DP: Why was U.S. envoy in Hiroshima?

[rincewind]

what US conventional bombs did to Tokyo and for that matter, Dresden, was far more destructive. Of course you don't hear about that much because there is no political ax to grind.

This such a great point - amazed how often it gets overlooked.

the only thing you have wrong here is that the US in fact caused the war on the pacific and literally baited the japanese into attacking, there are also several historians who think that pearl harbour was the best possible outcome as they lost no carriers and easily refitted most of the ships.

We don't use 'U's in the word Harbor down here, Canuck.

Surprised no one has mentioned the fact that we may have just been waving our dicks in the wind at Russia by dropping the second bomb. A theory I think is pretty valid. Kept Ol' Uncle Joe in check.

[Hubbs]

Estimates of troop deaths from a land invasion were up over 265,000. Others said half a million.

You mean U.S. troops, right? I'm pretty sure I've seen estimates of over a million casualties for all forces in the event of an invasion.

false dichotomy 101

You can't be serious. The Japanese were dead-set against surrender. There was a revolt against the Emperor after he made the decision. Even if you want to think that we could have simply surrounded the islands with our navy, bombed them every day, and waited them out - and there's a very good chance that they would have kept fighting for years, devoting whatever stored resources and munitions they could keep safe to a dilapidated war effort - you'd be arguing with our own plans, which called for an invasion of the main islands later in 1945. On top of that, the Soviets invaded Manchuria and Korea before the surrender, and managed to pretty much roll right over the Japanese army. They eventually would have invaded if we didn't, resulting in the same countless deaths and securing a Communist Far East.

The bombs were the best option in a list of bad options.

Surprised no one has mentioned the fact that we may have just been waving our dicks in the wind at Russia by dropping the second bomb. A theory I think is pretty valid. Kept Ol' Uncle Joe in check.

I'm sure the Pentagon (and Truman) viewed that as an added bonus, but the bombings were going to continue regardless of our relations with the Soviets. The next bomb would have been dropped a week or two after Nagasaki.

[Wrong Direction]

This is a great thread.

For those who wonder about the death estimates of an invasion or the type of conflict that would have resulted if we did indeed invade Japan, read about the battle for Okinama. There are other fine examples of horrific Pacific battles, but this one caught my attention because of the fight to the death nature of the Japanese, kamakaze's and the timing in relation to what would have been an invasion of Japan.

We had every reason to expect that using the bomb was by far the best choice...and that hasn't changed in 65 years.

[Wrong Direction]

I'd also argue that we could better understand the nature of our enemies today (radical islamists) if you take the time to understand the Japanese in and before WWII. Today's enemies are just as committed, but we're less able to find and kill them. The Japanese were not interested in diplomacy, and neither are today's enemies.

An appropriate understanding of history, IMO, really makes it clear how difficult our challenge with radical Islam is today. It makes one really consider the most important question a commander in chief must consider: what is the path to peace? If it's true that our radical enemies won't stop this fight regardless of diplomatic efforts, the only way to achieve eventual peace is to achieve a total victory, or more accurately a total defeat of our enemy. Considering our enemy isn't limited to Al Qaida, this is a scary proposition.

Very heavy stuff which I don't think many Americans really appreciate. The good news is that our enemies don't have the means to defeat us militarily or even to attack us meaningfully on a regular basis. Their lack of a nuke ironically is probably what allows us to explore diplomatic solutions and attempt to isolate the radicals from the general population.

[rincewind]

You know, there is also something to be said for the fact that we were only willing to accepted 'unconditional' surrender. If we hadn't used that stipulation, the Japanese may have been willing to except terms - granted, what those terms would have been is debatable.

[stevenaa]

We should apologize. Something like this. "We're sorry you attacked us, refused to surrender and forced us to drop the bomb on two of your cities."

OT. I have no problem with an envoy being there. It was a horric, tragic event in human history. Why shouldn't we participate in rememberance of the past in hopes it is never repeated. And feeling sorry for an event of such magnitude does not have to mean an admittance of some type of guilt. I feel it was a justified action. But I am sorry it happened.

[skinfan133]

false dichotomy 101

prove it. As of right now, I think its safe to say you're lacking in your mental faculties on this one, to put it nicely.

[skinfan133]

what US conventional bombs did to Tokyo and for that matter, Dresden, was far more destructive.

Apparently I missed this. You're absolutely right zoony.

The firebombing of Japanese cities was absolutely horrific. Japanese architecture at that time was mostly wood and paper, the firebombs ate through cities like locusts in a plague.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

. On top of that, the Soviets invaded Manchuria and Korea before the surrender, and managed to pretty much roll right over the Japanese army. They eventually would have invaded if we didn't, resulting in the same countless deaths and securing a Communist Far East.

The Soviet invasion of Japanese Manchuria and Korea was at our request as a precursor to an invasion of Japan. They were supposed to get in on it. It never came about though because of the bomb but it eventually lead to the Korean War as we had to negotiate the split of Korea at the 38th Parallel with the Soviets (which they surprisingly accepted considering they controlled the entire peninsula.) We pretty much left South Korea shortly after (leaving only an advisory committee) while the Soviets built up the North. We wouldn't have had a Communist Japan (at first anyway) but all of Korea would have been most certainly Red. Who knows what would have happened from there.

[Henry]

the only thing you have wrong here is that the US in fact caused the war on the pacific and literally baited the japanese into attacking, there are also several historians who think that pearl harbour was the best possible outcome as they lost no carriers and easily refitted most of the ships.

That's a real stretch there, Mr. Canada.

No, through embargoes the US forced the Japanese to either cease their imperialistic ambitions or attack us. The Japanese knew they couldn't win a sustained war with us but chose to attack us anyway. They hoped that if they did enough damage and knocked us far enough out of the Pacific that we'd take our toys and go home. We didn't, and they lost the war.

We may have forced them to make a difficult choice, but the choice was theirs. And they made the wrong one. That's not our fault, and we certainly didn't CAUSE them to make the wrong choice. And we didn't create the situation that necessitated the embargo in the first place. That's all on them.

You are correct, though, that we seriously lucked out when we lost no carriers from any of the Japanese attacks. Though I think not losing four battleships would have been pretty cool. We still would have gone to war, and the attacks on Guam, the Philippines and other US possessions in the subsequent days would have fired up the American people just fine.

[Sticksboi05]

Battleships were more important at that point. Nobody uses em today though. Now we just need our filthy AEGIS cruisers.

[Henry]

Battleships were more important at that point. Nobody uses em today though. Now we just need our filthy AEGIS cruisers.

Well, we thought they were, but they weren't.

[MarkB452]

Apologists disgust me and every year more and more of them crop up as the numbers of those with first hand knowledge of the situation dwindle.

My mom had 2 brothers that were killed fighting the Nazis. No apologies here...doesn't anybody remember Pearl Harbor??

[FuriousD]

I say the Japs got what was coming to them!

If you don't know, please read. If you knew but had forgotten, please remember, that Japan was at war with THE WORLD!

Complete world domination had been planned since the 1920's and they finally kicked off the party in 1937 by invading China (who's resources they deperately needed).

They landed in Shanghi. The Japanese Army had this cute little saying that let all officers and enlisted men know what was expected of them. They called it "The 3 Alls".

1: Burn All

2: Steal All

3: Kill All

Using The 3 Alls, the Japanese Army butchered their way from Shanghi to the capital Nanking. Conservative estimates put the death toll in Shanghi and local villages on the journey at 300,000.

Once they got to Nanking, they really hit their stride. Killing was a game. For six weeks officers engaged in wagering on who could put more people to death by sword. Pregnant women were rounded up and wagers were placed on the sex of the fetus before the mother was laid open. Conservative estimates on the death toll in Nanking was another 300,000.

I mention Nanking and the number of dead because its MORE than the 2 atom bombs killed. 300,000 in Nanking alone and a huge number of those by hand and for sport.

These were the the people we were at war with!

I don't think that there is anything the Allies have to apologize for.

:helmet:

[Henry]

Apologists disgust me and every year more and more of them crop up as the numbers of those with first hand knowledge of the situation dwindle.

Same thing is happening to FDR these days. It's very sad.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Here's a mesmerizing, pretty cool video I just came across that is related. It's an animation of all the nuclear explosions in the world on record. It's long and it starts off slow but I found myself unable to turn away and watching the entire thing.

An animated map of nuclear explosions, from 1945-1998, via BoingBoing. It was made by an artist named Isao Hashimoto, who is from Japan—site of the only two of the two thousand fifty-three explosions recorded here that were acts of war

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfpQNfcRE1o&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfpQNfcRE1o&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

A few things jumped out at me:

What the **** is France doing? I mean damn. I had no idea.

Can someone explain to me the reason for us having to conduct over 1000 tests? I mean I'm sure a lot of it was improving the technology and our delivery means as well as studying the effects of nuclear explosions. But 1000? Really? How much of it was just a dick measuring contest with the USSR?

It is heartening though to see how just how much it slowed down after the break up of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. There was a worldwide rave there for a few decades. Amazing the world came out of it.

[RansomthePasserby]

We killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. We did so to bring an end to the war and save lives, but the fact is we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. I can't see why some would be so pissed that we would pay tribute to those civilians who were killed so that we could end the most bloody conflict int he history of mankind.

Suppose that, on 9/11, fighter pilots were able to intercept and shoot down the second plane over the Hudson before it hit the tower. They would have had to do so to save lives, but they would have killed a lot of civilians on board the plane in the process of doing so. Now, suppose that GWB sent Administration officials to attend the funerals of those civilians who were killed. Would it be wrong to do so? Apparently to the drooling, Fox News viewing crowd.

The blood of the Japanese civillians is on the power hungry Japanese government's hands for starting a completely unecessary war.

Here's a mesmerizing, pretty cool video I just came across that is related. It's an animation of all the nuclear explosions in the world on record. It's long and it starts off slow but I found myself unable to turn away and watching the entire thing.

Boy, they nuked the heck out of the south west, didn't they?

[Hubbs]

The Soviet invasion of Japanese Manchuria and Korea was at our request as a precursor to an invasion of Japan. They were supposed to get in on it. It never came about though because of the bomb but it eventually lead to the Korean War as we had to negotiate the split of Korea at the 38th Parallel with the Soviets (which they surprisingly accepted considering they controlled the entire peninsula.) We pretty much left South Korea shortly after (leaving only an advisory committee) while the Soviets built up the North. We wouldn't have had a Communist Japan (at first anyway) but all of Korea would have been most certainly Red. Who knows what would have happened from there.

Right, I was just saying that under the hypothetical scenario in which we simply established as much of a "blockade" as possible given the technology of time, there still would have been an invasion. The Soviets wouldn't have just sat on their hands.

[panel]

Just by showing up, and paying your respects isn't an apology.

You can show up, pay your respects, and not regret the decision, just like someone that kills a mugger that is attacking them can show up at that muggers funeral. It isn't saying that you would do it if it happened again. Just saying that it is unfortunate that it happened, and I'm paying my respects.

[fullnelson9999]

I think we know who should apologize here...

But on a serious note, I remember when one of my friends went to Hawaii a couple years back and encountered a Japanese family at the Pearl Harbor memorial. They said that they were there to pay their respects because they felt bad for what had happened.

Point is, there are pros and cons for both sides here. I'm not going to say one was right or wrong because this all happened during wartime. Though I dont like what happened at Pearl Harbor or in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, (and Japan definitely got what was coming to them) I think there's a time old saying that applies here:

**** happens. Especially in war.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Right, I was just saying that under the hypothetical scenario in which we simply established as much of a "blockade" as possible given the technology of time, there still would have been an invasion. The Soviets wouldn't have just sat on their hands.

You really think the Soviets would have circumvented our blockade and our wishes and incaded Japan? I don't see it. I mean they gave up half of Korea for nothing.

[Dan T.]

Here's a mesmerizing, pretty cool video I just came across ...

I never knew the U.S. tested nuclear weapons in Mississippi. I thought it was all done in the desert Southwest and in the Pacific...

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

I never knew the U.S. tested nuclear weapons in Mississippi. I thought it was all done in the desert Southwest and in the Pacific...

no wonder people from Mississippi have something weird about them....and here I was thinking it was due to inbreeding. Man, I was way off. :doh:

[Burgold]

Not sure that I get this thread. There was no apology that I can see and wouldn't have been horrible diplomacy for someone representing the U.S. not to be there?

Besides, who doesn't harbor a wish that nukes are never used again?

[Chicken Fried]

We'll apologize for the nukes when they apologize for Pearl Harbor. OK, I still wouldn't apologize.