Invading Japan, WWII

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: bamacre
I don't care how you cut it, dropping an atomic weapon on a city isn't right. Karma is a bitch, and one day, eventually, and unfortunately, we'll get bit.

As if yuo want us to get bit...you post the same #### over and over.....any links or proof to back it up??

I used the word, "unfortunately," so why would you think I would want it?

The only proof I need is history. It's bound to happen. Eventually, people will get sick of our shlt and do something about it.

 

[Lemon law]

To JediYoda---who writes---you are grand standing in hopes of appearing to make a valid point....

You can accuse me of grandstanding---but in terms of making a point--I am simply saying current Israeli policy of building hatreds may have an end cost for Israel---you say no connection. Who are you trying to convince?

Me---this forum----or yourself?---only future events will be the test.

And to Jaskalas--------there was that fourth option we did not take---namely to demonstrate what an A-bomb could do to an uninhabited rock---we did not take that option for whatever reason. Pretending we did not have that option by labeling other unrelated options as worse changes nothing.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To JediYoda---who writes---you are grand standing in hopes of appearing to make a valid point....

You can accuse me of grandstanding---but in terms of making a point--I am simply saying current Israeli policy of building hatreds may have an end cost for Israel---you say no connection. Who are you trying to convince?

Me---this forum----or yourself?---only future events will be the test.

And to Jaskalas--------there was that fourth option we did not take---namely to demonstrate what an A-bomb could do to an uninhabited rock---we did not take that option for whatever reason. Pretending we did not have that option by labeling other unrelated options as worse changes nothing.

Well dropping one bomb on people didn't convince them to surrender so we had to drop another. What makes you think that dropping the bomb in the middle of nowhere would have had better results?

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Slackware
Japan was about as strong as Iraq is now, sure there was animosity but they were no threat and an invasion would not have been neccessary, bombing the palace would have finished a job well done but the US chose to attack civilian population ONLY,

This is really utterly preposterous.

If you actually bothered to study history, its quite clear that bombing the imperial palace and killing the Emperor would have GUARANTEED the war would go on far longer. The Emperor was not involved with the day to day aspects of running the war, and the military generals that were really in charge with most actions on the Japanese government would have carried on without significant difficulty. What you seem to be utterly missing is the Japanese military leaders were perfectly willing to carry on the war indefinately. In fact some military commanders attempted a coup in order to prevent the Emperor's broadcast ordering Japanese troops and the government to surrender from being played on the radio. Without the Emperor there wouldn't have been anyone really able to give a command to surrender. As noted the cities DID have military targets, and due to how cottage industries involved with war production were mixed among the houses, it wasn't so easy to just target industrial production with a bombing campaign against Japan.

The alternatives to the use of the nuclear bomb were far bloodier. Contrary to what you're asserting, Japan still had millions of troops, and still was in control of large areas of China as well as the Dutch East Indies at the time, which gave the Japanese military leaders further justification on why they refused to surrender. Japan also had thousands of planes, along with fuel saved to fly them one last time, and intended to use them in mass kamikaze attacks against the US fleet when an invasion against Japan was launched by the US. The Japanese military even was training Japanese civilians to attempt human wave attacks against the American invaders using only bamboo spears! A longer wait involving a blockade and other methods to persuade Japan to surrender would have almost certainly led to the deaths by starvation of millions of Japanese. If you read John Dower's book Embracing Defeat, you would learn that even after the US began its initial occupation, significant numbers of Japanese died of starvation before the US started sending food aid to alleviate the situation. Japan didn't have significant mechanized farm equipment at the time and had stripped the countryside of farm workers in its need for manpower for its military and the continue to produce equipment elements of war production.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And to Jaskalas--------there was that fourth option we did not take---namely to demonstrate what an A-bomb could do to an uninhabited rock---we did not take that option for whatever reason. Pretending we did not have that option by labeling other unrelated options as worse changes nothing.

The problem was the US only had 2 A-bombs available at the time.

Besides the Japanese deciding that the first A-bomb was simply a trick of some sort (i.e lots of explosives buried under an island, there was a greater risk with the option you're talking about.

Historically the Japanese Emperor justified his surrender with the argument that the US would continue to use atomic bombs until the Japanese people were annihilated if they didn't agree to surrender. If Japan didn't agree to surrender after the first bomb was dropped and the second one was dropped on a Japanese city, the US didn't have any other bombs to quickly follow up with. Attacking a deserted rock doesn't have the same mental impact as going after a city would, and Japanese leaders would be more likely to carefully evaluate the situation and guess that the US didn't have additional nuclear weapons immediately available and continue to hold out. (Since it was the idea that the US could promptly use nukes in the hundreds each dropped by a single bomber that was the reason the Japanese Emperor was able to justify surrendering.)

 

[Lemon law]

To Aefeon,

At least you save me the bother of saying how that demonstration would be conducted---with the demand being surrender now or we will use it on a Japanese city some time shortly after our deadline passes.

Even if they thought we were bluffing---the one remaining bomb dropped on a city would have convinced them otherwise. And then to say we did not tell the Japs---that we would have to wait four months to have more bombs after we dropped the second bomb is more a footnote in history.

We still had the option to demonstrate our power first---and say this will be next demonstrated on an actual city would have still have saved those in Nagasaki.---precisely because the japs did not know if we had more or not----but it would have put more psychological pressure on the leadership who had been fool enough to spurn the offer to surrender---and had hence had been the fools who doomed Hiroshima.----and those lives would be on their heads.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Slackware

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Slackware

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: bamacre
I don't care how you cut it, dropping an atomic weapon on a city isn't right. Karma is a bitch, and one day, eventually, and unfortunately, we'll get bit.

Better that than having a million US soldiers and countless more Japanese die from an invasion.

YAY for US education that only teaches bullshit propaganda about these things, Vietnam war was a righteous war and Nixon was an ok guy too, right?

The war was already over, the US wanted to show the world their new weapon, that was the only reason it was dropped.

Vain, but hey, isn't that what being American is all about, being vain?

Pick up a book about the war in the Pacific, it may give you a glimpse into why the Nukes were needed.

Or continue to sound like an ignorant baffoon because you really believed the Japanese were about to surrender.

Pick up ANY book that isn't written by an American and get the real story, but oh, are these books even allowed in the US anymore? I suppose i could mail you one but since your government now has the right to open any mail without a warrant you probably wouldn't want me to do that, after all, it goes against your "official story" and could be considered terrorist material.

The nukes were needed as much as the Iraq war was needed and sold to you the very same way.

There was no reason for the nukes besides the test and to show the wrold. The made up story about how the US nuked the living daylights out of two civilian cities to save lives was made up after the fact. Except Americans, they still are taught "ooooh we wanted to spread flowers but the Japanese forced us to do it and we ONLY did it to save lives" and you buy that, you actually believe that you bombed the living daylights out of a city for a decade of downfall to spare lives?

Ignoramus Americanus, a breed of extremely stupid patriots.

The books I have read arent always written by Americans bunkie.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Slackware

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The option always was on the table to have that bloody invasion in which the Japanese would fight to the last man.

Only the A-bomb offered that other way---with some advocating inviting various Japanese officials out to witness what this
new wizard weapon could do to some uninhabited hunk of rock somewhere. Hardly a risky plan---because the US owned the air over Japan and Japan could not stop a plane from delivering such a death blow to any city of US choosing. Nor would it give Japan any chance to prepare for or to develop a nuclear program of its own. Instead we choose to bomb Hiroshima. And a week later Nagasaki. And only when we bombed the second city did Japan surrender.

Truman took to his grave the decision he made. Compared to the conventional war fight to the last man plan, it was probably the least painful in terms of total human death.

But given we had that other option to show we had the real deal trump card, I still wonder if Truman did the best thing
when the butcher bill could have been at least one full city smaller---and maybe two.

Japan was about as strong as Iraq is now, sure there was animosity but they were no threat and an invasion would not have been neccessary, bombing the palace would have finished a job well done but the US chose to attack civilian population ONLY, now I'm Israeli and this is Palestinian tactics, we even have our bases marked out but they are never attacked, only our civilians are.

It's idiotic to even believe that the US had no other choice at the time, Japan was decimated and the emperor knew he had lost, he had given up already.

Pretty much any excuse is BS, the US nuked two japanese cities and caused decades of suffering, at least firbombing ends when the fire is out, not so with nuclear fallout, tell me, would YOU ever live in an area like Hiroshima within 15 years from the blast?

The best you can do is "we did not know what we did" but you won't even admit that you did ANYTHING wrong.

That bugs me.

Are you seriously this obtuse? Firebombing suffering ends when the fire is out? Nah, no starvation or dehydration due to the complete destruction of the infrastructures? Nah that never happens.

Japan was not decimated. In fact if you go look at the total civilian casualty figures for WWII, you will notive Japan has one of the lowest besides the United States.

There was plenty of fight and willpower left in the Japanese to resist an invasion. Just because we decimated their ability to wage offensive war doesnt mean the war was over.

Total unconditional surrender. That is what we required.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Slackware

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Slackware

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: bamacre
I don't care how you cut it, dropping an atomic weapon on a city isn't right. Karma is a bitch, and one day, eventually, and unfortunately, we'll get bit.

Better that than having a million US soldiers and countless more Japanese die from an invasion.

YAY for US education that only teaches bullshit propaganda about these things, Vietnam war was a righteous war and Nixon was an ok guy too, right?

The war was already over, the US wanted to show the world their new weapon, that was the only reason it was dropped.

Vain, but hey, isn't that what being American is all about, being vain?

Pick up a book about the war in the Pacific, it may give you a glimpse into why the Nukes were needed.

Or continue to sound like an ignorant baffoon because you really believed the Japanese were about to surrender.

Pick up ANY book that isn't written by an American and get the real story, but oh, are these books even allowed in the US anymore? I suppose i could mail you one but since your government now has the right to open any mail without a warrant you probably wouldn't want me to do that, after all, it goes against your "official story" and could be considered terrorist material.

The nukes were needed as much as the Iraq war was needed and sold to you the very same way.

There was no reason for the nukes besides the test and to show the wrold. The made up story about how the US nuked the living daylights out of two civilian cities to save lives was made up after the fact. Except Americans, they still are taught "ooooh we wanted to spread flowers but the Japanese forced us to do it and we ONLY did it to save lives" and you buy that, you actually believe that you bombed the living daylights out of a city for a decade of downfall to spare lives?

Ignoramus Americanus, a breed of extremely stupid patriots.

I guess you know all the books on the US gov't's banned list. Japan had very advanced WMDs and it's own nuke program, and not to mention thousands of planes in reserve. Japan wasn't just sitting around. They were working on advanced weapons.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Slackware

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The option always was on the table to have that bloody invasion in which the Japanese would fight to the last man.

Only the A-bomb offered that other way---with some advocating inviting various Japanese officials out to witness what this
new wizard weapon could do to some uninhabited hunk of rock somewhere. Hardly a risky plan---because the US owned the air over Japan and Japan could not stop a plane from delivering such a death blow to any city of US choosing. Nor would it give Japan any chance to prepare for or to develop a nuclear program of its own. Instead we choose to bomb Hiroshima. And a week later Nagasaki. And only when we bombed the second city did Japan surrender.

Truman took to his grave the decision he made. Compared to the conventional war fight to the last man plan, it was probably the least painful in terms of total human death.

But given we had that other option to show we had the real deal trump card, I still wonder if Truman did the best thing
when the butcher bill could have been at least one full city smaller---and maybe two.

Japan was about as strong as Iraq is now, sure there was animosity but they were no threat and an invasion would not have been neccessary, bombing the palace would have finished a job well done but the US chose to attack civilian population ONLY, now I'm Israeli and this is Palestinian tactics, we even have our bases marked out but they are never attacked, only our civilians are.

It's idiotic to even believe that the US had no other choice at the time, Japan was decimated and the emperor knew he had lost, he had given up already.

Pretty much any excuse is BS, the US nuked two japanese cities and caused decades of suffering, at least firbombing ends when the fire is out, not so with nuclear fallout, tell me, would YOU ever live in an area like Hiroshima within 15 years from the blast?

The best you can do is "we did not know what we did" but you won't even admit that you did ANYTHING wrong.

That bugs me.

Are you seriously this obtuse? Firebombing suffering ends when the fire is out? Nah, no starvation or dehydration due to the complete destruction of the infrastructures? Nah that never happens.

Japan was not decimated. In fact if you go look at the total civilian casualty figures for WWII, you will notive Japan has one of the lowest besides the United States.

There was plenty of fight and willpower left in the Japanese to resist an invasion. Just because we decimated their ability to wage offensive war doesnt mean the war was over.

Total unconditional surrender. That is what we required.

We didn't really get it

 

[cwjerome]

It's easy for people like slackware to proclaim their love for mankind (when I think most know it's an anti-American facade) because we can never know if he's right... it's all speculation, guesses and assumptions.

Which pretty qualifies him a professor-ship at many universities.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Aefeon,

At least you save me the bother of saying how that demonstration would be conducted---with the demand being surrender now or we will use it on a Japanese city some time shortly after our deadline passes.

Even if they thought we were bluffing---the one remaining bomb dropped on a city would have convinced them otherwise. And then to say we did not tell the Japs---that we would have to wait four months to have more bombs after we dropped the second bomb is more a footnote in history.

We still had the option to demonstrate our power first---and say this will be next demonstrated on an actual city would have still have saved those in Nagasaki.---precisely because the japs did not know if we had more or not----but it would have put more psychological pressure on the leadership who had been fool enough to spurn the offer to surrender---and had hence had been the fools who doomed Hiroshima.----and those lives would be on their heads.

First of all, I left out the risk that if the only remaining bomber with a nuclear bomb got shot down or crashed at the wrong point, the US could end up not successfully utilizing either bomb on a Japanese city.

On the point abut pressure on the leadership due to the deaths, you don't seem to recognize that the number killed at Hiroshima was fairly small next to the total killed during the US firebombing campaign of Japan. The number killed during the first firebombing of Tokyo in particular is believed to have been far larger than the nuking of Hiroshima.

 

[Flyback]

They started it and they were the aggressors. From that point forth they were in the wrong and not one single marine should have ever been risked for 150k+ of them.

Our duty is to protect our own by any means necessary.

If it came down to 1 marine or say 10 million Japanese, we should favour the marine to live. They were the enemy. The marine is ours. Us vs them. Simple as that and not one of our casualty is worth any number of theirs. Ever. (Soldier or not.)

Had the land invasion occurred and had one single US marine died before they surrendered--that one single life is worth far more than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined many times over.

How anyone can ever takes sides against their own countrymen I will never understand. Not one ally casualty can ever justify sparing them. Ever. They were the aggressor and in the wrong. Never forget Pearl Harbor.

 

[Lemon law]

The final decision was made by Truman and advisor's--and all these arguments and more were probably made---but yo many posts ago I postulated one consideration
was to obtain a quick surrender before the Russians declared war against Japan at a time when final victory was assured.

We can now debate the morality of the final decision until we are blue in the face--all we do know is that we will now probably never know why Truman decided as he did ---but we do know the final decision announced that the power of the atom could reap destruction on a massive scale---and that just one single bomb from one single plane could destroy an entire city.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Slackware

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The option always was on the table to have that bloody invasion in which the Japanese would fight to the last man.

Only the A-bomb offered that other way---with some advocating inviting various Japanese officials out to witness what this
new wizard weapon could do to some uninhabited hunk of rock somewhere. Hardly a risky plan---because the US owned the air over Japan and Japan could not stop a plane from delivering such a death blow to any city of US choosing. Nor would it give Japan any chance to prepare for or to develop a nuclear program of its own. Instead we choose to bomb Hiroshima. And a week later Nagasaki. And only when we bombed the second city did Japan surrender.

Truman took to his grave the decision he made. Compared to the conventional war fight to the last man plan, it was probably the least painful in terms of total human death.

But given we had that other option to show we had the real deal trump card, I still wonder if Truman did the best thing
when the butcher bill could have been at least one full city smaller---and maybe two.

Japan was about as strong as Iraq is now, sure there was animosity but they were no threat and an invasion would not have been neccessary, bombing the palace would have finished a job well done but the US chose to attack civilian population ONLY, now I'm Israeli and this is Palestinian tactics, we even have our bases marked out but they are never attacked, only our civilians are.

It's idiotic to even believe that the US had no other choice at the time, Japan was decimated and the emperor knew he had lost, he had given up already.

Pretty much any excuse is BS, the US nuked two japanese cities and caused decades of suffering, at least firbombing ends when the fire is out, not so with nuclear fallout, tell me, would YOU ever live in an area like Hiroshima within 15 years from the blast?

The best you can do is "we did not know what we did" but you won't even admit that you did ANYTHING wrong.

That bugs me.

Are you seriously this obtuse? Firebombing suffering ends when the fire is out? Nah, no starvation or dehydration due to the complete destruction of the infrastructures? Nah that never happens.

Japan was not decimated. In fact if you go look at the total civilian casualty figures for WWII, you will notive Japan has one of the lowest besides the United States.

There was plenty of fight and willpower left in the Japanese to resist an invasion. Just because we decimated their ability to wage offensive war doesnt mean the war was over.

Total unconditional surrender. That is what we required.

We didn't really get it

If we didn't leave the Emperor in place they probably would have kept fighting and it would have been many more months before we could produce more nukes.

 

[Lemon law]

If we didn't leave the Emperor in place they probably would have kept fighting and it would have been many more months before we could produce more nukes.

I agree----the policy we pursued to subdue Japan---and to win the peace proved to be very wise.

 

[ProfJohn]

Another reason for dropping the bomb and not invading that I should have mentioned, but forgot. The Japanese had given order to kill all allied POWs when and if the allies invaded the Japanese homeland. This would have been thousands of more deaths.

The only people who seem to oppose the dropping of the bombs are people who had no real stake in the outcome or people living in a fantasy land where we can just sit back and wait for Japan to surrender. I highly suggest that anyone who is against the bombings go read about the battle of Okinawa in order to get a better understanding of what was going through the heads of the Americans in charge at the time.

 

[OutHouse]

my dad trained off the coast of Rhode Island for the invasion of Japan.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
My great grandpa was on that island just south of mainland japan that the US turned into a big airbase, he told me that in the weeks before we dropped the a-bomb that there were rumors circulating that everyone would be re-trained as infantry for a ground invasion.
I also heard somewhere else that if we had invaded, engineers would have been among the first people to land, to take out obstructions on the beach to land more troops. My great grandpa was an engineer

I (most likley) wouldnt be here today if we hadnt dropped the a-bomb...

that was no rumor, from my post above my dad was a Navy Sea Bee. they were snatching everybody and slapping a rife in their hand.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Slackware

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The option always was on the table to have that bloody invasion in which the Japanese would fight to the last man.

Only the A-bomb offered that other way---with some advocating inviting various Japanese officials out to witness what this
new wizard weapon could do to some uninhabited hunk of rock somewhere. Hardly a risky plan---because the US owned the air over Japan and Japan could not stop a plane from delivering such a death blow to any city of US choosing. Nor would it give Japan any chance to prepare for or to develop a nuclear program of its own. Instead we choose to bomb Hiroshima. And a week later Nagasaki. And only when we bombed the second city did Japan surrender.

Truman took to his grave the decision he made. Compared to the conventional war fight to the last man plan, it was probably the least painful in terms of total human death.

But given we had that other option to show we had the real deal trump card, I still wonder if Truman did the best thing
when the butcher bill could have been at least one full city smaller---and maybe two.

Japan was about as strong as Iraq is now, sure there was animosity but they were no threat and an invasion would not have been neccessary, bombing the palace would have finished a job well done but the US chose to attack civilian population ONLY, now I'm Israeli and this is Palestinian tactics, we even have our bases marked out but they are never attacked, only our civilians are.

It's idiotic to even believe that the US had no other choice at the time, Japan was decimated and the emperor knew he had lost, he had given up already.

Pretty much any excuse is BS, the US nuked two japanese cities and caused decades of suffering, at least firbombing ends when the fire is out, not so with nuclear fallout, tell me, would YOU ever live in an area like Hiroshima within 15 years from the blast?

The best you can do is "we did not know what we did" but you won't even admit that you did ANYTHING wrong.

That bugs me.

if i flamed you the way i want i would be perm banned. I will just say that i have read a lot of really stupid things on these forums but what you just wrote ranks up in the top 5 of the most idiotic.

 

[AnandTech Moderator]

PSA:

Slackware is presently unavailable to defend his statements/opinions