Atomic Japan

Japan was almost ready to retreat. And why USA through two. I believe only one was enough.

Originally posted by rock strongo Hi,   I don't think it was necessary to drop the bomb.  The US could continue to carpet bomb strategic resources like food and water and Japan probably would have caved in.

The nuclear weapons weren't really all that much more destructive than the carpet bombing.  The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombing of Nagasaki.  The nukes simply had a bigger shock effect. 

Few things I'd like to deal with:

The bombing of Pearl Harbour was done without a declaration of war. But in fact, the plan was for the Japaneese embasy in Washington to declare war by telegram 5 minutes before the attack starts. However, to keep the attack in at most secercy, they assainged an intelligence officer with telegraphing the declaration instead of trained telegraf staff, and the declaration came two hours after the attack. And another thing no one seems to remember is that that a US destroyer sunk a Jap sub one day prior to the attack, no war then either Besides, the men at Pearl Harbour were soldiers who knew they could die. Inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not.

The claim that the bombs convinced the High command that the war could not be won is a bold face lie. Why? Because it apparentlly took the High command one month to figure out that A bombs were dangerous-they were droped begining of August, Japan surendered beging of September. Another evidence the bombs had no effect on the reasoning of the High command were the transcripts of their meetings with the emperor after they dropped. They weren't worried what so ever. They knew the Americans didn't have enough bombs to destroy all Japaneese cities and simply dismissed the A bombs as a decision making factor.

Another coincedence (not!) is that the drop date was a few days prior to the date the Red Army set for the attack on Manchuria. After the attack, no more A bombs, even though the Americans still had one or two.

The real factors that brought down Japan was the destruction of their merchant marine only few days prior to the surrender, which meant total breakdown of communications between main Japneese islands. And also the fact that after the Red Army railroaded Manchuria, Japan was cut off from the critical resources needed for the war.

But the thing that really bugs me is the ignorance surrounding Japaneese society at that time. I keep hearing about "old samurai tradition" when in fact, for 80 years before WWII Japan had been adopting the western way of life. Samurai traditions had been considered to be old-fashioned, even out-dated in Japaneese society by the late 1920-s, when the Japaneese army takes over control and adopts a fascist-like militairy goverment. Even in this, they only followed the example of the west, where fascism at the time was not uncommon and was in fact a legitimate political option! The calling of the militants for "restoration of the old ways" was no different then say "restoration of the Roman Empire" or "Restoring the Aryan race to it's former glory"; It was only a bit more effective, like the Japaneese people are to this very day (electronics ).

The bombs were never intended to save lives, or quicken the end of the war, but to establish the US as the ruler of the world for generations to come. Alas, it lasted only 'till 1953. and the Soviet A-bomb test.

How did the Japanese know how many bombs the Americans had?  Did they have a ninja in the capitol building? I've never heard that the Japanese simply dismissed the A-bombs.  Where have you read that?

Originally posted by Constantine XI How about Japan just not launch a campaign of terror and crimes against humanity for a decade and a half resulting in the losses of tens of millions? They took a risk in starting a war, they lost and got what was coming to them. When you go to war you do so knowing that your status as an aggressor gives your enemy legitimacy to do whatever the consider necessary to defeat you, including destroying the lives and infrastructure of your people. I am just glad it was our side that had the bombs, instead of those barbaric maniacs who initiated the war in the Pacific.

[/QUOTE]


No, the actions of Imperial Japan are what justify the bomb, although they do so indirectly.  The reason that the bomb was necessary (at least to me) was that it prevented large numbers of civilians (200,000 a month from what I have read) from dying under Japanese control.  If The Japanese had not been so barbaric in their occupations, there would not have been as much of a justification for dropping the bomb as fewer civilians would have been saved as a result (perhaps even fewer than were actually killed by the bombs). 

Surprise is a logical way to begin a war, shock and awe and all.  However, Japan screwed up.  They meant to declare war about 5 minutes before hitting PH; however, they didn't allow for enough time for decoding and as a result, their declaration of war got to Washington just in time to be seen as insulting.  Rubbing salt in the wound, albiet accidentally, didn't help them much when the time for US bombing came around. 

As for the necessity of the second nuke, I cannot be sure.  No one can.  There may have been a decision in favor of surrender relatively quickly, or maybe they would have concluded that we only had one bomb and kept on fighting.  However, what we do know for sure is that it was the day after the bombing of Nagasaki that the Japanese transmitted their acceptance of the terms of Potsdam.  In my opinion, the second bomb showed that the attack was not just a fluke and convinced Japan that we were serious about their unconditional surrender. 

edit: I can't seem to get the quote system working right.  I'm not sure what the problem is.  Hopefully people can tell my thoughts from those of the two that I quote.Mod edit for quoting


Edited by Kapikulu - 29-Dec-2006 at 22:23

Originally posted by maqsad Originally posted by clement207 I am from singapore and I say the bomb was necesary if there is no bomb my country could still be under the stupid japs. No offence I am just speaking the truth. But besides the bomb drop on 2 of their smallest and weakest and less industralised city. They even lied in theirn #@%$ history books saying they liberated the others south east asia countires. That is a damn lie trying to brainwash their civilian about the truth of the war Well isn't it a fact that they "liberated" Asian countries from European colonial powers? Wasn't that part of their strategy."asia for the asians" or something like that. I don't see what the lie is. They replaced the european colonisers with asian colonisers so where is the lie?

Edited by Toluy - 24-Sep-2006 at 09:49

i felt that part of the plan was to stop the expansion of "red power" in the region, as we know, japan neighbours with soviet and china( you know what i mean), so if allies were ready to launch an attack in Japan's homeland, soviet and probably china will be the first to attack, and eventually will demand their share of the land. atomic bomb was obviously was the fastest way and the cheapest way of wining the war.

Originally posted by Siege Tower i felt that part of the plan was to stop the expansion of "red power" in the region, as we know, japan neighbours with soviet and china( you know what i mean), so if allies were ready to launch an attack in Japan's homeland, soviet and probably china will be the first to attack, and eventually will demand their share of the land. atomic bomb was obviously was the fastest way and the cheapest way of wining the war.

The use of the A bomb was very definately done to make the Soviets take notice. However, Fast and cheap it wasn't. To make the bomb in todays dollars, would have cost 100+ billion. The cost at the time was so great it was nearly impossible to not use it.
    

well, talking about better strategy, the allies could just leave Japan and not do anything, eventually they will run out of oil and other resources to support the industries and the war. in a few years, food will be a problem. it would the best stretegy.

Perhaps, but you could say after september 11 that americans were "angry, angry at afganistan" -- that doesn't make their policy above criticism.  The anger was manipulated to achive the policy.