Atom Bomb On Japan

[adamcotton]

Hi all,

As this month is the 60th anniversary of the end of WW2 in the pacific, I thought it might be apposite to pose the question: was the U.S. justified in dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Could the war have been concluded in 1945 by other means?

Interested in your thoughts.

[spidge]

Hi Adam,

I posted this in 60th Anniversaries forum just two weeks ago. There are quite a few posts there to look through.

My opinion is yes, as the resultant death and devastation to Japan and her people would have been worse than in Germany. (Dresden etc.)

[bigd]

Originally posted by spidge@Aug 21 2005, 08:21 PM
Hi Adam,

I posted this in 60th Anniversaries forum just two weeks ago. There are quite a few posts there to look through.

My opinion is yes, as the resultant death and devastation to Japan and her people would have been worse than in Germany. (Dresden etc.)

Quoted post

both no let them starve or let the russians cut down their armies numbers while you look for any island with the japanese army on it other then japan and kick then off cutting down their armed forces

[spidge]

[/quote]both no let them starve or let the russians cut down their armies numbers while you look for any island with the japanese army on it other then japan and kick then off cutting down their armed forces

Quoted post

[/quote]


I'm afraid I need a translation here BigD!

[paxgamers]

I think that was easily the best option. Aside from the atom bomb, nothing would of convinced Japan to surrender. The effects were devestating but who knows how many people could of died in a Japanese invasion, I'm thinking millions of lives.

[Kiwiwriter]

One thing the use of A-bombs on Japan did...it has prevented humanity frmo using them again.

I think if the A-bombs were not used then, then their first use would have been during the Korean or Cold Wars, with far larger weapons, causing millions of dead, in Europe, Asia, and the Americas. Now the spectre of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is forced to prey upon the minds of every decision-maker with access to such weapons. It is not an abstraction. It is an absolute.

[Harry Ree]

(Kiwiwriter @ Nov 7 2005, 04:05 PM) [post=41210]One thing the use of A-bombs on Japan did...it has prevented humanity frmo using them again.

I think if the A-bombs were not used then, then their first use would have been during the Korean or Cold Wars, with far larger weapons, causing millions of dead, in Europe, Asia, and the Americas. Now the spectre of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is forced to prey upon the minds of every decision-maker with access to such weapons. It is not an abstraction. It is an absolute.
[/b]

But don't forget it was only the dominant personality of Harry Trueman who prevented its use in the Korean War. Douglas McArthur wanted to use it against the Chinese and was promptly sacked.

On the central issue, the Japanese military leaderhip would never had allowed a surrender even though the nation's war economy was totally exhausted and its military forces were unable to hold back invasions of the Japanese home islands.

[Kiwiwriter]

(Harry Ree @ Nov 7 2005, 02:38 PM) [post=41226]

But don't forget it was only the dominant personality of Harry Trueman who prevented its use in the Korean War. Douglas McArthur wanted to use it against the Chinese and was promptly sacked.

On the central issue, the Japanese military leaderhip would never had allowed a surrender even though the nation's war economy was totally exhausted and its military forces were unable to hold back invasions of the Japanese home islands.
[/b]

But Truman, having seen the impact of atomic weapons, saw more clearly the results of using atomic weaponry. He cancelled further atomic attacks after Nagasaki, saying he "didn't want to kill all those kids." I think he meant that as a matter for all time, not during World War II.

MacArthur's firing was for insubordination...he was calling for an invasion of China and widening the war, which went against the orders of his commander-in-chief. He was exceeding his authority, so Truman had little choice but to fire the general.

Ike toyed with using atomic weapons to end the Korean War, and discarded such ideas.

[Harry Ree]

Trueman had come a long way in a short time in his awareness of the Manhattan Project.He was totally ignorant of it until FDR died and he succeeded him as President.Apparently one of the first priorities on entering office was the briefing Trueman on the project.


Trueman had in May 1945 been aware that the Target Committee had selected four targets,these being Kyoto,Hiroshima Kohura and Niigata.The selection qualification was that the targets should not have been raided by conventional bombing and that the raids would be carried out by daylight and in good weather conditions.

Regarding further utilisation of the atomic bomb beyond the two that were dropped,it was agreed that additional bombs would be dropped according to the availabilty of the bomb whose availabilty was subject to the manufacturing output progress of the Manhattan project team.The further use of another atomic bomb was overrun by events which ended in Japan's unconditional surrender.

Chinese intervention on the side of North Korea both in the field and in the air from bases in Manchuria (which the Chinese were safe from UN attack) led to MacArthur openingly expressing a policy which Trueman would not accept.MacArthur's proposal was was to escalate the war against the Chinese across the Manchurian border using atomic weapons in the conflict.Further, since the Russians were known to be taking part in fighting the air war in proxy and were regarded as the "godfather" of the the conflict,MacArthur proposed that the US should extend the conflict to Russia and if neccessary use the atomic bomb.Trueman saw this as MacArthur interferring in his political responsibilties and did not wish to have a military subordinate out of control,so MacArthur was sacked.

Was'nt Trueman later backed in his decision to sack MacArthur after a hearing in the Senate?.Apparently there was some American disquiet about the sacking of a World War 2 acclaimed hero.

[karlos]

The atom bomb itself was, from a moral point of view, not worst that the ordinary bombings like Dresden, Hamburg or Tokio, which actually caused more civilian deaths. What is inmoral in war is the deliberate killing of civilians, something all sides did and that is to me clearly a war crime, be it with atomic or conventional weapons.