Did the Japanese deserve the Atomic Bomb?

[Kruska]

Za Rodinu;Oh?Please define"limited nuclear"(a contradition in terms, innit?)

Hello Za,

not really in view towards nuclear since the limited implies a reduction in plutonium or Kilot - but still ensures the most likely event of the target facing total destruction as an imminent factor or in due cause in regards to the emitted radiation.

and "precise strike" in WW2 terms. No JDAMs etc back then.

Stuka pilots for example actually could strike within a precise diameter of 20m - now how to get a Stuka to Japan? difficult indeed - but the Germans had something else (V1 with FuPeil A70h „Elektrola") where the Americans could have used an improved guidance compass or as a matter of fact they had developed something simmilar the JB-2.

Another maybe even far more effective precision weapon was the Henschel Hs 293

When production of subcomponents for war materials is made in mini workshops in private houses then it's difficult not to consider the civillian population as economical agents.

I find it hard to believe that the output of those mini workshops had any effect on the allies in August 1945 - since the assembly lines in the factorys were more or less already out of operation. Did these Japanese mini workshops of the 70's already existing in 1945 ?

Regards
Kruska

[Bob Guercio]

Originally Posted by Kruska

I find it hard to believe that the output of those mini workshops had any effect on the allies in August 1945 - since the assembly lines in the factorys were more or less already out of operation.

The transportation system was already, for the most part, out of operation.

[brndirt1]

Originally Posted by Kruska

Hello Za,

not really in view towards nuclear since the limited implies a reduction in plutonium or Kilot - but still ensures the most likely event of the target facing total destruction as an imminent factor or in due cause in regards to the emitted radiation.



Stuka pilots for example actually could strike within a precise diameter of 20m - now how to get a Stuka to Japan? difficult indeed - but the Germans had something else (V1 with FuPeil A70h „Elektrola") where the Americans could have used an improved guidance compass or as a matter of fact they had developed something simmilar the JB-2.

Another maybe even far more effective precision weapon was the Henschel Hs 293



I find it hard to believe that the output of those mini workshops had any effect on the allies in August 1945 - since the assembly lines in the factorys were more or less already out of operation. Did these Japanese mini workshops of the 70's already existing in 1945 ?

Regards
Kruska

Let me see if I can help out here. Actually the first "programmable" yield bomb wasn’t developed until post-war, in 1948-49. That was the Mark. 4, and it was the first assembly-line produced nuclear bomb. It could be configured to for various yields - 1, 3.5, 8, 14, 21, 22, and 31 kilotons. By 1949 an even more improved Mark 4 "fat man-style" bomb was in use, but it was still bulky and difficult to work with. It was the "composite" bomb referred to by Groves in 1945 but never developed until post-war, it was a composite in that it used both U-235 and Plutonium in its core. The Mark 4 remained in service until 1954, from 1949 to 1953 actually. And like it or not, regardless of the yield it produced, the bomb itself remained a 10,000 pound weapon. That weight could only be carried by a bomber like the B-29.

The V-1, and American derivatives were as inaccurate as high altitude bombing. They could hit a city (with luck), but not anything smaller. And how or why would the USAAF use the Henschel Hs-293? And how would any of them lift or deliver a 5 ton weapon?

The Japanese had long before 1945 moved their war production to small urban "workshops" to de-centralize the system, taking a clue from their allies, the Germans who also created sub-contracts with "cottage industry", and assembling points underground. In Japan the small parts were then shipped, by train and even ox cart, to assembly areas for rapid construction. A great many of the assembly sites were in caves and man-made tunnels. Difficult to bomb the assembly centers, easy to bomb the tiny cottage workshops in and around the cities.

During WW2, Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly and training area for troops.

Nagasaki was the command/communication center for the Island of Kyushu alone, and subordinate to Hiroshima’s HQ.

The center of Hiroshima contained a number of reinforced concrete buildings as well as many lighter structures. Outside the city center, the area was congested by a dense collection of small wooden workshops set among Japanese houses; a few larger industrial plants lay near the outskirts of the city as well. The houses were of wooden construction with tile roofs. Many of the industrial buildings also were of wood frame construction, with tile roofs.

[Za Rodinu]

I would like to point out to our esteemed Latter Day hindsight-pacifists that there was a war on. There were still people dying on half of China, Korea, Indochina, Thailand, Cambodia, Philipines, Malaya, a large number of the Pacific islands, etc, etc, etc, were still occupied by the Japanese. Also the Allies had been somewhat concerned by the losses incurred in taking two crappy islands like Okinawa and Iwo Jima. It would be very very very unacceptable not to carry the war to it's definite conclusion as previously defined in Jan 43 in the Casablanca Conference: unconditional surrender.

Or would you expect the Allies to say "Oh poor Japs, you've suffered enough already, you may keep to your conquered ground, to your victims, to your POWs while we go home". Sorry, it wouldn't work that way. Poor buggers, Hosea 8:7 "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind"

[James S]

Za.
I would like to point out to our esteemed Latter Day hindsight-pacifists that there was a war on. There were still people dying on half of China, Korea, Indochina, Thailand, Cambodia, Philipines, Malaya, a large number of the Pacific islands, etc, etc, etc, were still occupied by the Japanese. Also the Allies had been somewhat concerned by the losses incurred in taking two crappy islands like Okinawa and Iwo Jima. It would be very very very unacceptable not to carry the war to it's definite conclusion as previously defined in Jan 43 in the Casablanca Conference: unconditional surrender.

Post243.

In this I am not being "pro Japan" but perhaps it may have been possible to avoid dropping the bomb , in real terms Japan had nothing left to fight with but why risk Allied lives if a landing on the Japanese main land had to be made ?

Post 262

I agree that the fire bombing of Japanese cities should have really signalled the fact that time had run out and that ending the war was the only reasonable option - still a difficult decision to take and after four years of destructive and costly war it is sometimes difficult to talk to your enemy.
I think the war could have been ended without "the bomb"* in time" but time was something no one had - having effected a war winning weapon the pressure was on to use it and "end this now".

http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/searchi...amily-war.html

My father's sister was made a widow at Okinawa.

Which was why I said time was something which no one had and I would again stress the potential to risk further Allied lives - China naturally being considered within this group of Allied nations.

Japan and Iwo Jima and Okinawa may have been small Islands but the Japanese recognised that their size belied their importance.
"Olympic" and its potentially huge cost in lives demanded that all options be considered and the need to end the war with the surrender and withdrawal of all overseas Japanese troops does not go unrecognised.

Hindsight as I have already said can be as much of a hindrance as it can a help in trying to understand , to repeat again the issues are complex to say the least.

The point has already been made that the nature of the bomb was fully exposed in its use and mankind has had "A warning from history which he has been wise enough to take and to learn from , so far.
I have become death the destroyer of worlds reflects this.
The decision to use the bomb must be judged on its own merits for me the overriding need was to end the war should have been the only consideration in deciding its use , but was it ?

Questioning this is not being an[I] esteemed Latter Day hindsight-pacifists/I]
it is simply asking a question and seeking an answer which takes all into consideration.

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

I would like to point out to our esteemed Latter Day hindsight-pacifists that there was a war on. There were still people dying on half of China, Korea, Indochina, Thailand, Cambodia, Philipines, Malaya, a large number of the Pacific islands, etc, etc, etc, were still occupied by the Japanese. Also the Allies had been somewhat concerned by the losses incurred in taking two crappy islands like Okinawa and Iwo Jima. It would be very very very unacceptable not to carry the war to it's definite conclusion as previously defined in Jan 43 in the Casablanca Conference: unconditional surrender.

Or would you expect the Allies to say "Oh poor Japs, you've suffered enough already, you may keep to your conquered ground, to your victims, to your POWs while we go home". Sorry, it wouldn't work that way. Poor buggers, Hosea 8:7 "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind"

Hello Za,

thanks for judging me as a pacifist

The question as I understood was; did the Japanese deserve.........
And my definite answer is NO in regards to the civilians, and it was a clear Yes to Tojo and Co.

That the Japanese needed to be forced to a unconditional surrender IMO is understood, if the A-bomb was necessary or if the Japanese Leadership would have surrendered within 1-4 weeks after the date of the maybe unnecessary A-bombs would be another matter that might be or could be discussed.

Regards
Kruska

[James S]

The question as I understood was; did the Japanese deserve.........
And my definite answer is NO in regards to the civilians, and it was a clear Yes to Tojo and Co.

That the Japanese needed to be forced to a unconditional surrender IMO is understood, if the A-bomb was necessary or if the Japanese Leadership would have surrendered within 1-4 weeks after the date of the maybe unnecessary A-bombs would be another matter that might be or could be discussed.

Regards
Kruska

A waiting game would have ben out of the question - as far as unconditional surrender goes the stumbling block was the retention of the Emperor - had this been clarified things might have moved quicker.

[brndirt1]

I dislike the use of the word "deserve", it implies the west knew of the radiation dangers and irradiated the Japanese out of callous disregard for them since they; "deserved it".

They "earned" the bombings which put them out of the war, but the radiation effects were largely unknown at the time. As to clarifying the status of the Emerpor post war, one must remember that the retention of the Emperor was discussed in the telegrams between Sato in Moscow and Togo in Tokyo just before the July Potsdam Conference started, and continued until it was underway. We (America) were reading these telegrams in real time, and knew that Stalin was choosing to NOT recognize the Japanese attempts to broker a "peace" on their terms. Some of which were to withdraw from occupied territories they had conquered since 1937, retain the Emperor without diminishing his authority, and hold their own "war crimes" trials, these were unacceptable.

The Japanese were insisting the Emperor retain his position and authority clear into August of 1945, a situation which the new president (Truman) was having no part of. When Stalin informed him of the Japanese attempts at arranging a diplomatic meeting, Truman wrote in his diary he was "pleased" that Stalin had told him of the Japanese communications. Truman already knew of them (through "Magic") but was reassured by Stalin’s offering the information independently.

If Truman had spelled out that the Emperor could be retained in a subservient role in the Potsdam Declaration, as happened historically, the Japanese probably wouldn't have accepted that condition. Remember, the Emperor was still revered as a deity incarnate and subordinate to no mortal. It took the atomics for that position to be altere to the point of accepting the demands of Potsdam.

[Bob Guercio]

Originally Posted by brndirt1

I dislike the use of the word "deserve", it implies the west knew of the radiation dangers and irradiated the Japanese out of callous disregard for them since they; "deserved it".

I agree with you 150%.

However, you and I are considering this from a perspective that is removed in time by 64 years!

The United States in 1945 was filled with the ugliness of hate and revenge; and the conviction that the Japanese were "animals" and not members of the human race. I imagine at that time, even though the word "deserve" would have been considered politically incorrect and was not used, "deserve" was the group thinking of the country.

Sad but I believe true! And this probably would have been my thinking had I been alive at that point in history!

Bob

[A-58]

The "ugliness of hate and revenge" you speak of was a pretty good motivator. It was a long a dredful affair. We were at war you know, and war is an ugly business. Besides, they started it. And yes, they deserved what they got.