Dropping the atomic bombs vs. an American invasion of Japan

[J. J.]

According to Wiki, there was a "Commonwealth Corp," of UK, Australian, Canadian, and NZ forces.

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

[12th Doctor]

Well, both options are terrible, that's the way war is.

I'm sure many many Japenese and Americans would have died in an invasion of Japan. I'm not quite sure whether that number would have exceeded the number of deaths caused by the bomb, but I consider it probable.

Probable!?  Conservative estimates place the American dead in the first 90 days of each each operation alone as being higher than the American deaths in the entire rest of the war combined.  And at that point, Japanese had been dying at a rate of something like 13-1 to Americans.  So, we are talking about Japanese casualties easily in the 10 million range.  So many Purple Hearts were manufactured for the Operation that the US is still using them and is in no danger of running out anytime soon (in spite of Liberal hysteria over Iraq and Vietnam).  And all indications from what we have gathered is that the Japanese were far better prepared for the invasion than the people who complied those estimates knew.

The myth that is in vogue now is that it wasn't the bombs that convinced the Japanese to surrender, but rather the Soviet entry into the war, and the subsequent Soviet success in over-running Japanese forces in Manchuria and Korea.  This is utter hippie, anti-US, pro-commie BS.  The Japanese stripped all the heavy equipment from their Asian forces and sent it back to the homeland to prepare for the US invasion.  There is no way they could have expected any other result.  The Japanese might have been crazy, but they weren't stupid.  They couldn't have expected guy who didn't even have machine guns to hold off the Red Army.

[12th Doctor]

Isn't peace an option?

Not if one side is unwilling, no.  And the Japanese had no interest in peace at that point.  And leaving the Japanese military leadership in tact would have been like calling a truce with the Nazis Dec. 1944 with Hitler still in power.  You are just begging for another war 10 years down the road.  And lets not forget that the Nazis were pretty close to the bomb themselves and they shared all their secrets with Japan.  In fact, a small shipment of uranium and German research was on its way to Japan via U-Boat when Japan threw in the towel.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I'm glad to see that the vast majority of forum members have a solid understanding of the history on this issue an understand the necessity of the grave decision to drop the bombs.

[MasterJedi]

Isn't peace an option?

You mean when Japan was going to arm all its citizens to try and kill as many allies as possible?

[John Dibble]

Isn't peace an option?

Given the nature of the Japanese culture at the time, not likely. Peace is only an option when both parties in a war have decided they've had enough. As much as the American side might have wanted peace it didn't matter so long as the Japanese side wanted war.

[Friz]

From a purely America-centric point of view, option 2 was quite the better option in the moment.

Hell, from a Japan-centric point of view it was the better option.

Japan got pretty advanced technologically really fast after the bombs too....

Still a horrible thing to do, and probably the worst thing Truman did in his presidency.

[J. J.]

From a purely America-centric point of view, option 2 was quite the better option in the moment.

Hell, from a Japan-centric point of view it was the better option.

Japan got pretty advanced technologically really fast after the bombs too....

Still a horrible thing to do, and probably the worst thing Truman did in his presidency.

Actually Japan was advanced prior to WWII.  They had considered a nuclear program, but abandoned it in favor of a "death ray," which had little strategic use.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:6R475vXsGKEJ:darksondesigns.proboards21.com/index.cgi%3Fboard%3Dweapons%26action%3Ddisplay%26thread%3D302+%22death+ray%22+Japanese+weapon&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

[dead0man]

From a purely America-centric point of view, option 2 was quite the better option in the moment.

Hell, from a Japan-centric point of view it was the better option.

Japan got pretty advanced technologically really fast after the bombs too....

Still a horrible thing to do, and probably the worst thing Truman did in his presidency.

You would prefer millions more to die?  What a monster you are.

[Friz]

It would've been wiser to drop them on known military bases.  You know, so less civilians would have died.  But what do I know.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

There should have been a 'demonstration' over the pacific somewhere before dropping it over a major industrial city.

I still find it to difficult to believe that the second bomb was dropped without reference to the situation in Manuchuria and Korea (and the possibility of a divided Japan).

However in these situations it is difficult to say, the positions people have taken on this is predictable.

Btw, you still believe it was an evil act and still it was the right thing (in the lesser of evils scale) as horrible as that sounds.

[Ebowed]

The lesser of two evils logic annoys me.

Whatever about dropping the atomic bombs, but don't pretend there was anything good or moral about the choice simply because it could have caused less casualties than a military invasion.

People lose sight of what's right and wrong when they begin to do that - one of the reasons we tolerate war so much today.

[John Dibble]

It would've been wiser to drop them on known military bases.  You know, so less civilians would have died.  But what do I know.

Now I'm not an expert of the locations of all WWII Japanese military base locations, but given the size of Japan you probably wouldn't find too many major military bases located far from urban centers. What I can tell you is that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were important to the Japanese military. Hiroshima was a major military depot with military camps nearby, as well as being an industrial complex. It also didn't have any POW camps nearby. Nagasaki was a major industrial sea port responsible for producing ships and other military equipment. The cities weren't picked at random just to kill civilians. Certainly any populated city would have had the desired psychological effects, but they wouldn't necessarily have had a strategic value.

[Friz]

I guess if any good came out of it, we learned why we should never do it again?

[dead0man]

We did?  That's why we've spent trillions in the 63 years since getting better at it?

[Franzl]

We did?  That's why we've spent trillions in the 63 years since getting better at it?

I think he meant using the atomic bomb.

But otherwise, you're correct.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Drop a bomb in the middle of Tokyo Bay. It terrifies the Japanese and causes few civilian casualties. If necessary follow up with Mount Fuji to strike a bit more terror.

Maybe, maybe not. It would've caused a massive tsunami that may have flooded the city.

[Torie]

There should have been a 'demonstration' over the pacific somewhere before dropping it over a major industrial city.

I still find it to difficult to believe that the second bomb was dropped without reference to the situation in Manuchuria and Korea (and the possibility of a divided Japan).

However in these situations it is difficult to say, the positions people have taken on this is predictable.

Btw, you still believe it was an evil act and still it was the right thing (in the lesser of evils scale) as horrible as that sounds.

The US had only two bombs in its inventory at the time.

[Sam Spade]

Those suggesting something other than what was done seem to forget that the Japanese at that time were unlikely to surrender unless they felt the threat of total annilihation and believed it.  Dropping nukes over military bases or "over the water" undoubtedly would be unlikely to cause this scenario to occur.

The Germans (with the exception of Hitler) were not so extreme.  In fact, if someone else was heading Germany, the war might have ended six months to a year before it actually did.

Japan - they would have never given up short the scenario I listed above.

[Хahar 🤔]

if someone else was heading Germany

I think that's a pretty meaningless "what if" for 1944.

[Sam Spade]

if someone else was heading Germany

I think that's a pretty meaningless "what if" for 1944.

If the assassination attempt on him succeeded, for example...

[Хahar 🤔]

if someone else was heading Germany

I think that's a pretty meaningless "what if" for 1944.

If the assassination attempt on him succeeded, for example...

Ah, now I see what you mean.

[12th Doctor]

We did?  That's why we've spent trillions in the 63 years since getting better at it?

The Hiroshima bomb was 13 kt.  If you were two miles away from Ground Zero you had a decent chance of survival.

The Nagasaki bomb was 21 kt.  If you were three miles away from Ground Zero you had a decent chance of survival.

The average warhead in the US arsenal today has a 20 megaton yield.  If you are 20 miles away from Ground Zero, you have some chance of survival.

The largest warhead ever tested had a 50 megaton yield... if you were 20 miles away from Ground Zero, there is a decent chance of something being left of your remains.

[A18]

Given the magnitude of what it was doing—namely, effecting the premature deaths of some 200,000 people (the great majority of them civilians)—I'm inclined to say that the U.S. government should have shown greater restraint. The emperor's status should have been made crystal clear, and the Japanese informed of the threat they faced.

If, after that, the Japanese still didn't surrender (and my guess is that they probably wouldn't have), then the U.S. would probably be justified in going forward with the atomic bombings.

Of course, I don't claim to be an expert. Are there any persuasive objections to a policy like this?

[jokerman]

Of course, I don't claim to be an expert. Are there any persuasive objections to a policy like this?

Suppose the bomb malfunctioned or didn't have its delcared effect.  The Japanese would have taken the whole affair as a bluff and it would have greatly compromised our credibility in further negotiations.