U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-09-2020, 12:16 AM
 
Location: NYC
18,908 posts, read 12,090,437 times
Reputation: 23005

Advertisements

What's interesting is that the Pacific war was not the main focus of WWII. Americans suffered more casualties in the European front and the only reason we didn't drop the bomb in Germany because it was too close to many of our allies. Dropping on Japan was easier because it's an island and isolated from dense population such as China.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-09-2020, 12:19 AM
 
Location: West of Louisiana, East of New Mexico
2,682 posts, read 2,333,190 times
Reputation: 6209
As long as we feel the same way when the U.S. is attacked, then I agree with the logic.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2020, 07:50 AM
 
Location: WV and Eastport, ME
13,319 posts, read 12,335,193 times
Reputation: 8655
Quote:
Originally Posted by vision33r View Post
What's interesting is that the Pacific war was not the main focus of WWII. Americans suffered more casualties in the European front and the only reason we didn't drop the bomb in Germany because it was too close to many of our allies. Dropping on Japan was easier because it's an island and isolated from dense population such as China.
Germany surrendered before the bomb was ready for testing. If it had been ready for use in March or April of 1945, Germany might look somewhat different now.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: //www.city-data.com/terms.html
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2020, 11:08 AM
 
Location: San Diego CA
6,709 posts, read 4,503,646 times
Reputation: 11842
Quote:
Originally Posted by vision33r View Post
What's interesting is that the Pacific war was not the main focus of WWII. Americans suffered more casualties in the European front and the only reason we didn't drop the bomb in Germany because it was too close to many of our allies. Dropping on Japan was easier because it's an island and isolated from dense population such as China.
Actually we hadn’t successfully test fired a nuke before the Germans surrendered. Whether we would have used an atomic bomb in Europe is an open question.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2020, 11:38 AM
 
Location: State of Transition
88,018 posts, read 81,942,946 times
Reputation: 92112
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41 View Post

I've also noticed the notion of collective guilt in the idea that they - ie, all Japanese - deserved it. Since the Japanese government launched a war, all Japanese nationals are morally guilty and deserved death. That's weird. It sounds exactly like a terrorist claiming that all the American victims of an attack deserved it because of American misdeeds in foreign lands. It's the same logic.
.
I agree. In fact, I think the whole idea of dropping a nuke a day on an entire nation is far from a normal thinking process.

And now that you mention it, the OP hasn't responded yet to my earlier question, of how he'd feel about Iran deciding to drop a nuke a day on the US, to stop the US warmongering, oh...er, I mean "anti-terrorist efforts" around the Middle East. The OP is just as guilty as a member of the US electorate, as the people calling the shots, by his reasoning.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2020, 11:52 AM
 
7,355 posts, read 10,231,979 times
Reputation: 8858
I think the Japanese, who knew very well that they were close to losing the war anyway, question the use of nuclear weapons. Killing 2 million people (after all was said and done) did nothing but make the emperor capitulate a few weeks or months sooner.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2020, 12:09 PM
 
Location: Howard County, Maryland
9,035 posts, read 5,125,035 times
Reputation: 22159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffie View Post
I think the Japanese, who knew very well that they were close to losing the war anyway, question the use of nuclear weapons. Killing 2 million people (after all was said and done) did nothing but make the emperor capitulate a few weeks or months sooner.
What indication is there that the Emperor was prepared to capitulate at all, absent the atomic bombs? Militarily, Japan was no longer able to win the war after their defeat at Leyte Gulf in October 1944. (They weren't going to win it anyway, but Leyte Gulf put the final nail into the coffin of any realistic chance that Japan might have affected the outcome in any way that would have been even slightly beneficial to them.) And they were no longer able to forestall an invasion of the Home Islands after their defeat at Okinawa in June 1945. Moreover, by this point in time, America had already displayed its military might by burning down Tokyo and a number of other cities. Food and fuel imports had been virtually cut off by this point as well.

In other words, by the end of June 1945, it should have been obvious to the Emperor, to his military leaders, and to everyone else that Japan could not only not win, they had already lost and would shortly be facing the destruction of every remaining major and mid-sized city in the entire country . . . to be followed shortly by widespread starvation and the eventual extinction of the Japanese race. Yet, the Emperor did not capitulate at the end of June. Or the end of July. What makes anyone think that he would have capitulated by the end of August, or September, or October, absent a profound shock to the system such as the atomic bombings proved to be?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2020, 12:44 PM
 
2,749 posts, read 935,184 times
Reputation: 7892
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man View Post
What indication is there that the Emperor was prepared to capitulate at all, absent the atomic bombs? Militarily, Japan was no longer able to win the war after their defeat at Leyte Gulf in October 1944. (They weren't going to win it anyway, but Leyte Gulf put the final nail into the coffin of any realistic chance that Japan might have affected the outcome in any way that would have been even slightly beneficial to them.) And they were no longer able to forestall an invasion of the Home Islands after their defeat at Okinawa in June 1945. Moreover, by this point in time, America had already displayed its military might by burning down Tokyo and a number of other cities. Food and fuel imports had been virtually cut off by this point as well.

In other words, by the end of June 1945, it should have been obvious to the Emperor, to his military leaders, and to everyone else that Japan could not only not win, they had already lost and would shortly be facing the destruction of every remaining major and mid-sized city in the entire country . . . to be followed shortly by widespread starvation and the eventual extinction of the Japanese race. Yet, the Emperor did not capitulate at the end of June. Or the end of July. What makes anyone think that he would have capitulated by the end of August, or September, or October, absent a profound shock to the system such as the atomic bombings proved to be?
Exactly. Based on the casualties to both sides on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, it became extremely clear that the Japanese home islands could not be invaded without a huge cost in lives, civilians were training with spears to repulse beachhead landings. Any outcome besides unconditional surrender was unacceptable (which, incidentally, is what we allowed in the end anyway, by allowing the Emperor to remain, and not prosecuting nearly as many military leaders as we should have). So, although it may sound a bit trite, the U.S. actually did the (overall) Japanese people a "favor" by dropping the two bombs. And, we definitely saved tens of thousands (maybe even hundreds of thousands) of American lives. Truman would never have been forgiven by thousands more "Gold Start Mothers" if they knew the country had the bombs and did not use them. My own father was assigned to a destroyer, that would have likely been active during an invasion of the home islands. So, I potentially owe my own life to a "Fat Man".

Incidentally if you look at it solely through the lens of what the cities of Chicago/Detroit and Tokyo/Hiroshima looked like at the end of the war, and then again today, you might make a decent argument that Japan won that war after all.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2020, 12:44 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
4,752 posts, read 2,019,968 times
Reputation: 11313
It's unreasonable to doubt that the use of nuclear weapons to end WWII was a wise decision. While 200,000 Japanese lives were sacrificed, the result, in the short term, was that a million lives were saved by an earlier end to the war (Consider, like Truman did, the losses on Iwo Jima, a lousy little rock sticking up out of the ocean near Japan)....


...But more importantly, the long range effects are even more significant:- The horrific effects of nuclear weapons demonstrated at that time have ensured that we would not experience another all-out war for another 75 yrs (and still counting)-- This Pax Americana has been the longest period of "world peace" since the Pax Romana. (Limited wars don't count, unless, I guess, you happen to get killed in one.)
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2020, 02:05 PM
 
Location: Milwaukee
50 posts, read 84,445 times
Reputation: 81
The nukes were unnecessary in terms of making Japan surrender. We needed to demonstrate to the Soviets the power we had, and we also wanted to see just how destructive these bombs could be.The Japanese were going to surrender anyway since the Soviets were steamrolling through Manchuria and were intent on landing in Hokkaido. The bombs were a good way of telling them to back off.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top