You don't get my point. What if murdering the population of 2 major cities wouldn't have sufficed to make them surrender? How far would the omnicide went?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
70 years ago today: The USA dropped the first nuclear bomb on Hiroshima
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
- Status
You don't get my point. What if murdering the population of 2 major cities wouldn't have sufficed to make them surrender? How far would the omnicide went?
The people don't decide whether or not a war is still on or not though. Not that this would have done that either.
Could have fired a warning shot at the minimum if it had to be used.
Well it would have continued to the point that we had control of Japan. Do you not understand how war works? If we just left Japan alone they would have continued attacking us and every other nation in the pacific. Our goal was to end the war that was declared on us.
If you look up the mass suicides on the places before Japan you get more reason they were worried about a drawn out battle. The Japanese literally believed they would be butchered and raped horribly by the Americans if not worse. There is a lot of footage out there that shows people just......dropping off cliffs. Mothers with kids. Below in the water bodies just floating. The American soldiers were doing everything they could to stop that by having some Japanese who did surrender tell others they were being treated humanely. Didn't stop some from killing themselves.
I can't begin to imagine what that's like. They were extremely fearful if this was happening in the islands what would mainland Japan do.
I can't begin to imagine what that's like. They were extremely fearful if this was happening in the islands what would mainland Japan do.
The US had plans to drop another nuke on the 19th, and had more in production at the time to ensure continued bombing to resume in October and November.
The US would have burned Japan to the ground if they had to, and before you crucify US leadership for such policy, know that they had to have Japan's leadership know we would be willing to go as far as possible to break Japan in order to secure the surrender that happened in the first place.
Doesn't Japan have a massive problem with discussing what happened during the war?
Want to give us an alternative because there are pretty much just 2 other choices.
Wait them out and conventionally bomb / blockade Japan until they starve? More people would have died.
Invade conventionally? A lot more people would have died.
Sure, I bet we're itching to toss another nuke after 70 years?
People who say that the nuclear bombs had nothing to do with Japanese surrender need to realize that they are essentially making an argument on par with "the Civil War wasn't about slavery". The atomic bombs are directly mentioned and discussed in Hirohito's broadcast as threatening the total destruction of the Japanese people. Right before the bombs, even with Soviet entry into the war, they weren't willing to agree to unconditional surrender or any peace that removed the Emperor.
I dunno how the nukes are any different from the indiscriminate bombings of civilians both sides did during the war—congrats, you just managed to make it even more efficient and horrible. Why is one a war crime and the other acceptable? How are you going to respond if one side is using such tactics against you, war crime or not?
While I think you can make a confident claim as to the role nukes had in ending the war, I think the questions of deterrence and how much of an impact they've had in preventing similar large-scale combat is still a very open-ended question. Remember that prior to World War I, Europe hadn't seen a full-scale continental war since the time of Napoleon, 100 years prior. It's entirely possible the peace that was created might be seen as illusory and short-lived by future generations that follow us. Maybe not, though—there's always hope.
I dunno how the nukes are any different from the indiscriminate bombings of civilians both sides did during the war—congrats, you just managed to make it even more efficient and horrible. Why is one a war crime and the other acceptable? How are you going to respond if one side is using such tactics against you, war crime or not?
While I think you can make a confident claim as to the role nukes had in ending the war, I think the questions of deterrence and how much of an impact they've had in preventing similar large-scale combat is still a very open-ended question. Remember that prior to World War I, Europe hadn't seen a full-scale continental war since the time of Napoleon, 100 years prior. It's entirely possible the peace that was created might be seen as illusory and short-lived by future generations that follow us. Maybe not, though—there's always hope.
Hopefully not, but the only other outcome with Japan at that time was a conditional surrender that would have brought on yet another war with Japan once they rebuilt again....only that time they might be the one's flinging nukes at people.
Unconditional surrender was the only path to a secure peace. Otherwise we just have the situation that played out at the end of WW1 that led to WW2 play out again.
tearsintherain
Member
Also remember nowadays we all know what nukes are and what they can do and most people also know what things like biological warfare can do, hence the fear of ebola, anthrax, etc.
I can't imagine people in the 1940s understanding the idea of a bomb that can kill 100,000 people in an instant. That had to just seem unreal and not a possible thing.
I can't imagine people in the 1940s understanding the idea of a bomb that can kill 100,000 people in an instant. That had to just seem unreal and not a possible thing.
Jesus christ they children's drawings...
Horrible event, unjustifiable, but so is any war ever and here we are still in the middle of dozens more.
Well Japan was well versed in biowarfare.
It likely would have continued until they surrendered. We were making the bombs as fast as we could and the third wouldn't be ready until the 19th. The president ordered that no more bombs could be dropped without his express approval, so it's hard to say the third was automatic. The uncertainty isn't really would it have been dropped if they didn't surrender, but would they continue to deliberate and eventually come to their senses and give up before the 19th.
The US was really not interested in invading the mainland because they knew what was waiting for them, so they would have relied on the bombs as much as possible. The casualties from an invasion, on both sides, would have made the bombings look almost insignificant.
entremet
Member
I accept their use in this instance, I just think it's a moral dilemma for many.
Yes they would, it was the bomb or invasion. You got to remember that they were in the greatest war of all time, they would have taken any chance to end the war.
You're thinking of the old claim that a Titan II rocket could eventually carry a 35MT warhead, based on a 1963 guess of how bomb efficiencies would improve over time.
The largest single warhead ever known to be produced by the US is the B41, a bomber-delivered device at 25MT. The largest warhead ever actually carried on the Titan II was a W-53, which had a yield of "only" 9MT.
The highest amount of destructive power ever known to have been shoved onto a missile was shoved onto the largest ICBM ever made, the Soviet R-36, which received the chilling NATO reporting name "Satan." They carried up to about 20MT onboard.
Perhaps far more terrifying is the MIRV potential of the R-36. They carry up to ten warheads, a number limited partly due to nuclear agreements at the time. Proposals had been in place to equip the missile with more than thirty "small" 250kT warheads.
I don't think you can talk about the atomic bombs without talking about Dresden and Tokyo firebombings.
Yeah, MIRV's are far for deadly than the single warhead types.
Nuking ISIS out of existence would be the equivalent of playing Battleship with the planet.
And it was more of an ultimatum. The alternative to the bombs wasn't much better.
Here is a Panoramic Picture of Hiroshima after the bombing. Tak Fujii tweeted it out.
http://www.asahi.com/special/nuclear_peace/pano/past/cylinder/
http://www.asahi.com/special/nuclear_peace/pano/past/cylinder/
Woops, you're right, I thought the B41 got to 35 MT and placed on a missile. All pretty scary stuff though.
The emperor who also would have continued the war as well if he was to be removed from power, and there's reason to suspect that he was complicit in the all the war crimes in China.
I'm pretty sure a greater # of Japanese civilians were killed in the Tokyo fire bombing raids than were killed by the dropping of the A-bombs.
Still tragic, though.
All I'm saying is that nations were targeting civilian populations left and right throughout the war. We were bombing the hell out of both Tokyo and Berlin, for example. It's not like the civilians lost in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were some special anomaly.
Still tragic, though.
All I'm saying is that nations were targeting civilian populations left and right throughout the war. We were bombing the hell out of both Tokyo and Berlin, for example. It's not like the civilians lost in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were some special anomaly.
People don't realize a quick and decisive end to the war was best for the United States and Japan. It paved the way for a lasting alliance between the two countries.
Forget about casualties and civilian starvation in Japan. An invasion would have meant an extended occupation and, possibly, lingering hostilities. There's a reason why we're still having issues with Korea, and it's because there was no decisive conclusion either way.
Forget about casualties and civilian starvation in Japan. An invasion would have meant an extended occupation and, possibly, lingering hostilities. There's a reason why we're still having issues with Korea, and it's because there was no decisive conclusion either way.
Yeah these days is all about smaller tactical weapons rather than larger strategic. I mean we still have thousands of Strategic ones but most new weapons are designed to be smaller but super accurate so you don't need multiple megatons and can reduce overall damage
It really is not, it's not a hard, black an white issue, "Japan would never had surrender" is nowhere written in stone, we can discuss forever the "what if" scenarios of mainland invasion or Japan's actual, real stubbornness, but it boils down to conjectures, we all have heard the other side that it wasn't about ending the war as much as it was to show military power to the soviets, because Japan was about to surrender anyway.
Since you are american of course you justify it as most americans do, you were taught this at school.
We have the communications between the Japanese leaders. The conjecture is from people wishing something else were true when it just isn't. It's clear to anyone attempting an objective understanding of the period that more lives would have been lost had the war been allowed to continue.
Cotton McKnight
Member
Sure the death toll might have been less, but it was meant to scare the Japanese government.
Fire bombing with many planes gave the look that the Americans were risking a lot of planes and men to bomb Japan.
Enola Gay was risking one plane, one crew, using virtually no fuel compared to the fleet of bombers it took to firebomb.
A new non-conventional weapon that could decimate with one small target versus the conventional way.
Let's not use ranking of weapons as our argument here folks. There is history, there were decisions made, the victors write the rules and the history. Sure some people don't like it, and some may even go to revisionist habits so their agendas (in their opinion) can help them feel ok about their new saber rattling. It does not matter, it won't (hopefully) happen again.
It sucks it happened, if a Japanese person who was affected would like me to listen, ok I'll listen, I'll even tell them I am sorry it affected them, I'll mean it they'll see my empathy. I would leave it at that, there is nothing else I can say to comfort, hopefully they take it from me that I do care.
It was a war, like something we will most likely never see again, if we want to survive it as a species.
Almost all historians agree that Japan would have suffered orders of magnitude greater losses had the bombs not dropped. You can make shit up all you want, or attack my viewpoint because "I was taught this at school", or you could look at reality.
If you have any evidence whatsoever showing that they were "about to surrender anyway", feel free to post it.
Edit: Also see pa22word's post.
Then show us proof that they were going to surrender.
They can't, all they have are feels.
Firebombing of Tokyo and the lack of a warning nuke show it wasn't about saving civilian lives in some sort of tally as hard as some try to make it seem whenever it's brought up, disrespecting those that were affected.
Wasting a bomb like that and continuing to firebomb would prolong the war and more people would have died. You still have not offered one argument as to how two bombs destroying cities barely leads to surrender but one bomb dropped away from everyone would have been more effective.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
The reality is that it was war. It was decided that the bombs were the fastest way to end it with minimum enemy life loss, and as a bonus no friendly life loss or spoils damaged. It was never about what was right or wrong, it was about what was convenient.
UltimaPooh
Member
So no proof pretty much?
Wasting a bomb? Possibly preventing the immense destruction? What the fuck?
It was obviously about saving the lives of American Soldiers. That does not mean though that the analysis that the invasion would cost far more in Japanese civilian lives is incorrect. It simply means that it wasnt the main purpose of the bombs.
It would be a waste because it would have produced absolutely no result. The leadership would have not been compelled to do anything in response.
How is this not making sense? Why won't you offer any evidence or reasoning to support your ridiculous assertions?
They launch warning nuke. Japan doesn't surrender. They launch second nuke into actual city, and Japan doesn't surrender (see above post). Now we prolong the war until US can launch third nuke on the 19th and give Japan incacuable time to entrench and probe an invasion, costing more lives, and maybe they still surrender in the aftermath of the 19th.
Two bombs still sink two cities, and more loss of life in the weeks it takes to prepare the next bomb. Net gain by launching warning nuke, even with our hindsight, is nothing but more loss of life.
lol this one is almost as old as the other one, if we're going to play revision bias.
the war was over, the US didn't need to use the bomb, they wanted to = the Americans didn't want to use the bomb but the Japanese were going to fight "to the death".
The leadership based it's decision on the fact that US had that power and the Russians are turning on them. That power can be demonstrated to high-level government with a warning shot.
What's hard to understand? Do you think they wouldn't get it because no dead people?
Who said any of that? It was about saving American lives, I won't sugarcoat that. Like I said before just look at Iwo Jama and Okinawa to tell you how a invasion of mainland Japan would have went.
You are ignoring about 80% of everything I'm typing.
Destroying two cities still resulted in a coup to kill the emperor when he decide to end the war. Dropping a bomb in the middle of nowhere would have done nothing and they wouldn't have surrendered.
Please address the facts and stop ignoring everything you don't like.
So how should the US-Japan conflict have ended, then, in your mind? With continued hyper-devastating firebomb attacks, or an outright mainland invasion?
Because both are idiotic.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked