What would have happened if we did not drop the Nukes on Japanese Cities in WW2? (Asians, European)

[skytrekker]

A land invasion would have been necessary- it was called 'Operation Olympic'.

[foma]

More Americans would have perished, no question about that, IMO. It's interesting b'c I just saw "Flags of our Father" and "Letters from Iwo Jima" back to back. Clint Eastwood is an amazing director!

[Tricky D]

I find it highly ironic that nuking civilian targets is deemed necessary to win a war. Then again, it sure is true that the only way to force a nation to its knees is by killing its citizens.
Heck, even Einstein made the mistake of writing a Letter to Roosevelt in which he implored him to win the arms race of developing the atomic bomb.

[sponger42]

I agree that the atomic bombings likely ended the war sooner and with fewer casualties on both sides, but there are reasonable questions about how the nuclear weapons were used that should be addressed.

The major question is; why pick mixed military infrastructure and civilian targets such as cities? Why not demonstrate the bomb on an uninhabited target or at least a wholly military installation?

I think the primary answer is that WWII was total war, and the mass murder of civilians was generally deemed acceptable when it was the best way to win, regardless of questions of morality.

No doubt Truman was presented with the potential to demonstrate the weapon without using a civilian target.

However, there were many undesirable points to a simple demonstration:
- No data would be gained on the weapon's effects on infrastructure.
- Uncertainty whether the demonstration would convince Japan to surrender, resulting in a costly (money and lives) delay before more bombs would be ready.
- Not targeting civilians might make the US look hesitant to use the bomb against the USSR.

In what some posters deem "not PC" times, these concerns outweighed the problem of the wholesale slaughter of defenseless men, women, and children--after all, they were only godless Japanese--and so the bombs were dropped on cities.

[Moth]

Uncertainty whether the demonstration would convince Japan to surrender, resulting in a costly (money and lives) delay before more bombs would be ready.

Good post.

In retrospect, it is pretty much clear that a demonstration would have been virtually useless. Records of the Japanese Junta meetings after the first attack but before the second show a group of fanatics mostly ready to continue the fight. Records of meetings after the second attack still show some of them willing to fight on despite the obvious consequences.

You are correct that it is appropriate to ask questions, especially considering the awesome power of the bomb. And I believe those very questions were indeed pondered.

But what always seems to be missing in these debates is the most obvious fact- the bombs worked. They did what they were supposed to do- end the war. And end it they did.

The Japanese are the ones who started World War II in the Pacific. They were not forced into it and were not fighting a defensive war or some war with noble intentions. It was a brutal, ferocious, expansionist effort. And when they had overreached and were obviously going to lose, they steadfastly refused to surrender. There it is. They would not surrender defying all logic and deceny and then, after having slaughted millions in the Asia-Pacific Region, were now more than willing to put their own citizens at risk.

Seems pretty clear that considering the facts, the bomb was justifed. And if there is any guilt, blame or responsibility, it lies with the Tojo Regime and the Emperor. If you are going to fight a war against most of the world, you had better be sure you are willing to accept the consquences, which can include anything, including nuclear attacks.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by Moth

The Japanese are the ones who started World War II in the Pacific. They were not forced into it and were not fighting a defensive war or some war with noble intentions. It was a brutal, ferocious, expansionist effort.

Who started the European (western) expansion in Asia?
Not the Japanese.
But it didn't took the Japanese a long time to realise that if they would allow themselves to be overrun by the westerners they eventually would turn into another China (Asia's poor sick man, because of the opium which the Brits forced into trading with them).

Anywayz, if America never had forced itself on Japanese soil and strong-armed Japan into trading with them, I doubt they would ever have felt the need to attack Pearl Harbour. I can't blame the Japanese for believing that westerners truly are barbarians who’ll say anything just to get whatever they want.

But what always seems to be missing in these debates is the most obvious fact- the bombs worked. They did what they were supposed to do- end the war. And end it they did

It is my opinion that the nuclear arms race or the threat of mutual extinction is NOT an improvement, more the opposite.

[Reactionary]

Tricky D from Holland - typical Leftist blame the West first (or America) - it was our fault that Japan invaded China and Korea and the Phillipines and the Dutch East Indies &c. How many tens of thousands of Dutchmen did the Japanese kill? Or did those colonialists deserve it?

The C-D Terms of Service don't allow the words needed to describe your idiocy.

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by MothWho started the European (western) expansion in Asia?
Not the Japanese.
But it didn't took the Japanese a long time to realise that if they would allow themselves to be overrun by the westerners they eventually would turn into another China (Asia's poor sick man, because of the opium which the Brits forced into trading with them).

Anywayz, if America never had forced itself on Japanese soil and strong-armed Japan into trading with them, I doubt they would ever have felt the need to attack Pearl Harbour. I can't blame the Japanese for believing that westerners truly are barbarians who’ll say anything just to get whatever they want.

It is my opinion that the nuclear arms race or the threat of mutual extinction is NOT an improvement, more the opposite.

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By the 1930's Japan was in NO danger of being overrun by ANYONE. In fact, just the opposite was true. It was the Japanese that were preying upon the Chinese, taking advantage of that weak and decayed empire in a far more brutal and ruthless manner than the European powers ever had.

In fact, to this day the Japanese are resented by the countries of SE Asia because of their incredibly brutal treatment of the areas they conquered. They were MONSTERS to the people in those areas, their casual use of brutality almost beyond belief. Heck, they were brutal to each other - with officers routinely beating NCO's and NCO's in turn routinely beating the men under them. Is it any wonder then that those same men routinely beat and tortured POWs and conquered civilians?

Not arguing that the siezure of territories by the Europeans (and to some degree even the US) during the 1800's was in any way, shape or form right, but - the Japanese conquest of those same areas was just as bad and their treatment of the inhabitants there was far, far worse.

And to say that the opening of Japanese markets (even under duress) is directly linked to the strike on Pearl Harbor (an event 80 years later) is DEAD WRONG. I can't even comprehend how a thinking person with any knowledge of history would even make that connection. There was one reason and one reason only for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor - to neutralized the US fleet there so that the Japanese could carve out their own empire in SE Asia.

One can certainly argue that the US embargo (especially of oil) that occured after the Japanese invaded French Indo-China was a provocative move on the part of the US - pushing the Japanese to either back down or go to war, but to say that the opening of the Japanese markets in the 1880's is related is WRONG.

Finally, regarding the Balance of Terror - one can only point to the fact that there has been NO World War since the bombing (something that took place TWICE in just over 20 years previously). Not to say that one couldn't happen in the future of course - but so far the strategy of deterrence has worked.

Ken

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by LordBalfor

Finally, regarding the Balance of Terror - one can only point to the fact that there has been NO World War since the bombing (something that took place TWICE in just over 20 years previously). Not to say that one couldn't happen in the future of course - but so far the strategy of deterrence has worked.

This only works when both parties realise that you cannot truly win a war, let alone a nuclear war.
As soon one of the combatants starts to believe that he has nothing to lose nuclear weapons only become a liability.

Not arguing that the siezure of territories by the Europeans (and to some degree even the US) during the 1800's was in any way, shape or form right, but - the Japanese conquest of those same areas was just as bad and their treatment of the inhabitants there was far, far worse.

All true, but if the westerners had done business with Japan on their own terms, like the Dutch and the Portuguese had done, they'd probably would still be under the illusion that sovereignty meant something. Japan became to fear the west because they had brutally shattered their illusion of their 'superiority' and / or sovereignty with their use of western technological superior weaponry.

[sponger42]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by MothWho started the European (western) expansion in Asia?
Not the Japanese.
But it didn't took the Japanese a long time to realise that if they would allow themselves to be overrun by the westerners they eventually would turn into another China (Asia's poor sick man, because of the opium which the Brits forced into trading with them).

Anywayz, if America never had forced itself on Japanese soil and strong-armed Japan into trading with them, I doubt they would ever have felt the need to attack Pearl Harbour. I can't blame the Japanese for believing that westerners truly are barbarians who’ll say anything just to get whatever they want.

I think it's fair to say that the Japanese were shocked and threatened by the carving up of China (and other Asian nations) by callous Western powers.

I would suggest they exercised far more brutality than their western counterparts when they entered the melee, themselves. Then again, perhaps they felt they had to make up ground. In any case, the west was right to (eventually) aid China in their expulsion--even if it was in their own self-interest.

I would not suggest that the brutality of Japanese invasion and occupation in IndoChina is a fair justification for the slaughter of Japanese civilians. That is the same justification terrorists use when attacking civilians in present-day conflicts.

I wonder if people who bother to chime in with their recycled "bleeding-heart-hate/blame-america-liberal-PC" propaganda really think they are making a valid argument or counter-point, or if they realize they are just regurgitating the smoke that's been blown up our collective *****es by idiot talk show hosts, and just don't care?

It is my opinion that the nuclear arms race or the threat of mutual extinction is NOT an improvement, more the opposite.

I strongly disagree. I think it is only the MAD doctrine that prevented WWIII between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.