of the way.  The prospect of being deployed to Japan was discussed.  I probably don't need to tell you how he felt about the bombings, and I tend to agree with him.  It was time to end the war.  Everyone knew how the Japanese fought, and an invasion was low on everyone's list of ideas.  Conventional bombings would have taken months.  The a-bombings could have been avoided if the Japanese would have surrendered earlier, or, even better, not started the war in the first place.