was it necessary to drop the atomic bombs on japan?

Originally posted by Korto Vos
Just how crippled was the Japanese Navy? It certainly seemed that the nation wasn't going to surrender until US unleashed the atomic bomb.

Originally posted by Korto Vos
It certainly seemed that the nation wasn't going to surrender until US unleashed the atomic bomb.

Originally posted by finalhorseman
Where do you get these numbers? becase your estimate wildly conflicts with that of scholars well versed in the field.

Let's have a look at some proper numbers here. Duncan McCargo and Leslie Dower's respective works both have the actual projected death-toll between 25 - 46k. This is for a planned American invasion, should it be necessary. The Truman administration even made lies putting the estimate at half a million! Half a million soldiers is well over the entire force they would have needed to force a surrender from an already surrendering nation. Alperovitz supports all of this in Hiroshima: Historians reassess.

I'm not going to bring up any research donw by other Japanese, considering their obvious stance on the matter. On the same side I think you should try and do a little better than the prediction of people who are obviously trying to defend a terrible decision. American scholars have -nothing- to gain and everything to lose by admitting fault here. Apply some critical thinking to your selection of sources here, don't just go with whatever pops up first at google or what you can remember from school.

I'm not familiar with JCOS, are you referring to JCO, the japanese company? Their say on matter carries very little weight. I'm afraid your experience of high-school debates help little as well. My logic has nothing to do with your own personal experience in researching the matter (though it would help), but you should at least have read some books on the matter. And not the garbage curriculum you were fed in High School.

Have you done any lengthy research into the Japanese mindset in the wartime context? The emperor could not simply pull out. The American government had scholars show a surprisingly acute understanding of the Japanese way of mind when they forced them into attacking Peal Harbor, but surprisingly lacking when it came to making them surrender. Well, I suppose that's up for debate, since you have to consider whether or not they had ANY desire for a peaceful withdrawal on Japan's part. They wanted to drop those nuclear bombs and fixed the numbers to do so.

You can reason that it was necessary based on America's motivations, but not in relation to projected losses from an invasion by land.

1. JCOS --> Joint Chiefs of Staff

2. If there is a recent major reevaluation as to the projected losses from Operation Downfall, then a lot of books, articles, and videos discussing the atomic bombing of Japan have to be trashed. Everything I have read before has placed the count well above 150,000 American deaths, and humongous Japanese civilian casualties.

3. Are you suggesting the United States intended on the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor? Look, all I know is that the US anticipated a attack on the Philippines and Malaysia, not on Pearl Harbor.

4. I'm not going into any government conspiracy theory business. Perhaps these new books that you have read state everything contrary to what's been taught and rationalized before. War is an arena of madness, and the decision to drop the bombs was reprehensible. If it really saved more lives than it cost, then Hiroshima was justified.

Originally posted by Quark_666
It didn't have any carriers left. We could have starved them out. Surrender was well established as a matter of when, not of if.

They wanted to wait as long as possible to maintain dignity. Their whole religion at the time was based off their honor.

If that's the case, why was the land invasion necessary? It's clear that bushido would have compelled the Japanese to fight to the last man, thereby prolonging the Pacific Theatre.

necessary

Originally posted by finalhorseman
My logic has nothing to do with your own personal experience in researching the matter (though it would help), but you should at least have read some books on the matter. And not the garbage curriculum you were fed in High School.

Ah yes, the unassailable standard of "some books", truly you are a beacon of knowledge in your generation.

Originally posted by Quark_666
It didn't have any carriers left. We could have starved them out. Surrender was well established as a matter of when, not of if.

They wanted to wait as long as possible to maintain dignity. Their whole religion at the time was based off their honor.

Starving them out doesn't mean waiting peacefully in a circle around the country until they wave a flag. It means letting them batter themselves against the American fleet until they give up, fighting without taking more ground, wasting more Japanese and American lives. Japan isn't a fort, it's a country with industrial capacity and its own food supplies. We would have needed to keep bombing them even in a siege.

It would also have given Russia a chance to conquer Japan, they were in Korea when the bombs were dropped I think. Not to mention that the Japanese were in the process of doing horrible things to the Chinese on the mainland (though I'm not sure if the US knew that).

about the idea of Japanese surrender:

one of the main targets considered by the Americans was the emperor's palace and the emperor himself. the Americans decided not to bomb him either from fortuitous circumstances or through uncanny incite, because after the bombing, the determination of the Japanese generals was incredibly high. they wanted to continue fighting even after the nukes had gone off. iirc, it was only because the emperor agreed to the surrender that the war ended.

it is not at all clear that some type of siege of Japan, which had always been a successful isolated nation anyways, would have produced a surrender.

In the context of war the first Atomic Bombing was a grisly affair but more...I hesitate to say 'justified', but certainly more easily excusable than many of the conventional bombings visited on Germany and Japan (see Dresden).

The second bombing was necessary from a military point of view. The USA needed to show Japan that the first bomb wasn't just a fluke...a one time performance that the US would never be able to replicate. It succeeded in that regard.

The thing about the Atomic Bombings that unsettles me is the double standard with which they're regarded compared to Pearl Harbor. Far too many people I know believe that Pearl Harbor was more heinous and unforgivable than both Atomic Bombings simply because it was a surprise attack whereas the Atomic Bombings happened during actual hostilities. Never mind that Pearl Harbor killed just a fraction of H+N and that Pearl Harbor was a purely military target (albeit there were some civilian casualties).

I believe on principle the USA should apologize to Japan for the bombings. That isn't to say that things would have been better had we not dropped at least the first bomb (from my point of view thousands of deaths are superior to possibly millions of deaths and a divided Japan like what happened in post-war Korea and Germany) just that as a country America shouldn't be too proud to admit that such a horrific incident doesn't deserve some contrition.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The thing about the Atomic Bombings that unsettles me is the double standard with which they're regarded compared to Pearl Harbor. Far too many people I know believe that Pearl Harbor was more heinous and unforgivable than both Atomic Bombings simply because it was a surprise attack whereas the Atomic Bombings happened during actual hostilities. Never mind that Pearl Harbor killed just a fraction of H+N and that Pearl Harbor was a purely military target (albeit there were some civilian casualties).

I'd call bombing a place out of no where, during what was effectively peace, time is incredible heinous much more so than an attack like that would be during a war. I'm not sure I'd say that it was *more* henious just because of that, though.

People tend to forget in the drama that surround the event that Hiroshima was a valid military target. It had a larger civilian population than Pearl Harbor but it did house the headquarters of major parts of the Japanese Navy and Army, plus it was an important supply center for that part of the Pacific Theater.

Originally posted by Korto Vos
If that's the case, why was the land invasion necessary?

Originally posted by Quark_666
I'm not even sure we should've continued after we crippled Japan's Navy. That's why I'll never be elected as president.

Originally posted by Korto Vos
It's clear that bushido would have compelled the Japanese to fight to the last man, thereby prolonging the Pacific Theatre.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Starving them out doesn't mean waiting peacefully in a circle around the country until they wave a flag. It means letting them batter themselves against the American fleet until they give up, fighting without taking more ground, wasting more Japanese and American lives. Japan isn't a fort, it's a country with industrial capacity and its own food supplies. We would have needed to keep bombing them even in a siege.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It would also have given Russia a chance to conquer Japan, they were in Korea when the bombs were dropped I think.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not to mention that the Japanese were in the process of doing horrible things to the Chinese on the mainland (though I'm not sure if the US knew that).

Originally posted by inimalist
about the idea of Japanese surrender:

one of the main targets considered by the Americans was the emperor's palace and the emperor himself. the Americans decided not to bomb him either from fortuitous circumstances or through uncanny incite, because after the bombing, the determination of the Japanese generals was incredibly high. they wanted to continue fighting even after the nukes had gone off. iirc, it was only because the emperor agreed to the surrender that the war ended.

it is not at all clear that some type of siege of Japan, which had always been a successful isolated nation anyways, would have produced a surrender.

^On the issue of Russia. The Western Allies and Japan both knew that the Soviet Union was going to attack Japan once Germany was down. They just didn't know when.

What I find interesting is that many historians today are of the opinion that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (and how damn successful it was) was more an impetus for surrender than the bombs.

When the Russians steamrolled over an army that had been having its way with the Chinese for a decade in just a few days and then pushed into Korea and did the same with the Japanese army there (and I'm sure the Japanese were at least dimly aware of what the Russians had done to the defeated Germany) there was suddenly a bitter realization that they were ****ed unless they capitulated.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd call bombing a place out of no where, during what was effectively peace, time is incredible heinous much more so than an attack like that would be during a war. I'm not sure I'd say that it was *more* henious just because of that, though.

People tend to forget in the drama that surround the event that Hiroshima was a valid military target. It had a larger civilian population than Pearl Harbor but it did house the headquarters of major parts of the Japanese Navy and Army, plus it was an important supply center for that part of the Pacific Theater.

Well the same could be said about 90% of the targets of Allied bombing during the war. Cities have factories, cities have military assets. They also have lots of civilians. And while you might make an argument that by supporting the war effort the Japanese civilians in Hiroshima made themselves legitimate targets I don't think you or I wish to take that route 😛

Originally posted by Quark_666
But in the case of the island hopping that was said to potentially consume endless American lives, the Japanese warriors didn't have a fleet to escort them around - they were stuck. So how does that work with them fighting to the last man? While I don't doubt their ability to swim I struggle to see how do they batter themselves against the American fleet....

Was the fleet completely annihilated? The generals supposedly thought there were still assets they could use. Even without the fleet I could imagine the Japanese making Q-ships, forcing the Americans to fire on any ship they saw in Japanese waters. It would be like the insurgency in Iraq but directed by an intact central government with trained soldiers and tacticians at its command.

The French rode bikes and taxis to the front line. Insurgents all over the world turn jeeps into armored fighting vehicles.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Russia declared war on Japan AFTER the Hiroshima bomb 🙄

I'll admit, I did not know that. So wait, did Russia declare war after the surrendered or in the days between the bombs?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Was the fleet completely annihilated? The generals supposedly thought there were still assets they could use. Even without the fleet I could imagine the Japanese making Q-ships, forcing the Americans to fire on any ship they saw in Japanese waters. It would be like the insurgency in Iraq but directed by an intact central government with trained soldiers and tacticians at its command.

The French rode bikes and taxis to the front line. Insurgents all over the world turn jeeps into armored fighting vehicles.

I'll admit, I did not know that. So wait, did Russia declare war after the surrendered or in the days between the bombs?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
^On the issue of Russia. The Western Allies and Japan both knew that the Soviet Union was going to attack Japan once Germany was down. They just didn't know when.

What I find interesting is that many historians today are of the opinion that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (and how damn successful it was) was more an impetus for surrender than the bombs.

When the Russians steamrolled over an army that had been having its way with the Chinese for a decade in just a few days and then pushed into Korea and did the same with the Japanese army there (and I'm sure the Japanese were at least dimly aware of what the Russians had done to the defeated Germany) there was suddenly a bitter realization that they were ****ed unless they capitulated.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Was the fleet completely annihilated? The generals supposedly thought there were still assets they could use. Even without the fleet I could imagine the Japanese making Q-ships, forcing the Americans to fire on any ship they saw in Japanese waters. It would be like the insurgency in Iraq but directed by an intact central government with trained soldiers and tacticians at its command.

The French rode bikes and taxis to the front line. Insurgents all over the world turn jeeps into armored fighting vehicles.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Okay, maybe our biggest reason to drop the bomb was to compete with the Russians. Any surprises there? 😂

I don't know. But I do know these questions are never asked before Americans justify the dropping of the bomb, and it makes me angry. I also see how with the political environment of the United States at the time, the Truman Administration had an obvious motive to downplay other options as logically sound. And as evidence of such options being downplayed, I recall learning in history class that only two options were even possible: A-bomb or island hopping. As evidence of the racism of the decision, nobody ever argued that we should drop an A-bomb on Berlin. So in the absence of answers, I'm inclined to put two and two together and conclude that the bomb was probably not the only possible solution.

EDIT: Berlin surrendered before we'd developed the bomb.

Actually the Atomic Bomb was developed to be dropped on Berlin.

The main impetus for the Manhattan Project was American fears that the Germans were already well on their way to developing one.

Before the planned invasion, projected casaulties were 1 million plus. The Japanese government had no plans on surrendering. They had twisted the Bushido code into something perverted and diabolical. Even after the second bombing and the Emperor said 'enough, we've lost' the Japanese High Command attempted a coup to continue the war. They were already in the process of training women and kids to fight to end. When Hitler killed himself, Admiral Doerniz (hope I spelled that right) realized the situation and surrendered a week later. At the least the German Navy and Army had the sense to not waste senseless lives.

BTW, apologizing to the Japanese out of the question. Just do some research on their [Japanese] treatment of POWs.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I don't know. But I do know these questions are never asked before Americans justify the dropping of the bomb, and it makes me angry.

Missed this before.

How do you know that it wasn't part of the discussion?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/6743

discuss. and please, lets try and and keep patriotic stupidity out.

Necessary as in 'would have Japan been defeated without nuking them'? Then no, it wasn't necessary.

Was it smart to nuke them into submission; not waste American lives in what would have been a much longer ground war against the Japanese military and armed civilians? Yes.

I absolutely feel no remorse for Japan. They were the aggressors in WWII and they like the Nazis committed horrific war crimes. They has been seeking their own nuclear program with the intent of nuking US cities, though they were [luckily] years behind. They were developing biological warfare weapons which they kindly tested on Chinese civilians with claims of up to 500k deaths.

Around 180-250k Japanese died from the bombings and many thousands more after due to sickness. Boo-fvcking-hoo. Japan murdered(not deaths during battles) an estimated 6-7 million Chinese, Korean, Filipino and Westerners during WWII. Be it death camps, labor camps or weapons testing. Google "Japanese War Crimes" if you're interested.

I do love the "hate America" sentiment Hiroshima and Nagasaki bring up, like those haters need this to hate America.