BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Dec 04 - 05:43 AM

WOW!! I've just dropped on this thread while looking for music stuff 8-P.   It's difficult to believe it's been going since 7th August. I'm in England and there's enough hot air on this thread to keep my garage warm all winter. I don't know much about the two bombs but the same country that built such a sophisticated machine could perhaps put these scientists to work on their other bomb.

It has been producing a device for about a hundred years that pollutes the planet to this day. It drips oil wherever it goes. The Europeans had similar devices but cured the dripping problem some 30 years ago. A friend of mine had one and although he got several tattoos the dripping continued.    I'm told the "Total Loss" system is not a new idea but superseded by other methods. A chap at Bike Week assured me that it was not in the design brief but was OK as it meant the bike always had fresh oil in the tank and kept his boots waterproof.

On another tack. I'll be over for Bike Week in a few weeks so do any of you well informed folk know how I can get through Immigration (visa waver) in less then four hours.   

        Seasons best to you all. Give freely to the Irish Freedom Fighters so they can make another few bombs to blow up our cities.   Although it's been quiet for a while you never know the minute.   It may be that some citizens in the USA are feeling that way too. Welcome to the club. 8-)

    I never got any tales of the war from my daddy. He was a gunner in a tank. He retired from the army when they stuck what was left of him in a hole in the ground in France    With a few thousand others for company he got out early.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: GUEST,Patriot
Date: 27 Dec 04 - 01:29 AM

THIS IS BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SAID SO!!!

AMERICA HAS TO DROP THE NUCLEAR BOMBS TO DEFEAT JAPAN AND FINISH WORLD WAR II!

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 06:15 PM

Ack!!! I've disappointed Raedwulf. Time to get out the seppuku blade and do the only honorable thing left to do...

Just joking. :-)

Actually, I typed a lengthy (and of course, brilliant) response to robomatic, reducing his general position to a pitiful shred of hopeless inconsequentiality...and then...

I HIT SUBMIT AND IT VANISHED FOREVER INTO CYBER-SPACE!!! ARGGHHH!!!

Phooey. You can't depend on anything around here anymore. If the Enola Gay had used this forum's software the bomb probably would have prematurely detonated on the airstrip at Iwo Jima or else would have not detonated at all. (I think the former eventuality would have been poetic justice. It would have made the USA think twice about further use of such a disgusting weapon.)

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 03:03 PM

Hawk - I'll agree with Robo. Nothing conclusive in that article, except that the author has an axe to grind. If it'd been for the other side of the argument, you'd have disputed every point. You can can do better than that. I'm disappointed.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: kindaloupehackenweez
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 02:16 PM

I want to take this time to apologize for my earlier postings. They were uncalled for and unwarrented..I was out of line and i'm sorry,
I had a serious "HEAD UP MY ASS MOMENT:" Still thats no excuse.

The only other thing i can say is "Everyone's entitled to a bad day, ONCE IN A WHILE" But that would be an excuse to.

I'm a jerk off..Dont mean to be..I'm not usually..Something about being manhandled or Mental harrassment gets a rise out of me and im all over the map.

Still thats when its time to take a nap. Not type stupid shit that dont pertain to nothing. Writing on the cyberspace wall pollution.

I was wrong just the same and im wrong alot i need learn my place.

My behavior was unbecoming of the humanitarian i hope to become one day.   

But a more realist answer to the question of this thread as it was explained to me by my father and the teachings in world history class in high school would have to be because "It would save more american lives, than if we didnt" And after doing it and seeing what it had done, Well after the 2nd one there wasnt another. Nobody wants to do that to anybody. I could of happened in the cold war, vietnam. No Go joe. Unexceptible at any cost.. I've got diarrea of the fingertips again. Sorry for the earlier postings and i ask for forgiveness of my inexperiance and lack of knowledge and putting my nose where it dont belong.

Having trouble making out the words for the song "The Weight" by the "Band" 4th verse 3rd line

I said wait a minute chester, no ?????????? to feed the man"
I think what is ment to be said is "no money to feed the man"
but sounds like "no i'm a peaceful man" Its my number one priority for the 2 weeks off i just started today from the 5-6 days a week 10-12 hours a day and its been like that for 2 months..Time to regroup and brush up on my passions from the past.

I have put the chip that was on my shoulder in place and hope and believe i have the will now to keep from any furture unrashinal behavior. I'm ashamed and embrasseed and sorry.. I love mudcat
i cant stay away. Heaven forbid i be exiled..I should learn to use spell check also..My first computors birthday will be this May. I still dont know what im doing and it was more than ovious last weekend i dont know how to act on one either. Thank you for your time and space..Peace

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 01:28 AM

LH, took a gander at the article, it does not cover the issue in depth, it rehashes some items in order to justify the writer's pre-determined conclusion. Check out the Richard Rhodes book "The Making Of The Atomic Bomb".

I already said what I had to say when this thread was active earlier this year. The recent Guest comments are humorous if inaccurate, mediocre 'pot-stirrer' material (but whether they are meant to be so who can tell?). They are not more inaccurate than the article referenced by LH.

My favorite Sci-Fi author, Robert Heinlein, wrote a story during the Second World War in which he predicted nuclear warfare by means of the aerial dumping of radioactive 'dust'. The war ends when the UN dusts Berlin, the story ends with a dictatorial leader of the UN in control of the world with bomber planes circling national capitols loaded with dust, to keep everyone in line. The narrator is dying of radiation poisoning and offers: "When I get where I'm going I'm going to look up the guy who invented the bow and arrow and strangle him with my bare hands."

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Dec 04 - 06:59 PM

Read this excellent article, which states exactly why the USA dropped 2 A-bombs on an already defeated Japan:

To intimidate and forestall Russia, that's why...

I have so stated before. This article covers the issue in great depth.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: GUEST,Lalilulelo
Date: 17 Dec 04 - 05:33 PM

Simple:
First, the U.S. dropped the two nuclear bomb shells at two separate Japanese cities (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) to show the entire world that U.S.A. will never be DEFEATED. Not even the Japanese Empire can stop the U.S. from becoming the new world leader! The United States is the champion of DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM, LIBERTY, EQUALITY, JUSTICE, and MAN'S PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
Then, the creation of The Berlin Wall in Germany that splits East and West. The creation of European Union, and the recognition of the state of the Soviet Union.
Most common citizens from Germany, Russia, USSR, Ukraine, Poland, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Austria, the rest of Europe, and other Asian countries like Japan and South Korea DEFECTED to the West by seeking asylum, marrying American wives, and leaving their homeland for the sake of the United States's global domination...

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: kindaloupehackenweez
Date: 14 Dec 04 - 03:45 PM

Dont know:
Could it be because they couldnt smoke enough weed?
Or they lack patients to go deeper into there imagination:
Kinda like just beating a kid for doing something wrong instead of discussion. Or tapping into his/her phychic.
Or could it be they couldnt find enough daisys
Or just on one of there gorillia mantality power trips.
   Im out of my leage here. Think i'll leave before i get a black eye or worse. Phucking War pigs. World domaniance. It started with one side against the other now they got every mad mother and drunk driver against mad mothers at each others throat..It sucks but as it seems has become very effective. Who needs bombs anymore we all have each other.Kinda out there. Kindaloupehackenweez.. I dont call myself that for nothing....PEACE..I KNOW WHAT A HIPACRIT..just too many variables in the equation to make a well informed enough response

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Dec 04 - 04:08 PM

Right...

It's all crystal clear now.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 13 Dec 04 - 12:32 AM

It was the invention of Spam. It made the rations taste good in comparison...

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Jeep man
Date: 12 Dec 04 - 10:58 PM

We dropped it because we COULD. It ended the war and showed the rest of the world that we had it and would use it.

I was 10 years of age at that time and I can never forget the enormous wave of relief and thankfulness that filled this land. I had lived half my life knowing of war and I didn't know what would happen now. Guess I found out. Jeep

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: GUEST,LouisIXV
Date: 12 Dec 04 - 10:25 PM

The dawn of the 20th century. The creation of a Nobel Peace Prize. The rise of intelligent inventors, scientists, and other prominent prodigees. The so-called era of Imperialism (US called it the Axis-of-Evil), and which the United States do inherited and hated the most: Japan (old Japanese Empire), Germany (Prussian State), and Italy (old Roman Empire). Now, the United States was a neutral country before it entered World War I in 1913. But during the Russo-Japanese War in 1816, the entire Russian Empire was defeated by the new dominant superpower in Asia -- JAPAN. The Japanese took over the Chinese Manchurian territory by destroying the Trans-Siberian Railway. This is why China and Japan still had deep wounds until today. Russia lost several fleets at sea during the Battle of Port-Arthur (now Dalian).   
    Long battles ensued between the dominant European superpowers between the British and the French in continental USA. The Great Lousianna Purchase, the massive territory occupied by French colonists, was bought by the United States for only several thousands of dollars. The French occupation of Canada in the North Americas, and particularly at the city of Quebec had the British got so worried to expand their influence at the original 13 British colonies in the USA. The last battle between British and American troops were held in New York state in 1800s.
    Then, on 1865, the Russian-fur trade in Alaska was on the brink of shutting down its business due to fear of British and French force colonization. Finally, Russia sold the Alaskan territory to United States in 1865. This was after US President Abraham Lincoln at the zenith in abolishing the obsession of African slaves in USA...
    On 1898, the Spanish-American War ensued between the US & Spain. After the Spanish Armada were defeated, Spain sold her colonies to the United States. Most Europeans had their eye on several countries in the Pacific Realm. Netherlands occupied much of Moluccas (now Indonesia), France occupied Vietnam, Britain occupied Laos, Burma, and Cambodia. Finally, the United States occupied Philippines from 1898-1946 (48 years). This in turn was in conflict with the newly superpower in Asia -- JAPAN. The Japanese learned that United States colonized the Philippine Islands (a strong economic power in Asia at the time). In so doing, Japan attacked the Philippines, Guam, Wake Islands, and other US territories. Thus on December 07, 1945, Japan deliberately attacked the US Naval ships in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Thousands of Americans died on that surprise Japanese "kamikaze" attack...Japan was an Imperial government, and headed by Emperor Hirohito who ordered the attack on the United States. In retaliation, US president Franklin Roosevelt declared war immediately to Japan. At the time, the US Army Commander of Pacific company GENERAL DOUGLAS MACARTHUR left the Philippines occupied by the Americans. He promised to return there, after he learned only that a million American troops died at the Fall of Bataan and Corregidor US-bases in the Philippines. The death toll of Americans died alone at the famous "Death March" climbed to almost 1 million. Both Filipinos and Americans suffered a humiliating defeat from the occupation of Japanese troops in the Philippines. The secret project for the creation of ATOMIC BOMB was the first idea of the Americans. It was the most expensive cost project to be ever built: $1,000,000,000. This MANHATTAN PROJECT was funded by the J.Oppenheimer. The nuclear catastrophe that awaits the fear, fate, and defeat of Japan in Asia. General Douglas MacArthur finally returned in the Philippines as it was the HQ of American fleet in the Pacific Rim. The USAF, along with two B-2 Stealth Bomber airplane dropped two nuclear atomic bomb in separate cities. First, the U.S. atomic bomb was dropped in Hiroshima. Next, the second U.S. atomic bomb was dropped in Nagasaki, Japan the other day. All innocent Japanese lives were wiped out by a single powerful nuclear blast and fireball coming from the American spy airplanes! Japan cannot shout: "Banzai, banzai!" in state of their painful defeat. Finally, JAPAN surrendered to the Allied Forces (Great Britain, France, USSR, and the USA) on September 02, 1945. The Allied Forces proved themselves in Germany, Italy, and Japan. Thus, this was the end of World War II as we all know it. Now, the US will soon next pass the BLAME to their allied-Communist U.S.S.R. The creation of Berlin Wall was erected in Germany, and separating the Eastern bloc(USSR) and the Western bloc(USA). Now, Americans must always remember that Alaska and Hawaii were both outside of the United States of America continental mainland. Why? Because Alaska was purchased from Russian Empire, and Hawaiian Islands was purchased from the Polynesians during the reign of Kamehameha II in 1940s. Hawaii became a US territory first just like Philippine Islands, and later joined the United States as the 50th state on August 21, 1959. However, Alaska became the 49th state to join the United States on January 3, 1959...This proved that Americans became the successor of all British, French, and Russian Imperialism from the 6th until 18th century.         
    As you can see, "History repeats itself". This is exactly what happened on 12/07/1945(Pearl Harbor Attacks), and 09/11/2001(Terrorist Attacks).
    Look what happened on 09/01/2004! A terrorist attack in Beslan, Russia! What the hell is this! This nasty "Beslan, Russia Incident" would make a huge stain towards DEMOCRACY in Russian Federation, the successor of USSR! As you can see, many American men were encouraged to kill Russian fathers in battle and wars like this one. American men marry a lot of Russian women, and make dozens of Russian-American babies. These children were born from European-descent parents of American father and a Russian mother. A Russian-American baby is born in the USA! The USA we now know consists of former-communist parents like several Russian women marrying American men. That is why we have 'terrorism'. This union between East and West means that USA and Russia will forever be in love and union together...A formal peace treaty between USA and Russia has been proven by American men having sex and marrying a Russian girl, and then take her to USA and make more and more children. That is what happened in this nasty BESLAN, RUSSIA INCIDENT. Moscow is not really happy about this, and Washington is still in-love with Russia. Go, American fathers and spread your seeds towards these stupid, no-more-shy-and-traditional Russian women until all Russia becomes an American colony and American society. The USA enjoys this a lot! The big question is this: Who are the "real" terrorists? The Communists? Terrorists are Communists? Who are then are the "real" enemies? The former-USSR? The European Union? The United States? Or against itself? Who are the Patriots here then?

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Dec 04 - 06:48 PM

The US has dropped the ball in Iraq, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 12 Dec 04 - 12:37 PM

Geez, Guest, what a brain you must have, eh? I am gonna now give my vershun of history. Listen up!

Okay. History began with the first man and woman, eh? Some say it was Adam and Eve. I ain't sure, but I figger it don't matter what their names were, eh? The point is, Adam was FORCED to have sex with Eve when he seen her without the fig leaf, eh? Know what I mean? He couldn't help himself, eh?

Okay. So then God got mad and kicked 'em out of like paradise, eh, because they had done it out of wedlock. or somethin' like that. I'm not sure. Anyway, they had discovered somethin' good so they just kept on begattin' and begattin' like cats in heat and the human race was started off at a good clip. Decent!

After awhile it got to be too many people, so God was FORCED to send a big flood and drown just about everyone. Wow! I would like to of seen that! If I had the powers I would send a flood like that on Quebec and then we wouldn't have so much fRench and English trouble here, eh? There was a smart guy called Noah and he built a real big houseboat and rode outthe flood. Noah was also into sex bigtime so he and his wife got things rolling again after the waters went down, eh?

Okay. Soon there were lots more poeple everywhere. For some reason some of them starting speakin' French! That led to confusion bigtime. RThey had to print all the labels in both English and French. It led to troubles we still have today. They had built a huge tower but couldn't get it done because nobody could understand what the hell the other guys was sayin' eh? Flippin' Frogs! By this time the French had mutated into 25 other flippin' languaages and nobody knew what the flip was goin' on! God couldn't take it no more. He was forced to send some terrorists with a thunderbolt and they knocked down the flippin' tower of Babel and scattered the people acrost the world!

Things got real complicated after that. You got Alexander the Greek, Orange Julius Siezer runnin' around conkering the Barberians and then ya got Jesus gettin' crucified and stuff. It's a lot to cover, so I am just gonna gloss over that part. Look it up on the Net, okay?

Then ya got the Dark Ages when there was no electricity. People were forced to freeze their butts off in the winter for almost like a thousand years!

Then ya got the rise of modern empires, eh? The Spanish had a kick at the can but got beat by Sir Francis Bacon when he sank the Armada. England basically was forced to take over the world. Napoleon came along and he was the smartest flippin' Frenchman that the world ever seen! He conkered most of Eurup, but he couldn't take Russia. They froze him out. Then England kicked him in the family jewels and that was the end of that. The French ain't been worth a fart in a hurricane since then, eh?

The English kinda slipped up when they dumped a whole lot of tea in Boston Harbour, cos it was against the vironmental regulations, eh? Besides, Americans mostly like beer and coffee. So the Americans were forced to have a, like, revolution and the USA came into being! This meant major trouble bigtime for everybody excpet the USA.

The USA was soon forced to kill most of the Indians and take their lands, and was also FORCED to take half of Mexico. They tried to take Canada too, but we kicked their flippin' asses! Decent!

So that takes us up to the modern times. This nutcase called Hitler took over in Germany and the Germans was forced to invade just about everybody they could until finally they got Canada mad! We flippin' got together with England and the USA and kicked their asses! Totally decent!

Russia had a small part in it too, eh? Actually some big battles, I guess. And there was Japan... Sheesh! I am gettin' flippin' bored and sorry I even started this. I hate history.

Anyway, then the USA was forced to have a Cold War with Russian and, like, China because they were, like, Communists, eh? Communists are bad. With the help of Canada the Communists were finally beat and the Cold War ended. Majorly decent!

They the flippin' War on Terrorism started when somebody (God?) was forced to send terrorists and knock down the WTC towers. Just like the Tower of Babel, only two of them.

The way I see it, history just repeats itself, eh? Get ready fer more of the same, have a beer and a smile, and shut the flip up!

- BDiBR

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Metchosin
Date: 12 Dec 04 - 11:51 AM

I was very interested to note that after the building of the Berlin Wall, the US bought Alaska. LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Dec 04 - 11:46 AM

Like Godzilla, it rises periodically from the depths...

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Dec 04 - 11:29 AM

Isn't that nice. A GUEST comes along and revives an old argument and tells us an extremely expurgated version of history to justify a heinous act. Fact checkers would be quite busy, were they interested in this old argument. Or GUEST could have provided a few sources.

What's your point? Crusing the web and decided to visit Mudcat? Are you interested in Music, or just a hsitory buff practicing promiscuous browsing?

Subject: RE: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB in Japan?
From: GUEST,EUSA0740
Date: 12 Dec 04 - 02:09 AM

JMA--History is history. History repeats itself. The dawn of the 20th century. A new superpower has been born. It was time for the United States to prove itself as the world's dominant superpower, and it was after when both France and Great Britain colonized much of the present continental United States (e.g. Louisianna - FRA; New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Richmond, Delaware - GBR, respectively,). The Americans inherited all the English-French battle tactics...Also after the Spanish-American War, the colonies of Spain was sold to the highest bidder: United States. For this reason, all Spanish colonies were bought by the USA: Cuba, Mexico, Philippines, and Chile. The US also bought Guam, and all other islands in the Pacific Rim. The American troops occupied most of all the territories in both Cuba and the Philippines. The latter particularly became a US territory. And then, it came the time when Japanese forces attacked the Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, the American bases in the Philippines in Bataan. Thousands of Americans died in the Fall of Bataan in the Philippines. They were forced in the "Death March". A million of Americans died in the Philippines during the "Death March". The Americans were forced to eat human wastes, drink unclean water, sleep in the jungle full of deadly insects, and suffered defeat at the Fall of Bataan in the Philippines. Under the command of General Douglas MacArthur, the United States was forced built their atomic bomb, and it was called the MANHATTAN PROJECT. In retaliation, the USA dropped them later in the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Japan--the new superpower rising in the Pacific Region. Finally, the Japanese surrendered on September 02, 1945.
As you can see, this was the real reason why the World War II finally ended by the hands of the American troops. And then came along the separation of East(USSR) and West(USA), creation of Berlin Wall(Germany), and the beginning of Cold War...Then, the Russian territory of Alaska was bought by the United States and joined as the 49th largest state in the U.S.A. on January 1959.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 05:37 AM

You're right, robomatic, it's completely off topic, just a response to brucie who may even not have seen it.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 09:04 PM

Wolfgang:

I remember Dr. Cavalli-Sforza from my student days. He had a very pretty daughter....

I had two reactions to your post. First, it's off topic, and so thoroughly interesting that if you want to talk more on it, and I hope you do, it should have its own thread.

Second, I was going to comment that Dr. Cavalli-Sforza might be a bit behind the times, since my memories of him go back a generation, but in fact the book came out in 2001 and Dr. Sforza himself says that in a few years a new book will need to be written...

More on Cavalli-Sforza

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 05:16 PM

Bert - I'm old enough to know a penguin when I see one.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 05:11 PM

Likewise, Raedwulf. :-) Nice summation there, robomatic. I find little to disagree with in it. It's interesting that the American Air Force left certain Japanese cities unbombed so that they would have an undamaged test site for the A-bomb. Hmmm.

Give boys expensive toys, and they will play with them.

The USA had the capability in 1945 to destroy any Japanese metropolitan centre, with or without the A-bomb. It must be quite something to have such godlike powers at one's command. Quite a temptation, I would think. It's not surprising that they went ahead with it, whichever way you look at it.

What is surprising is that no one has done it since. I'd practically call that a miracle.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 03:15 PM

Brucie,

maybe that would have been a matter for PM, but perhaps someone else reading was interested as well.

I think I have it from Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's book that I have read in German. The original Italian title was Geni, popoli e lingue which, if it has been translated into English may have been Genes, People, Languages.

He tells a lot about old migrations and how findings from linguistics and genetics (his own field) converge to tell a similar story about our past. Many things are still unclear, but the overall picture is much clearer than it was even ten years ago. I very much liked reading this book, but since I'm far from being an expert either in linguistics or in genetics I can't really tell how good it is.

Some bites about the Basques (my translation):
Let me point out that the region that most reliably represents the descendants of the first Europeans at the time of the arrivals of the Neolithians are the Basques....the Basques very probably descend directly from the Paleolithians who habitated the North of Spain and the Southwest of France....The Basque language has been spoken earlier in a much larger region than today....I deem it probable that the Basque language comes from the languages spoken by modern Cro-Magnon people when they first came to France and Spain.

He later cites linguistic results showing (perhaps better: claiming/interpreting) that the Basque language belongs to the sinodenekaukasian language superfamily that once was spoken nearly universally in Eurasia, but now is restricted to the Basques (only member of that family in Europe), to a language in the South of the Kaukasus and to Tibet and (parts of) China.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: robomatic
Date: 15 Aug 04 - 09:29 AM

I want to express an appreciation to everyone on this thread because we need to be concerned with this issue in the context of our place in history and the potential for terrorists to bring it to the forefront.

The history of the development of the Atomic Bomb is one of the most interesting parts of the Twentieth Century and represents a level of effort and achievement among the greatest in human history. For those of you with an intrinsic interest in the story I recommend the following:

Richard Rhodes: Making of the Atomic Bomb
Richard Rhodes: Dark Sun
Stephane Groueff: The Manhattan Project
Leslie Groves: Now It Can Be Told
Movie: The Day After Trinity

Now for MY GRAND SIMPLIFICATION: I'd say the motivation on the part of the scientists and engineers was twofold:
1) Intrinsic interest in the basic laws of physics being understood and turned to application.
2) Concern that the enemy, particularly Germany, would be working on the weapon concurrently and possibly be ahead of the Allies.

Items I consider facts:
The Allies, primarily Great Britain and the United States spearheaded the effort with the aid of immigrant scientists from Italy, Russia, Germany, Denmark. Only the United States had the money and raw industrial power to actually isolate Uranium 235 using two entirely separate methods of concentration. An entirely different project used the first nuclear reactors to produce plutonium.

An operation by the Allies called Operation Paperclip established as the Allies re-conquered Europe established that the German efforts to produce nuclear weapons were considerably behind the Allies. But by then the Manhattan Project was at high speed and project inertia and the fact that the Japanese were still very much in the picture led to no diminution in the Allied effort.

Despite major and costly emphasis on secrecy and project security, early on the Soviets were the beneficiaries of information from the heart of the project due to Communist penetration at every phase and part of the Manhattan Project. They even got samples of bomb-quality Uranium.

Riding like a monkey on the back of the theoretical researchers was the knowledge that as horrible as the atomic bomb appeared to be, should it be possible, since 1942 the idea of using the energy released from the fusion of hydrogen into helium showed that in theory, an energy source much much greater than that of the atomic bomb might be possible. They called this the 'Super' and tabled it while they developed the atomic device.

There was so little doubt of the success of a Uranium bomb that it was never tested. This was Little Boy, destined for Hiroshima. The device that was tested at Alamogordo (Trinity) was a Plutonium device, and the means of detonation were sophisticated enough to require their own section of Los Alamos and their own test procedures. The Nagasaki weapon was a plutonium device called Fat Man.

At the time the bombs were dropped on Japan, there was material available and staged for a third weapon. The political leaders of the United States at that time ordered the military to return the makings of that weapon to the US Mainland. Until that time, the military had physical control of all nuclear weapons and could have had the third one used, although there is no evidence that it was ever contemplated.

While the atomic bomb was being researched and developed, an aviation program was developing an extremely expensive long range bomber, the B-29, a project comparable in expense to the Manhattan Project. A bomber group of B-29s was created in order to train for atomic weapons delivery. Already at that time, almost every Japanese city that could be called that was being bombed to smithereens. Thousand Plane raids were conducted against Tokyo that killed more people than died at Hiroshima. Aware of the possibility of using a new weapon, several cities in Japan were 'saved' from further conventional attack so the efficacy of the new weapons could be determined.

I don't think there is much to argue with in the above. It's when we start to put value judgements on these and succeeding events that the excitement starts. There is a strong urge to play historical 'what ifs', and I've seen a lot of plain inaccuracies in this thread.

Records indicate that the use of atomic weapons was keenly discussed in Los Alamos and in The White House. The prospect of a 'warning' with or without demonstration was considered. When Kyoto was proposed as a target, Americans well aware of the cultural significance of the city had it spared.

Rather than insist on some kind of moral ineptitude or uprightness, I think it is clear that the US government went into action after thought and reflection. At the time we were engaged in a total war with an enemy who had displayed great persistance, ingenuity, and effectiveness.

I don't think it is necessary to go into whether or not we cared what the Soviet Union thought of our weapon. They were well aware of it and working hard to develop their own at a far greater cost to their own people.

The Japanese people were long suffering slaves of their own government, which was led by a god, the emperor Hirohito. The decision to give up was not one they were capable of making.

So, my answer to the title of this thread:

The US dropped THE BOMB to defeat the Empire of Japan and end World War II. In this it proved to be a success.

To me, the lesson we must learn is:

The weapons that were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ONLY atomic weapons. They destroyed whole cities on a scale already achieved by thousand plane raids. When the first hydrogen device was detonated in November 1952 it was of a magnitude unimaginable just seven years before. The island on which it was placed ceased to exist.

Another lesson is that once a country establishes a nuclear infrastructure in order to produce one bomb, more bombs will follow. You don't spend billions of dollars to concentrate bomb grade Uranium or produce Plutonium and just stop at one bomb. You have a de-facto production line going. So rather than dwell on whether or not certain decisions were moral, or right or wrong, I think we should work together to determine whether we want North Korea, Iran, and terrorists to pick up where Pakistan has left off thanks to the wholesale leakage of nuclear information and materials by Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 14 Aug 04 - 07:01 PM

Hawk - as ever, tis a pleasure to be disputashus wid you, sir! And, as this is (thankfully) a free world (more or less), I must acknowledge your right to be wrong... ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 14 Aug 04 - 06:26 PM

Amergin - did you read the thread, or did you drop in just long enough for an attempt (failed) at being superior? Speaking of "It appears to me that many people in this thread are typing to see their own words in print", if you have no interest in the thread (Hey! Why not leave it to those who have? Now there's a novel thought...), what exactly was the point of your post?

Surely not because "many people in this thread are typing to see their own words in print"?! Unfortunately I can't see any other reason for your worthless intervention...

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Aug 04 - 04:19 PM

Amerigin:

"Those who do not know the past are doomed to repeat it."

An understanding of WHY things have been done in the past can lead to a better understanding of the present.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Amergin
Date: 14 Aug 04 - 04:12 PM

Yawn....debating soemthing that happened 60 years ago...before many of us were even born. It appears to me that many people in this thread are typing to see their own words in print....the virtual equivalent of talking to hear your own voice....Why we're at it...why don't we debate the Revolutionary War? Or the American Civil War...or better yet why don't we debate why Urgh hit Ugh over the head with a rock and killed him? You can't change the bombs being dropped...or why...you can only see that it doesn't happen again....that is if you're not sitting here debating why something happened before you were even born.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Bert
Date: 14 Aug 04 - 02:27 AM

How old are you LH?

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 04 - 01:30 AM

Two cows were talking in the field.

One cow says, "Have you heard about the Mad Cow disease that's going around?"

The other cow answers, "Yeah, makes you glad you're a penguin, doesn't it?"

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 04 - 12:07 AM

"Consesus" means sexual congress between 15 or more penguins, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Aug 04 - 11:52 PM

Wow, SRS, thank you! I had NO idea what consesus meant.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 04 - 11:14 PM

Fair enough. I've read a ton of material on it too, being a bit of a nut on the War in the Pacific, and I think the Japanese would have surrended regardless. And when they did, a lot of fanatical army officers would have killed themselves (which many did) or tried to stage a revolt (which also happened). Still, I think that a blockade, coupled with the Russian attacks in Manchuria would have brought a Japanese surrender in 1945...and I do not agree with the concept of demanding unconditional surrender of an opponent. Conditional surrender is always possible, and leaves the door open for some negotiations, which is wise.

I really don't think we are ever going to agree on this. :-) But you're right that it's an interesting subject, that's for sure.

The thing about the Japanese...they follow orders and sublimate their identity to the group more than westerners. This made them very unwilling to surrender, as long as they were ordered to fight and die if necessary. On the other hand, as soon as they were instructed not to fight, the public in general were extremely cooperative with occupying Allied forces. They were following orders and doing their duty, as usual. It must rank as one of the most peaceful and successful postwar occupations of all time.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 13 Aug 04 - 06:52 PM

Hawk - Actually, I don't 'believe' that strongly. I have no problem remembering you have a different p-o-v. OTOH, I have never based my facts on my beliefs, as some might say you imply.

It happens to be a lucky coincidence that this particular argument coincided with me reading up in the same area. Not because I was interested, not because I had an axe to grind, just because that was what was in front of me at the time. I'm pretty omnivorous, & have a mind (some would insist 'face') like an elephant. *g*

I've always tried to base my opinions on the available facts. Generally, I have a low opinion of American honesty, because history doesn't tend to prove otherwise. In truth? I'm too well read in history to accept *any* governmental line. They all lie equally to us. We're all one nationality (or another), the politicians who rule us are something different. You know exactly what I mean! *g*

But! In your arguments on this matter, I will follow the facts. There is nothing to suggest that anything other than the atomic bomb persuaded Japan to surrender. Your alternatives are not substantiated by any historical example or precedent whatsover. "What if" history is always contentious. It must be, & that (let's face it! :) ) is half the fun.

But "What if" history must be based on verifiable historical precedent, not fantasy. If it is not, it is merely speculation & fiction.

I am sorry, but your speculation has no verifiable precedence. You can wish that the bomb was never dropped (I'll join you!), but it was. None of the alternatives that you claimed were viable ever really were.

Without the bomb, Japan would not have surrendered. You cannot change that statement, however much you wish. Incontrovertibly, millions would have died were it not for the bomb.

This is not emotion.

I do not support the bomb because I like it. Just like Truman (because I don't believe the conspiracy theorists that say he was dumb enough to be duped), I would rather it had not been dropped, but it was the least worst choice of a number of unpleasant choices.

What else must I say to convince you? I am rational, not emotional. All the gods forbid that such should be the choice again, but the bomb, in that place & at that time... I cannot see another decision that would have spared more lives. And, as Truman did not, I, along with you, have the benefit of hindsight!!

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 04 - 06:00 PM

Well, you obviously feel strongly about it, Raedwulf. Fine with me. We will evidently never agree on the matter, and it has happened already, so we must live with it. As I've said before, we should probably all thank the Japanese for being the chosen "guinea pigs" for atomic fire, because if it hadn't been done there, it would have been done somewhere else soon enough.

I think these arguments are always fueled by a basic emotional decision that the person has made...for or against a proposition. Once the emotional position is established, the mind is not about to change, and it will seek out whatever facts and opinions it can find which back up its predisposition. That's human nature.

Some people instinctively feel that the USA is the World's number 1 "good guy" and you will generally find them on one side of a political argument, while people who instinctively feel that the USA is an exploiter and an aggressor will line up on the other side of the argument.

That's what we really end up fighting about all the time. We just camouflage it somehow.

This squabble about whether it was right or not to drop the Bomb on Japan is just more of the same old traditional divide on whether or not the USA is the saviour of humanity and the guardian of freedom in the World. It's a matter of faith. Strong faith can always come up with good arguments.

(And NO, I am not saying that the USA was in any way unjustified in fighting Japan in the 40's...or that Japan was not itself a ruthless aggressor that deserved to meet defeat...so don't bother saying that I am. Remember, someone can be on the opposite side of an argument from you, and STILL not be crazy or evil or totally wrong about everything. They just have a different emotional position on something than you, that's all. You see it all the time with Democrats and Republicans. They are infuriated by seeing their own weaknesses and failings reflected so clearly in the actions of the other.)

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Aug 04 - 05:39 PM

Raedwulf:

Thank you for the excellent analysis. It is too bad that it ( and reality) conflicts with the world-view of some of the posters here.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 13 Aug 04 - 05:26 PM

Sorry for taking so long to reply!

Those of you wishing to believe that the Japanese might have surrendered in any other circumstances than post-The Bomb(s) are living in cloud cuckoo land. Prime Minister Suzuki stated that, without the atomic bombs, Japan would not have surrendered (& he ought to know).

Russian invasion made no bloody difference. The Japanese didn't know what had happened in Manchuria for several days, & didn't care anyway. They'd already stripped all the first class units out of those armies for home defence. As to the suggestion that Russian intervention was a complete & unpleasant surprise... The Japs made a remarkably good job of fortifying Maritime Province (Far East - Vladivostock way) in anticipation of such an event. Such that the projected 9th August invasion of Hokkaido would have been at least a fortnight behind schedule, due to the tenacious resistance of Japanese forces, especially on Sakhalin (an important staging post for the Soviets).

Economic collapse meant nothing, & blockade would not have affected the "Big Six" that ruled Japan. Millions would have died from starvation in Japan (including all Allied POW's & internees), which would not have affected Japanese determination in the least. They were dying for their God.

The entire Japanese strategy was to win the "decisive battle". Not "decisive" in any military sense, but to make the cost of any Allied victory so high as to make negotation (acceptance of Japanese terms, in other words) preferable. This had been High Command strategy for many months.

The advent of nuclear war, as Suzuki admitted, made an invasion of Japan redundant. At that point, given that they didn't (& couldn't possibly) know that there were only two bombs, the only strategy remaining was national suicide. Even then, it took unprecedented intervention from the Emperor to initiate surrender. God knows what would have happened if Japan had bluffed for a week or two. The longer it went without the USA obliging with a third bomb...

Fact: there is no pre-Hiroshima document from Japan that suggests that any terms that Japan might have considered were at all acceptable to the Allies.

Fact: no Japanese government had surrendered in over 2,000 years.

Fact: no Japanese unit surrendered before 15/8/45. Even after that date, many units refused to believe in the Emperor's surrender, & many (particularly officers) committed suicide rather than shame themselves.

Fact: the first time the Japanese government seriously discussed surrender is the day Fatman fell (I do not know whether this discussion took place before, after, or with knowledge of, the Nagasaki bomb). Even then, the Big Six were split 50-50 as to surrender terms.

History Lesson: The Political Reality of Japan

Japan was ruled by an Imperial Council, colloquially known as the Big Six. In the twenty-odd years preceding 1945 there are no less than 64 assorted purges, including 2 prime ministerial assassinations. No-one is going to say "Boo" to the Big Six in 1945, gentlemen. Not no way, not no how. The only attempt at a coup in war years is post-surrender & an attempt to continue the war!!! As, I think, Hawk has already pointed out.

For the 'Six' to function, they must be unanimous (it is, if you will, a variation on the Shogun governments that plagued a slightly earlier Japan). Of the 6 members, only one (the Foreign Minister) is a civilian. Of the remaining 5, one is a retired Admiral (I think this is Suzuki, the PM, retired 1937), the rest are serving Flag Officers. Japan is firmly in the hand of militarists.

Even on the day of Fatman, the discussion is split equally between two camps. Both are conditional surrenders. Condition one (common to both) is that the Imperial system must continue. Conditions two through four are: Repatriation of all Japanese combatants; all "so-called war crimes trials" Japanese wording! to be conducted under Japanese supervision; no Allied occupation of Japan. Because of the split, the official position will be that of the "all four conditions" party.

Hirohito made an unprecedented intervention at this point. The surrender was offered with only condition one as a rider. The US Sec. of State responded swiftly - only unconditional surrender was acceptable & the Emperor was to be subject to the Supreme Allied Commander. More heated discussion ensued in the Japanese cabinet, but on 14/8/45 the Emperor made a unilateral decision. Radio messages were sent to all Japanese armies, & at noon 15/8/45 many Japanese heard the voice of their god for the very first time as he declared the surrneder...

Now don't drop The Bomb...

The Imperial High Command are already seriously considering declaring martial law. Invasion by any of the Allies will certainly trigger this. At this point, Hirohito no longer has an mechanism by which he can intervene. His power is entirely based on the willingness of the government & military to obey him. Take away the Big Six, & there is zero chance that any such opportunity will occur. Moreover, the infrastructure to communicate a surrender would have disintegrated before Hirohito had a chance to announce it.

Fact: Before Fat Boy, the US General in charge of bombing operations over Japan had already decided to change focus. In light of the German/European experience, he had given orders to target communications & infrastructure, instead of cities. Japanese infrastructure is incredibly vulnerable. Keeping the rail network cut in just half-a-dozen or so places (given that their maritime transport network is, in the current circumstances, at a complete standstill) will result in the the civilian (not military - betcha they'll get fed?) starvation of the south.

Fact: In post-war Japan, even with the nuclear-induced victory of the Allies, the ration was cut as low as 1,040 calories/day. Imagine what Japan would have been in the wake of a protacted conventional campaign...

Congratulations to the morally upright amongst you who would not have dropped The Bomb. Conservative estimates suggest you will kill around 5 million Japanese through military intervention & starvation, & 5-10 million others before the war ends. The war will last another 2-5 years. Japan (without substantial economic help) will remain an agricutural backwater. Of course, the Marshall Plan for Western Europe probably won't happen because resources will be lacking, & so on & so forth...

You've just made the world a better place, haven't you... (I'm glad you think Truman was a cold-hearted, gullible, evil, whatever-adjective-you-like bastard - Me? I prefer to think of him as a pragmatist. He didn't choose a good choice, cos there weren't any. He chose the best one he could find, & I reckon history won't judge him too badly whatever the nay-sayers may claim)

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 13 Aug 04 - 12:52 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 12 Aug 04 - 05:20 PM

Freightdawg: We do not have to look all over Europe and America to find this growing anti-semitic trend. We see it right here on Mudcat which is a microcosm of the greater world we live in. But at least here, on this forum, both sides can talk to each other without fear of physical violence, and perhaps the voice of reason will prevail.
SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: freightdawg
Date: 12 Aug 04 - 03:10 PM

Rabbi,

So true and I should have thought of that myself. Thanks for the explanation. I certainly agree that Hitler's "final solution" was unbearably cruel.

What makes me so sad is that in Europe as well as in America there is a growing anti-Semitic trend that no one seems to be willing to expose and deal with. Did we learn nothing??

Thank you,

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 11 Aug 04 - 11:54 PM

Freightdawg: To answer your question; Hitler was the much more evil threat than Antiochus. Antiochus' campaign against the Jews was more of a spiritual than a physical one. His aim was to have the Jews accept the Greek gods and worship and forget their own faith. Had the Jews agreed to his terms, he would not have threatened to kill them. Hitler, on the other hand, was obsessed with the complete physical genocidal annihilation of all Jews, regardless of whether they kept to their faith or not. He would trace your lineage back for 4 generations. Even if you were a practicing Christian, if your great grandparent from either side of your family was Jewish, you were marked for extermination. The barbaric cruelty and sheer enormity of Hitler's final solution was unmatched in the history of mankind. There were approximately 15 million Jews in existence before the Holocaust. Hitler killed 6 million of our people which is almost 40%. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 04 - 10:48 PM

Interesting point, freightdawg. You may be right about that. The U-boats could have won the war for Hitler in 1942, I think, if he had the foresight to put sufficient resources at Doenitz' disposal.

Another key point was Hitler's continual favoring of bombers over fighters through most of the war. This nonsense lost him the Battle of Britain. It is fighters that must establish air superiority, and enough Bf 109's set free to do just that in 1940 could have broken the Royal Air Force, but they were tied down defending the vulnerable bombers. Once you have eliminated an enemy fighter force, then your bombers can really do the job...wherever they want to. It's fighters that win a war in the air.

Another bad decision: not replacing the Bf 109 with the Fw 190, and phasing out the 109's after 1941. Messerschmitt had too much influence, so that was not going to happen.

Another bad decision: delaying the development of the Me 262 fighter jets, and then converting them to bombers! Sheer lunacy.

And the worst decision of all: attacking Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: freightdawg
Date: 11 Aug 04 - 10:34 PM

Now that the rocks have stopped flying us little fellers can stick their heads back out....

LH, I think I may have an idea as to why Hitler declared on the U.S. The only way he could defeat Britain was to blockade it - starve it of precious war materials. As long as the US was technically a neutral it could sail needed supplies to the island. By declaring war Hitler allowed his U-Boats full range over the Atlantic. I think, and this is pure conjecture, that it was his belief that Doenitz could sink more American supply ships, and more importantly, more escort vessels, faster than they could be replaced. However, the longer he waited he knew that the US would be ramping up its ship building capacity to fight the war in the Pacific. It was a matter of timing. He felt like he had to engage the US in a two ocean war when it barely had a one ocean fleet.

It almost worked. The defeat of the U-Boats was never a forgone conclusion, and in Churchill's own words they were the threat that concerned him the most. The only problem was that Hitler had not given Doenitz the number of U-Boats that he wanted or needed. Therefore, Doenitz was stretched too thin to effectively shut the Atlantic coastline down. Two developments then overcame the U-Boat menace - the incredible might of the American shipbuilding capacity and the technological refinement of the ASDIC anti-submarine device and maybe more important, Radar.

Granted, this was a move of pure hubris by Hitler, but I am somewhat of a U-Boat history buff and I think Doenitz could have won the war for Hitler had he been given the number of U-Boats that he wanted. One only has to review the tonnage that the wolfpacks sank in 1941, 1942 and the first six months of 1943 to realize just how close Doenitz came. Thankfully for the US and Britain, Hitler was more interested in flashy big battleships (the Bismarck and the Tirpitz) By the time Doenitz got through to Hitler the Allies had turned the tide against him and his boats were the hunted instead of the hunters.

Rabbi Sol, I do appreciate your posts. You have been one voice of reason in this thread. However, a question. Would you rate Hitler's pogrom of greater violence than, say, Antiochus Epiphanes? I am not Jewish, so please I mean no animosity. I just see Hitler as another in a long disgusting line of animals who have tried to eliminate the people of your faith. Your collective will to survive and overcome is of great value to me.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 04 - 02:50 PM

Agreed, Bill. But I'm not surprised they used it. Not at all. It was typical. Nuremberg only focused on the Axis war crimes, but there were war crimes committed by the Allies as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 11 Aug 04 - 02:12 PM

true enough, Little Hawk, but in every case it is a choice, and in the case of the A-bomb, Truman could have chosen to say no. the air marshalls are never in control, it is the politicians who make the call, and the public who should keep them honest and demand answers. unfortunately propoganda does work. many people really believe there were NO other options, not just that the momentum of war, the fog of war, precluded them. As you recognize, there certainly were other options, like blockade, etc. We, our government acting for us, decided not to use them but to drop the bomb, twice. shame on Truman and the rest. completely tarnishes any 'glory' this country may have had, (had none really, when you take into account the Indian wars, etc.)

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 04 - 01:54 PM

Excellent post, HuwG. The Americans were fully capable of incinerating Japanese cities without using atomic bombs, as you point out, and were already doing so with very little difficulty. Atomic bombs were in fact not required at all in order to bomb the Japanese into submission...but there is a peculiar psychological aspect to dropping just one bomb from one airplane and instantly destroying the greater part of a city. I think the Americans just couldn't resist using a new weapon...and seeing how well it would work.

In a similar sense they could not have resisted the temptation to invade Japan as soon as logistically possible, rather than simply blockading them into submission, which was entirely feasible.

These things tend to carry forward on their own momentum once a war is under way. People find the use of maximum force rather intoxicating once they get accustomed to it.

Try telling an air marshall NOT to use his bombers when he still has the chance to! Try telling a general NOT to use his armies. That is pretty well the same as telling him: "We don't really need you anymore." People don't like not being needed anymore. It's a threat to their basic sense of identity. And politicians would usually rather slaughter another few hundred thousand foreigners than be seen as "weak".

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Aug 04 - 11:16 AM

Thank you, Wolfgang. I would appreciate that.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: HuwG
Date: 11 Aug 04 - 10:51 AM

Just a few thoughts, possibly non-sequiturs, but I'll post them anyway.

Firstly: I think that all informed Japanese (though there would have been few of these) must have known that Japan was indeed militarily impotent in mid-1945. Their navy, and air forces, had been almost completely destroyed, along with the bulk of their merchant shipping. The home islands were almost entirely cut off from the sources of raw materials elsewhere in Asia. Even if they could build more aircraft, they were almost out of fuel, and before long they would be unable to mount even kamikaze attacks.

In this respect, the situation was not at all like that of Britain in 1940. Britain could rely on large reserves of manpower and industry in the Dominions, had undisputed naval superiority over Germany, had measures in hand to expand the Air Force to equal and overwhelm the Luftwaffe, and could also rely on support from the USA under Roosevelt. Churchill needed only to overcome the immediate crisis, and could then be certain that Germany had no way of directly defeating Britain. (The U-boat was essentially a one-dimensional threat. Once the technical and numerical odds in the Battle of the Atlantic favoured the Allies, the U-boat's defeat was inevitable.)


Secondly: the casualties inflicted by the atomic weapons were only part of the civilian casualties caused by Allied bombing of Japan. For example, on the night of March 10/11th, Superfortresses dropped 2000 tons of incendiaries on Tokyo. In an area consisting mainly of buildings shoddily constructed from softwood, the resulting firestorm was more destructive even than that which engulfed Hamburg and Dresden. There were estimated to be from 80,000 to 200,000 dead, and anything up to 1.8 million injured (mainly suffering severe burns) and homeless.

Superfortresses were eventually making similar raids every other day. They are believed to have inflicted a total of half a million deaths, and made 13 million homeless. The Japanese could do nothing to prevent such attacks. However, other than dislocating civilians and destroying some factories caught in the general conflagration, these attacks did not directly affect Japan's capacity to continue the war. (It should be remembered that these raids were only just beginning after Churchill and others had begun having second thoughts about the morality and effectiveness about the Dresden raid.)


I believe that, with or without the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan would have been forced to come to terms before the end of 1945. The slaughter of civilians must eventually have swayed the Emperor, the Russian declaration of war with their occupation of Manchuria and the destruction of the Japanese Kwantung Army would have convinced all but the most deluded military leaders that resistance was at an end.

(Had the war continued, the second half of 1945 would have seen a British / Indian invasion of Malaya, and perhaps the recapture of Singapore, the surrender of starving units of the Japanese South China Army, and the invasion, in November, of Kyushu and perhaps Hokkaido. Sooner or later, this succession of blows must surely have driven the Japanese to surrender.

Furthermore, while Japanese history, or at least the folklore which accompanied the warrior code, emphasises that death is preferable to disgrace, it was noted during the last stages of the fighting on Okinawa (June, 1945) and Manchuria, Japanese soldiers and civilians were starting to surrender rather than fight to the end. To be fair, these were people numbed by months of privation and ceaseless fighting, but I think it possible that this tendency might have been even more marked had the war continued to the end of the year. Evidence of this failure of will might also have contributed to a decision to surrender.)


I don't think it can be disputed that the atomic bombs did indeed hasten the Japanese surrender. They did so at cost of terrible casualties. However, I think that had they not been used, the Japanese civilian casualties would have been as numerous and tragic, had the Allies (particularly the US) continued to use the same strategy and methods as they were doing. One cannot imagine commanders such as Curtis LeMay or Admiral Halsey deciding to let up attacking Japanese targets for a few months while the Japanese supreme command mulled things over, and the Army slowly gathered itself for an invasion. So, while the use of atomic weapons was cruel, it cannot by itself be called wanton cruelty, not in the context of the time and situation.





As a footnote, I note that the Japanese have not been entirely forgiven for their own cruelties, in China at any rate. As someone posted somewhere, the "Rape of Nanking" and other atrocities are still remembered. The Chinese evidently feel that, although Japanese civilians also suffered during the war, the criminals who authorised, condoned and perpetrated that and similar crimes did not themselves suffer as a result, and Japan still owes some atonement for those crimes.

So far as I am aware, such an attitude is not so marked in other countries the Japanese attacked or occupied. In some cases (e.g. Indonesia), the Japanese inflicted no worse atrocities than the previous colonial power. In others, such as Burma, the nation's own subsequent internal turmoil has involved similar or worse acts.

Subject: RE: BS: Exactly why the US dropped THE BOMB?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 04 - 08:24 AM

Les - There was no chance of Japan getting anywhere with an atomic project in the war years. They hadn't even begun such a project by 1945, and it took a massive effort at that time and several years to complete such a project. Only the USA and Germany really had the potential to do it, as far as I can see. In the case of Germany, Hitler wasn't interested in the concept for some reason, so it got little encouragement from the top. In addition to that it appears that some of the key German nuclear scientists may have quietly and deliberately steered the project off in unproductive directions, due to their desire to avoid producing an atomic bomb. Many of the Allied scientists were also morally opposed to using the Bomb, and argued stronly for not doing so. Edward Teller was a notable exception to that attitude, and he went on to champion the much more terrible H-bomb in the 1950's. I get the impression that if Teller could have come up with a bomb capable of instantly destroying half the World he would have been delighted.