Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And you didn't answer any I see.

So letting Japan retain its conquered countires and kill thousands of civilians daily is ok? I proffer those countries might disagree a fair bit.

This has been an issue which has torn my own opinion many times over but I've never been able to say to myself it was fully justified, so I voted no. I think the original question is to open however as its a complex issue with a lot of emotion and deserves more thought than, 'was it a good idea'.

They were a good idea at the time: to a country which had whipped itself into such a frenzy of hatred and excitement in a war where each nation was commiting war crimes/atrocities in the name of their respective 'greater goods'. The lines of morality become blurred and for the people who made the decision, for those who dropped the bombs, for a nation who was tiring of loosing its sons and daughters; I believe their need to end the war, the desire for revenge, to show strength to other nations, to survive... for them it was a good idea.



Edit: just adding italics...

Frazzled wrote:And you didn't answer any I see.

So letting Japan retain its conquered countires and kill thousands of civilians daily is ok? I proffer those countries might disagree a fair bit.

I don't understand. You claim a contrary viewpoint, then when asked for proof, back that viewpoint up by making several irrelevant reply questions, and then seem to claim victory when irrelevant questions are pointed out as being so.

This style of argument is baffling to me. Are you genuinely trying to have a discussion here, or just spouting illogicalities for fun? Please clarify now if the former or latter, just so I know how to respond.

Ketara wrote:It was unnecessary. The Japanese no longer possessed any way of striking back against the Americans. Does that make it immoral? That's something you have to decide for yourself.

As far as I know, the A-bomb was painless, instantaneous death from the sky.

No. It was painless if it landed on your head. The resulting burns and radiation sickness from those caught on the edge of the blast, or in slightly covered locations were horrific. Seriously. Go and read some accounts of the resulting symptoms. This was only excaberated by the levelling of 2/3's of Japans housing by incendiaries, and lack of supplies. People died in extreme pain writhing in their own excrement as a result of those bombs.

'Politest form of death', it was not.

Contrast with the "more than one hundred thousand slow roasted because everything's on fire" conventional munitions that were the other option. Nuclear weapons are scary because of their small size and massive blast radius; there are a myriad of things that cause equally or more horrific deaths than the radiation poisoning around the fringes of the blast, and most aren't even weapons.

As somebody hinted at, the immoral actions weren't the way the war was fought.

The real question is why did we demand unconditional surrender of a culture that considers surrender dishonorable and not always preferable to annhialation?

The Japanese were completely capable of fighting back, albeit in a reduced fashion. They had chemical weapons (thoroughly tested on the Chinese) and even when we broke their supply lines (a common tactic to reduce fighting capacity) they resorted to homemade weapons and even cannibalism. They had NO intention of ever stopping, even if it meant trying to sneak up on us with fishing boats and swords.

Not to mention almost half of their late-war production came from conquered areas in mainland Asia, areas we didn't even touch. So yes, they did still stand as a threat.

It's also arguable that the atomic bombs, coupled with the threat of Russian intervention, prevented Japan from being divided with the communists.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Contrast with the "more than one hundred thousand slow roasted because everything's on fire" conventional munitions that were the other option. Nuclear weapons are scary because of their small size and massive blast radius; there are a myriad of things that cause equally or more horrific deaths than the radiation poisoning around the fringes of the blast, and most aren't even weapons.

Why isn't there a 'die of old age in bed' option?

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:The Japanese were completely capable of fighting back, albeit in a reduced fashion. They had chemical weapons (thoroughly tested on the Chinese) and even when we broke their supply lines (a common tactic to reduce fighting capacity) they resorted to homemade weapons and even cannibalism. They had NO intention of ever stopping, even if it meant trying to sneak up on us with fishing boats and swords.

Not to mention almost half of their late-war production came from conquered areas in mainland Asia, areas we didn't even touch. So yes, they did still stand as a threat.

......Assuming I take everything you just said at face value as the truth, you just told me the Japanese were a threat to the US carrier fleet because they had 'fishing boats and swords'. Can you say that with a serious face?

As for half of their late war production, its irrelevant for the same reason having troops in China is. To put it simply, in a largely naval conflict, taking place between islands, having assets is no guarantee of the efficacy or usefulness of them. You have to be able to move them from Point A to B to C. When in between points A and B there's a Bomber squadron, and a carrier and three destroyers between B and C, it all becomes largely academic.

As for chemical weapons, again, even if I take that as a threat at face value, you run into difficulties producing it as a credible threat. Namely, the lack of a delivery system. The Japanese air fleet was largely trashed, and spraying the decks of American ships with chemicals won't do much damage (the people are inside, largely sealed away). The Japanese did not posses missiles. There were no real viable targets, and no reliable way of delivering them.

Ketara wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And you didn't answer any I see.

So letting Japan retain its conquered countires and kill thousands of civilians daily is ok? I proffer those countries might disagree a fair bit.

I don't understand. You claim a contrary viewpoint, then when asked for proof, back that viewpoint up by making several irrelevant reply questions, and then seem to claim victory when irrelevant questions are pointed out as being so.

This style of argument is baffling to me. Are you genuinely trying to have a discussion here, or just spouting illogicalities for fun? Please clarify now if the former or latter, just so I know how to respond.

The proof is to you that it wasn't a good idea. As you never answered whether Jpana had pulled out of thoise countries prior I'll accept that as a "they didn't."

You have to actually present a reason for the US not to have done it, and what alternatives were available. Especially as thousands, perhaps millions of lives were on the line.

Lets compare on the Eastern front. The Soviets have succesfully employed Bagration and pushed the Nazis back to Germany. Much of Central Europe is still in Nazi hands.

You're Stalin. Do you stop?

Polonius wrote:It's also arguable that the atomic bombs, coupled with the threat of Russian intervention, prevented Japan from being divided with the communists.

In this regard, we were perhaps doing Japan a favor (in a weird sort of way) by not accepting a normal surrender. This is total hindsight and I know the guys on the ground wern't thinking this, H+N might have been a better alternative to either a divided or 100% USSR controlled Japanese state.

I live in eastern Germany, I can see the problems the whole "division" thing created, both physically and culturally.

I think the other argument for unconditional surrender, at the time, was that there had been negotiated peace in 1918, that barely lasted 20 years.

To quote a terrible movie trailer "this time... there won't be a next time."

Ketara wrote:
......Assuming I take everything you just said at face value as the truth, you just told me the Japanese were a threat to the US carrier fleet because they had 'fishing boats and swords'. Can you say that with a serious face?

You are twisting my words to feel better about losing the argument. I believe I said

They had NO intention of ever stopping, even if it meant trying to sneak up on us with fishing boats and swords.

They had more then that. I CLEARLY said thats what would happen if it came down to it. Either way the US and probably the USSR would have lost more soldiers/marines, and the Chinese would have lost thousands more civilians due to the "scorched earth" policy enacted. If the japs can't use it, they utterly destroyed it.

The japanese held a huge chunk of China, which was a strong ally. Fighting to liberate an ally is pretty noble, I would think.

Frazzled wrote:
-Were the Japanese working on their own jet fighters?

No, they weren't.









They were done already!

Oh, and they could at least have been given some time after Hiroshima. It just feels as if the second bomb was rushed "just because they [the US] could".

Frazzled wrote:

Ketara wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And you didn't answer any I see.

So letting Japan retain its conquered countires and kill thousands of civilians daily is ok? I proffer those countries might disagree a fair bit.

I don't understand. You claim a contrary viewpoint, then when asked for proof, back that viewpoint up by making several irrelevant reply questions, and then seem to claim victory when irrelevant questions are pointed out as being so.

This style of argument is baffling to me. Are you genuinely trying to have a discussion here, or just spouting illogicalities for fun? Please clarify now if the former or latter, just so I know how to respond.

The proof is to you that it wasn't a good idea. As you never answered whether Jpana had pulled out of thoise countries prior I'll accept that as a "they didn't."

You have to actually present a reason for the US not to have done it, and what alternatives were available. Especially as thousands, perhaps millions of lives were on the line.

Lets compare on the Eastern front. The Soviets have succesfully employed Bagration and pushed the Nazis back to Germany. Much of Central Europe is still in Nazi hands.

You're Stalin. Do you stop?

Yup, Stalin would not have stopped, regardless of casualties. In retrospect, the bombs saved Japan from communism.

Frazzled wrote:
You have to actually present a reason for the US not to have done it, and what alternatives were available. Especially as thousands, perhaps millions of lives were on the line.

Lets compare on the Eastern front. The Soviets have succesfully employed Bagration and pushed the Nazis back to Germany. Much of Central Europe is still in Nazi hands.

You're Stalin. Do you stop?

Ah, now we start to get to the marrow of your bone of contention.

Firstly, you're fundamentally misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying it was 'unnecessary'. Not that they needed a reason NOT to have done it, rather that they COULD have opted not to do it with no real effect on the outcome of the war.

The Japanese had lost. The US could have maintained napalm bombing and the blockade for another month, and the effect would have been the same. People were going to die regardless. The Japanese had lost the war regardless. The US need never have set foot on mainland Japan to bring that home. The Japanese were no longer a threat to the US.

As such, they had the choice NOT to drop that bomb. I am not going to say it would have been better if they had not. I'm not approaching this from an ethical standpoint. I'm saying it was unnecessary because they had other options. Saying it was necessary is saying there was absolutely no other way to bring an end to the war. And based on Japanese logistics, starvation, and general inability to fight back by that stage, I would disgaree with that.

The Americans had several options, one of which was 'drop nukes until they say sorry'. They picked that one. Fair enough. It wasn't 'necessary however', anymore so than it would have been 'necessaary' to drop nukes on Saddams head 2 days before the surrender of Iraq.

Ketara wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
You have to actually present a reason for the US not to have done it, and what alternatives were available. Especially as thousands, perhaps millions of lives were on the line.

Lets compare on the Eastern front. The Soviets have succesfully employed Bagration and pushed the Nazis back to Germany. Much of Central Europe is still in Nazi hands.

You're Stalin. Do you stop?

Ah, now we start to get to the marrow of your bone of contention.

Firstly, you're fundamentally misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying it was 'unnecessary'. Not that they needed a reason NOT to have done it, rather that they COULD have opted not to do it with no real effect on the outcome of the war.

The Japanese had lost. The US could have maintained napalm bombing and the blockade for another month, and the effect would have been the same. People were going to die regardless. The Japanese had lost the war regardless. The US need never have set foot on mainland Japan to bring that home. The Japanese were no longer a threat to the US.

As such, they had the choice NOT to drop that bomb. I am not going to say it would have been better if they had not. I'm not approaching this from an ethical standpoint. I'm saying it was unnecessary because they had other options. Saying it was necessary is saying there was absolutely no other way to bring an end to the war. And based on Japanese logistics, starvation, and general inability to fight back by that stage, I would disgaree with that.

The Americans had several options, one of which was 'drop nukes until they say sorry'. They picked that one. Fair enough. It wasn't 'necessary however', anymore so than it would have been 'necessaary' to drop nukes on Saddams head 2 days before the surrender of Iraq.

It was the swiftest way to end the war with quite honestly, the least amount of casualties. And if they kept going down the path they were, we most likely would have just razed Japan to the ground and put no effort into rebuilding them instead of helping them become the economic powerhouse they are today

Polonius wrote:The japanese held a huge chunk of China, which was a strong ally. Fighting to liberate an ally is pretty noble, I would think.

We should note we were illictly helping them before Pearl Harbor. Indeed thats the primary reason for the war. Further depracations in China resulted in an oil embargo by the US resulting in their plan for the Great December Freakout.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manstein wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ketara wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And you didn't answer any I see.

So letting Japan retain its conquered countires and kill thousands of civilians daily is ok? I proffer those countries might disagree a fair bit.

I don't understand. You claim a contrary viewpoint, then when asked for proof, back that viewpoint up by making several irrelevant reply questions, and then seem to claim victory when irrelevant questions are pointed out as being so.

This style of argument is baffling to me. Are you genuinely trying to have a discussion here, or just spouting illogicalities for fun? Please clarify now if the former or latter, just so I know how to respond.

The proof is to you that it wasn't a good idea. As you never answered whether Jpana had pulled out of thoise countries prior I'll accept that as a "they didn't."

You have to actually present a reason for the US not to have done it, and what alternatives were available. Especially as thousands, perhaps millions of lives were on the line.

Lets compare on the Eastern front. The Soviets have succesfully employed Bagration and pushed the Nazis back to Germany. Much of Central Europe is still in Nazi hands.

You're Stalin. Do you stop?

Yup, Stalin would not have stopped, regardless of casualties. In retrospect, the bombs saved Japan from communism.

Or to be more humane, the bombs stopped Japan from a literal firestorm that would have wracked it stem to stern. Read up on Olympic, then read up on Jpaanes plans at resistance. Its terrifying.

The dropping of the bomb actually saved more Japanese live than it killed. Possibly millions.

Unfortunately yes, the dropping of A bombs did end the war much sooner than it would have with out them, and if it had gone on, much more deaths and damage would have occurred in Japan, and to U.S. soldiers as well. Not to mention all the Chinese the Japanese would have probably kept on killing.

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
You are twisting my words to feel better about losing the argument.

We're having an argument? That might explain why I'm losing it then, I didn't even realise I was engaging in it!

I believe I said

They had NO intention of ever stopping, even if it meant trying to sneak up on us with fishing boats and swords.

They had more then that. I CLEARLY said thats what would happen if it came down to it. Either way the US and probably the USSR would have lost more soldiers/marines, and the Chinese would have lost thousands more civilians due to the "scorched earth" policy enacted. If the japs can't use it, they utterly destroyed it.

Thing is, I'm talking about whether the Japanese could still have won the war. They couldn't. As I've already said, they no longer had the wherewithal to hurt America. You volunteered chemical weapons as a threat, I have demonstrated why that is not so. As I have also mentioned, when sending out their largest battleship to engage the American fleet when it was approaching mainland Japan, they didn't even have enough fuel left for it to get it home again, they were so short on supplies.

Japan was isolated, blockaded, and bombarded. They had lost the war. They were out of supplies. And as any knowledgeable tactician will tell you, logistics are the major part of prosecuting any war successfully. Telling me they 'had no intention of ever stopping, even if it meant sneaking up on you fishing boats and swords' is ridiculous. Do you honestly have this image in your mind of a fleet of Japanese civilians attacking the US carrier fleet waving swords? The Japanese are not all radical suicide bombers and fanatics, anymore than all muslims are. And even if they did do that, they'd have been blown out of the water.

Having the will to prosecute a war is different to having the means. The Japanese had lost the war, and were no longer a threat to the US people or fleet. They had simply not surrendered as of yet.

Frazzled wrote: It ended the war and those people survived.

Whether or not this is true is open to significant debate. The timing of the bombings was such that they may not have been the proximal cause of surrender, and there were statements made by Japanese officials to support such a conclusion.

Olympic was planned to start November 1. Thats less than three months after that. The level of prepatory bombing would have made the firebombing of Tokya look like an elementarty scuffle.

On the other hand, if millions of japanese would have died while resisting an invasion that they thought would result in their domination and colonization (which we did to the Phillipines after winning them in a poker game), are they to blame?

This is the hard question for me: if we had offered them the terms they eventually had imposed on them, would they have surrendered earlier?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote: It ended the war and those people survived.

Whether or not this is true is open to significant debate. The timing of the bombings was such that they may not have been the proximal cause of surrender, and there were statements made by Japanese officials to support such a conclusion.

There is evidnece to suggest they'd take their chances with occupation by us instead of the Soviets.

Polonius wrote:This is the hard question for me: if we had offered them the terms they eventually had imposed on them, would they have surrendered earlier?

That's the issue really, how much more conventional warfare (if any) would have been required to make them say Grandad, and would it have saved more lives?

Ketara wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
You are twisting my words to feel better about losing the argument.

We're having an argument? That might explain why I'm losing it then, I didn't even realise I was engaging in it!

I believe I said

They had NO intention of ever stopping, even if it meant trying to sneak up on us with fishing boats and swords.

They had more then that. I CLEARLY said thats what would happen if it came down to it. Either way the US and probably the USSR would have lost more soldiers/marines, and the Chinese would have lost thousands more civilians due to the "scorched earth" policy enacted. If the japs can't use it, they utterly destroyed it.

Thing is, I'm talking about whether the Japanese could still have won the war. They couldn't. As I've already said, they no longer had the wherewithal to hurt America. You volunteered chemical weapons as a threat, I have demonstrated why that is not so. As I have also mentioned, when sending out their largest battleship to engage the American fleet when it was approaching mainland Japan, they didn't even have enough fuel left for it to get it home again, they were so short on supplies.

Japan was isolated, blockaded, and bombarded. They had lost the war. They were out of supplies. And as any knowledgeable tactician will tell you, logistics are the major part of prosecuting any war successfully. Telling me they 'had no intention of ever stopping, even if it meant sneaking up on you fishing boats and swords' is ridiculous. Do you honestly have this image in your mind of a fleet of Japanese civilians attacking the US carrier fleet waving swords? The Japanese are not all radical suicide bombers and fanatics, anymore than all muslims are. And even if they did do that, they'd have been blown out of the water.

Having the will to prosecute a war is different to having the means. The Japanese had lost the war, and were no longer a threat to the US people or fleet. They had simply not surrendered as of yet.

*struggling not to break rule 1*

You aren't getting it. They KNEW they couldn't win, but were gonna go down fighting by any means possible. War ends when one guy gets scared enough to drop his gun and go home. We scared them, and most of the known world, including the USSR. Two for the price of....well...two


EDIT: And any conventional means would have resulted in much more bloodshed. These people were resorting to CANNIBALISM! You can't just starve them out that way, and they still had the ability to support themselves, unless you are talking about firebombing the entire country and a good chunk of Asia along with it

Ketara wrote:

Polonius wrote:This is the hard question for me: if we had offered them the terms they eventually had imposed on them, would they have surrendered earlier?

That's the issue really, how much more conventional warfare (if any) would have been required to make them say Grandad, and would it have saved more lives?

According to most...a lot.

Ketara wrote:

Polonius wrote:This is the hard question for me: if we had offered them the terms they eventually had imposed on them, would they have surrendered earlier?

That's the issue really, how much more conventional warfare (if any) would have been required to make them say Grandad, and would it have saved more lives?

I'm not sure that's the issue. That's a judgment call, based on estimation.

I think the issue is if making they say grandad was proper, especially when they didn't know that would entail.

Ketara wrote:

Polonius wrote:This is the hard question for me: if we had offered them the terms they eventually had imposed on them, would they have surrendered earlier?

That's the issue really, how much more conventional warfare (if any) would have been required to make them say Grandad, and would it have saved more lives?

The numbers here are actually a mulltiple higher than I proffered, so yea, it did. I am not arguing its the only thing as the Soviet obliteration of Japanese forces in Manchuria occurred in the same three days. But it was the one two punch that did it. As a reminder there was an attempted coup at the time to try to keep Japan IN THE WAR after all that.

Meantime innocent Chinese are dying daily.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

The real question is why did we demand unconditional surrender of a culture that considers surrender dishonorable and not always preferable to annhialation?

Well seeing as the Japanese were well known to never accept surrender it seams rather courteous to offer them any form of surrender conditional or not. The Japanese were bent on complete subjugation or annihilation of other cultures. To allow that culture any avenues of escaping intact would have been completely irresponsible. THEY NEEDED A BEAT DOWN and they got it.