Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Still the right decision to do

I disagree, Jon.

Cap'n Cat wrote:I disagree, Jon.

Why?

All reputible evidence shows that Japan would have fought to the death, including women and children. The bombs saved millions of American casulties and tend of millions of Japanese

We got Hondas, Toyotas, Nissans, and Subarus out of it.

Not to mention TV's, video games, anime, and porn for Travis.

dbackjon wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:I disagree, Jon.

Why?

All reputible evidence shows that Japan would have fought to the death, including women and children. The bombs saved millions of American casulties and tens of millions of Japanese

You are right, Jon. I have been told the same thing in the homes of Japanese.

dbackjon wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:I disagree, Jon.

Why?

All reputible evidence shows that Japan would have fought to the death, including women and children. The bombs saved millions of American casulties and tend of millions of Japanese

I've followed another vein of thought on that, Jon, and I don't believe that would have happened. What you suggest is a common myth, my opinion only, that we Americans use to justifying all that killing. The fact is that, much like the Soviet Union in the 1980's, Japanese society had been collapsing for more than two years before the bombs. There was little or no will to fight among the people and industry. People were starving and dying, there was no fuel, and no reliable infrastructure, due to the fact that all resources were utilized for the war effort. Because it was a closed society dedicated to that emperor, the truth that the war had been going badly for the Japanese since early 1943 never reached the people. In the face of exhortations from their emperor and military leaders to sacrifice more, the people gave up. So did thousands of military personnel all over. And, because it was such a closed society (and a heavily guarded island nation), American intelligence could not get enough operatives into Japan to ferret out what was reality. All we had was Tokyo Rose and wild megaphoned data dump propaganda from hysterical Japanese military.

How do we know this? Lots of books have been written about the phenomenon since then. The best I've come across is called, Embracing Defeat: Japan In The Wake Of World War II, which chronicled the period from the war in China in the 1930's until the time the Americans finally left Japan in what, 1954, or something? The author interviewed hundreds of Japanese who lived through that period, from government officials and soldiers to simple moms and dads.

In sum, I think it would have been worth it to take the time to gain some more intelligence before doing what we did. Also, if you read deeply into the time around Truman's decision to go or no-go, there was considerable and heated debate about dropping those bombs in administration circles. The "tens of millions will die" contingent won.

One thing I'm troubled with, though, is the fact that, had we not dropped those bombs and exposed to the world the horrors of atomic warfare, someone else woulda dropped a much more powerful one at a later date, not knowing what they would unleash. Imagine a 1962 vintage bomb (100 times more powerful than Hiroshima) detonating as a result of the Cuban Missile dispute. We'd have much bigger problems now than we did.

the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers—and, in the case of the Japanese, as [forced] prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4% chance of not surviving the war; [by comparison] the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30%.

-Historian Chalmers Johnson
Wiki

Ahem, Gil. I hope you don't insinuate that I somehow endorse the behavior of their maniacal leadership. Ordinary Japanese suffered, too. You're off topic.

Gil Dobie wrote:the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers—and, in the case of the Japanese, as [forced] prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4% chance of not surviving the war; [by comparison] the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30%.

-Historian Chalmers Johnson
Wiki

Interesting facts Gil, but they have no bearing on whether the A-Bomb was necessary to end or significantly shorten the war.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

dbackjon wrote: Why?

All reputible evidence shows that Japan would have fought to the death, including women and children. The bombs saved millions of American casulties and tend of millions of Japanese

I've followed another vein of thought on that, Jon, and I don't believe that would have happened. What you suggest is a common myth, my opinion only, that we Americans use to justifying all that killing. The fact is that, much like the Soviet Union in the 1980's, Japanese society had been collapsing for more than two years before the bombs. There was little or no will to fight among the people and industry. People were starving and dying, there was no fuel, and no reliable infrastructure, due to the fact that all resources were utilized for the war effort. Because it was a closed society dedicated to that emperor, the truth that the war had been going badly for the Japanese since early 1943 never reached the people. In the face of exhortations from their emperor and military leaders to sacrifice more, the people gave up. So did thousands of military personnel all over. And, because it was such a closed society (and a heavily guarded island nation), American intelligence could not get enough operatives into Japan to ferret out what was reality. All we had was Tokyo Rose and wild megaphoned data dump propaganda from hysterical Japanese military.

How do we know this? Lots of books have been written about the phenomenon since then. The best I've come across is called, Embracing Defeat: Japan In The Wake Of World War II, which chronicled the period from the war in China in the 1930's until the time the Americans finally left Japan in what, 1954, or something? The author interviewed hundreds of Japanese who lived through that period, from government officials and soldiers to simple moms and dads.

In sum, I think it would have been worth it to take the time to gain some more intelligence before doing what we did. Also, if you read deeply into the time around Truman's decision to go or no-go, there was considerable and heated debate about dropping those bombs in administration circles. The "tens of millions will die" contingent won.

One thing I'm troubled with, though, is the fact that, had we not dropped those bombs and exposed to the world the horrors of atomic warfare, someone else woulda dropped a much more powerful one at a later date, not knowing what they would unleash. Imagine a 1962 vintage bomb (100 times more powerful than Hiroshima) detonating as a result of the Cuban Missile dispute. We'd have much bigger problems now than we did.

Good points Cap'n. Military history is often written by the winning side and since we won it's easy for us to say that the dropping bomb was better than the alternative. I always wondered about the argument that the bomb saved more lives than it cost. My suspicion is that it did, even though the Japanese will to fight was waning there was still a lot of fight left in them.

I agree that it was inevitable that the bomb would eventually be dropped by someone. If the first time was in 1962 that would have been a disaster since the other side would retaliate in kind. Better for the world to see the horrors of a nuclear detonation when there was no chance of escalation or retaliation.

AshevilleApp wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers—and, in the case of the Japanese, as [forced] prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4% chance of not surviving the war; [by comparison] the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30%.

-Historian Chalmers Johnson
Wiki

Interesting facts Gil, but they have no bearing on whether the A-Bomb was necessary to end or significantly shorten the war.

I was thinking the same thing.

dbackjon wrote:Still the right decision to do

Hiroshima, probably. Nagasaki, not so much.

A good chance that my kids wouldn't be here if not for the bomb, since my wife's dad had already been required to write his death letter in preparation for invading Japan from Okinawa. He is absolutely certain based on his experience at Okinawa that he wouldn't have come home from Japan.

A follow up comment, too, guys. Virtually none of us know the kind of thing I'm suggesting above for one big reason: Information suppression. Post-war, the U.S. was fighting the Soviets in the Cold War and had to have a righteous, star-spangled story about how things ended with Japan. Thus, the history books were written for decades with the story that all of us learned in grade school. Only time could allow the info seepage and application of critical thinking required to reexamine crucial events in our history.

Think about it, think anyone back then wanted anyone else to know that, perhaps, just perhaps, there was an opportunity and good reason to NOT drop those bombs?

BlueHen86 wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

I've followed another vein of thought on that, Jon, and I don't believe that would have happened. What you suggest is a common myth, my opinion only, that we Americans use to justifying all that killing. The fact is that, much like the Soviet Union in the 1980's, Japanese society had been collapsing for more than two years before the bombs. There was little or no will to fight among the people and industry. People were starving and dying, there was no fuel, and no reliable infrastructure, due to the fact that all resources were utilized for the war effort. Because it was a closed society dedicated to that emperor, the truth that the war had been going badly for the Japanese since early 1943 never reached the people. In the face of exhortations from their emperor and military leaders to sacrifice more, the people gave up. So did thousands of military personnel all over. And, because it was such a closed society (and a heavily guarded island nation), American intelligence could not get enough operatives into Japan to ferret out what was reality. All we had was Tokyo Rose and wild megaphoned data dump propaganda from hysterical Japanese military.

How do we know this? Lots of books have been written about the phenomenon since then. The best I've come across is called, Embracing Defeat: Japan In The Wake Of World War II, which chronicled the period from the war in China in the 1930's until the time the Americans finally left Japan in what, 1954, or something? The author interviewed hundreds of Japanese who lived through that period, from government officials and soldiers to simple moms and dads.

In sum, I think it would have been worth it to take the time to gain some more intelligence before doing what we did. Also, if you read deeply into the time around Truman's decision to go or no-go, there was considerable and heated debate about dropping those bombs in administration circles. The "tens of millions will die" contingent won.

One thing I'm troubled with, though, is the fact that, had we not dropped those bombs and exposed to the world the horrors of atomic warfare, someone else woulda dropped a much more powerful one at a later date, not knowing what they would unleash. Imagine a 1962 vintage bomb (100 times more powerful than Hiroshima) detonating as a result of the Cuban Missile dispute. We'd have much bigger problems now than we did.

Good points Cap'n. Military history is often written by the winning side and since we won it's easy for us to say that the dropping bomb was better than the alternative. I always wondered about the argument that the bomb saved more lives than it cost. My suspicion is that it did, even though the Japanese will to fight was waning there was still a lot of fight left in them.

I agree that it was inevitable that the bomb would eventually be dropped by someone. If the first time was in 1962 that would have been a disaster since the other side would retaliate in kind. Better for the world to see the horrors of a nuclear detonation when there was no chance of escalation or retaliation.

Thanks, Hen. Another thing about the Japanese home front back then is that there were no good soldiers left behind to defend the population. As in Nazi Germany's final death throes, kids were on duty.

Again, had we been able to get in with intelligence people and truly assess the situation accurately, it all might not have been necessary.

I will say that I think Nagasaki may have been unnecessary... reports are that the Japanese high command was preparing surrender documents, but either they weren't ready in time, or they were mistranslated...

however, the point about invading the home islands is salient, you may not believe it so Cap, but I am convinced the Japanese would have fought for every inch, killing millions. Moreover, you secondary point makes it even more of a good call - had we waited, had the world (esp. Stalin) not known about our superweapon - we really don't know what would have happened. I believe there is a better than average chance that the Soviets would have made a play in europe had the threat of the bomb not been there.

moreover, i steadfastly REFUSE to get behind revisionist history that applies postmodern values to decisions in history. if i had been alive and in the white house at that time, i'd have advised the same thing - "drop it"

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:I will say that I think Nagasaki may have been unnecessary... reports are that the Japanese high command was preparing surrender documents, but either they weren't ready in time, or they were mistranslated...

however, the point about invading the home islands is salient, you may not believe it so Cap, but I am convinced the Japanese would have fought for every inch, killing millions. Moreover, you secondary point makes it even more of a good call - had we waited, had the world (esp. Stalin) not known about our superweapon - we really don't know what would have happened. I believe there is a better than average chance that the Soviets would have made a play in europe had the threat of the bomb not been there.

moreover, i steadfastly REFUSE to get behind revisionist history that applies postmodern values to decisions in history. if i had been alive and in the white house at that time, i'd have advised the same thing - "drop it"

What I proposed, though, TTBF, is not revisionist history. It's real history, only coming to the surface in the last couple of decades and one that is controversial because it flies in the face of the star-spangled version.



Believe what you want to believe. I'll tell you, too, that you, yourself, are practicing post-modern revisionist history when you use my second point as a reason why the decision was good.

Cap'n Cat wrote:
One thing I'm troubled with, though, is the fact that, had we not dropped those bombs and exposed to the world the horrors of atomic warfare, someone else woulda dropped a much more powerful one at a later date, not knowing what they would unleash. Imagine a 1962 vintage bomb (100 times more powerful than Hiroshima) detonating as a result of the Cuban Missile dispute. We'd have much bigger problems now than we did.

Outstanding point...a POV I have never considered before on this question...For the future of the world...this may have been a positive, yet unintended consequence...

I think others have very well stated why dropping the bomb was necessary FOR THE END OF WWII...

Thanks, Hoagie.

And I respect the other view on this.

The manhattan project cost over a billion dollars in 1940's money. We were sure as hell going to use it.

It's a shame that Germany and all the vile and despicible hun bastards didn't get the same treatment.

No one has brought up this point. Would we have dropped the bomb on the Nazi scum? Or was it easier to drop it on an inferior race?

Good question citdog. I think it was easier to use on the Japanese. At the same time though, the Germans were not as gung ho

citdog wrote:The manhattan project cost over a billion dollars in 1940's money. We were sure as hell going to use it.

It's a shame that Germany and all the vile and despicible hun bastards didn't get the same treatment.

No one has brought up this point. Would we have dropped the bomb on the Nazi scum? Or was it easier to drop it on an inferior race?

Very good question. Something tells me that don't use it on Germany unless we are losing the war.

dbackjon wrote:Good question citdog. I think it was easier to use on the Japanese. At the same time though, the Germans were not as gung ho

Also, I don't recall ever hearing or reading about German-American internment camps. For whatever reason (Pearl Harbor, racism etc.) it was easier to dislike the Japanese.

AshevilleApp wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers—and, in the case of the Japanese, as [forced] prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4% chance of not surviving the war; [by comparison] the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30%.

-Historian Chalmers Johnson
Wiki

Interesting facts Gil, but they have no bearing on whether the A-Bomb was necessary to end or significantly shorten the war.

The number of people the Japanese were killing and would kill if the bomb(s) were not dropped has no bearring?

Okay

The bombs were dropped after 6 months of fire-bombing dozens of other cities, probably killing close to the same number of people, approx 220,000 people. The Japanese didn't budge after the six months, what good would another 6 months or longer of bombing have done?

It was the right thing to do and I can prove it was correct.

CnC thinks it was the wrong thing to do.


That evidence cements and closes this topic as he is so very rarely correct on anything.