Originally posted by: Harvey
jumpr -- I haven't read this whole thread, yet, and I may not get to it until tomorrow. I don't believe you have considered this fully and I have a few things I want to tell you that may give you a better perspective about this.
To start, I'm 63 years old. I was born two months before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor so before you continue saying the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Japan's 911 and blaming the U.S. for doing so, let's remember:
1. The Japanese attacked us. Unlike 9/11, we did not shoot first.
I agree.
2. Dropping the bombs killed a large number of people. Later estimates put the number of Japanese deaths at roughly the same as the number as may have died if we continued firebombing Japan until we invaded.
I agree.
3. The Japanese military had already made it clear that surrender was not an option they were considering. The only reason they did so after the bombs was because the Emporer demanded it.
That's not entirely true. Here's a little bit of what I wrote when I did some research on it in high school (please cite me). I can quote my whole report here if people want all of it (I argue that Truman acted irresponsibly and immorally in his decision to drop the bomb).:
"Many prominent officials also believed that the bomb was not even needed to force the Japanese to surrender. Both Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Allied Commander of forces in Western Europe, and Commander of Pacific Forces General Douglas MacArthur (whom Truman neglected to consult in decision) thought that the bomb was ?unnecessary? and believed that the Japanese were almost totally defeated. MacArthur believed that with the Japanese Navy wiped out and their shipping destroyed, Japan would have no choice but to surrender. Although these military officials believed that the bomb would not be necessary, Truman did not trust them, saying that the Japanese were ruthless and would not surrender. Moreover, Japan had been making motions toward peace with the Allies through Stalin and the U.S.S.R. At the Potsdam Conference, Stalin gave news to Truman and Churchill that the Japanese had raised the question of a negotiated peace between the Allies and Japan. However, Truman rejected the idea, saying, ?They wanted to make a condition precedent to the surrender [keep the Emperor of Japan]. Our terms are ?unconditional?.? At the time it was well known that forcing an unconditional surrender would require even more U.S. war casualties, but Truman ignored this implication. Truman?s counterpart in Britain, Winston Churchill, understood this reality and pushed the Allies to eliminate the word ?unconditional? from the Declaration but to no avail, as Truman demanded a total surrender. However, in the end the Japanese surrender turned out to be conditional: the Allies maintained control over the Japanese by letting them keep the Emperor. Thus, it turned out that an unconditional surrender was neither possible nor necessary."
4. For all the Japanese lives that were lost, or would have been lost under an alternative stragegy, countless thousands of American lives would also have been lost in the ongoing war and eventually in the invasion of Japan.
I agree, IF an invasion had been necessary. " Military planners had been strategizing for months, and had estimated U.S. casualties to be 46,000 killed, 170,000 wounded. "
5. It is important to remember that NOBODY had real experience with the after effects of a nuclear explosion on large population centers.
Indeed. There was also NO real reason to drop it on large civilian centers like Hiroshima. There were many other valid target cities, with more valid military targets and a lower civilian population.
"Truman specifically said in his diary, ?The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. It [the bomb] seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.? In the future, Truman would justify his decision using that statement; however, when the time neared to drop the bomb, a special targeting committee made up of scientists and military officers recommended four cities that had industrial centers as well as large civilian populations: (1) Kyoto, with a population of 1,000,000 people, (2) Hiroshima, an urban industrial center, (3) Yokohama, a city that was a center of aircraft manufacture, and (4) the Kokura Arsenal, a large arsenal surrounded by urban structures. "
NOW, we know that long term effects like radiation poisoning must be considered. NOW, we know lots of things that, in 1945, were just surmise if they were even considered.
The difference is, in 1944 - 1945, we were already in a deadly war for our lives with two enemies in two different parts of the world. The Japanese and Germans had already committed attrocities, killing and torturing millions of civilians. The development of the bomb gave us the potential of a weapon of such lethal force that it would, AND DID force the Japanese to surrender or face annihilation.
Knowing what we do, now, I'm sure we would consider such a decision much deeper and much longer, and the bar would be much higher before we would ever do such a thing to any human beings on this planet. Knowing what we did, THEN, under the circumstances that existed, THEN, I can understand such a decision in a time of full blown war.
It isn't pretty, it isn't nice, and it isn't something we should be proud of, but I can't agree that dropping those bombs on Japan, then, can be compared to the attack of 9/11.
It really has nothing to do with 9/11 as you said.
But really, drop TWO atomic bombs? These bombs were not dropped on the same day. Hiroshima was bombed first, then THREE DAYS (only) later Nagasaki was bombed. There was a real reason to believe that one bomb would have been enough, but the second one was dropped anyways:
"Even if the first bomb was necessary, one might question whether a second bomb dropped on Nagasaki was necessary. Only three days passed between the first atomic bomb and the second, so it is highly unlikely that enough time was given to the Japanese to contemplate surrender. Hiroshima was so completely destroyed that it took almost one full day for news of the bombing to reach the capitol city of Tokyo, so the amount of time was reduced even further. Moreover, Premier Suzuki, head of the Japanese government, was unable to summon the Japanese military leaders, who were necessary to make the decision for surrender, till 10 A.M. Tokyo time on August 9. The Nagasaki bomb was dropped at 11:02 A.M., the same day. U.S., a ?humanitarian? nation, did not give the Japanese enough time to consider surrender and instead showed ruthlessness by dropping a second bomb. While Truman was not directly involved in the decision to drop the second bomb (he had authorized two bombs to be dropped, but did not give a directive of time), he was wrong to have left out of consideration the possibility that only one bomb would be needed."
Ahh, now that I look back on that paper, I admit there are some big holes in it, but overall it was pretty good.
edit: i suck at tags
