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

[zoony]

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

I've never seen anyone with such an inferiority complex towards the US. I don't get it. Canada is a great country, no reason to feel that way

[zoony]

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.

My AP history teacher in High School was a real proponent of this theory. I think it was more of a fringe benefit than it was part of the decision making process, personally.

[zoony]

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.

Thank God they didn't. Any peace negotiated with Japan would surely have left the warhawks in power. it would have prolonged the problem, not solved it.

....

[Sticksboi05]

They had three stipulations for a surrender; the most important being to keep the Imperial Family in place and no occupation of the homeland.

[zoony]

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.

WWII is what killed the battleship. It turned the featured part of any fleet into what ammounted to a floating artillery battery for marines. If Hitler had built a carrier rather than the Bismarck he would have been much better off. But, he, like everyone else, still thought battleships were what was most important.

That our carriers were away from Pearl Harbor was luck. And for those that think it was part of some conspiracy, it's important to note (as Stephen Ambrose points out) that nobody knew carriers were more important than battleships in 1941. That realization didn't come until much later.

[mcsluggo]

nukes were the only way the Japanese warlords could surrender without losing face.

Otherwise, they would have all gladly died, and sacrificed the majority of the Japanese civilian population.

It was also just about the only thing that could have possibly satisfied the American public's need for revenge.

Imagine a US land invasion of Japan that cost 1 million US lives. Now ask yourself, where would Japan be today? They'd still be licking the dog**** off our boots, that's where.

The bomb is the absolute best thing that could have happened to the Japanese. To imply otherwise is an ignorant position, case closed.

.....

Yes, but we could've nuked mt Fuji (in the sight of tokyo) or some targets other than CITIES. People (an i am not aiming this at the person I quoted, at all) really like to make EVERYHING so black and white. Either you are an appologist (from ones side's viewpoint) or you are a warmongerer (from the other side). Most people are neither, and can discuss the concequences of choices without rushing to one extreme corner or another.

[zoony]

really like to make EVERYHING so black and white. Either you are an appologist (from ones side's viewpoint) or you are a warmongerer (from the other side). Most people are neither, and can discuss the concequences of choices without rushing to one extreme corner or another.

In this case, I think it applies. There really are only two positions.

You're forgetting the American public's need for revenge, in a big way. That Japan was able to be rebuilt by the United States immediately following the war, was only made possible by the bomb. The American public was satisfied that Japan had been taught her lesson. Look to conflict resolution post WWI for an example of what happens when the victors aren't quite satisfied that the opposing country learned their lesson.

Again, best thing that could have happened to Japan. Not even debatable, in the least.

[shuler74]

My uncle who was a Bataan death march survivor just recently passed at the age of 92. I did not realize until his viewing how much of a kick ass man he was to survive that ordeal. He was a Major in the us army and the best uncle I could ever have .

RIP Major Henry Apawan Kwan.

[Henry]

Yes, but we could've nuked mt Fuji (in the sight of tokyo) or some targets other than CITIES. People (an i am not aiming this at the person I quoted, at all) really like to make EVERYHING so black and white. Either you are an appologist (from ones side's viewpoint) or you are a warmongerer (from the other side). Most people are neither, and can discuss the concequences of choices without rushing to one extreme corner or another.

Well, we nuked one of their CITIES and they didn't surrender. It took two.

I'm not sure nuking a mountain would have been more effective.

[Sticksboi05]

Nuking a mountain? Talk about a waste of a weapon that back then could not be just produced at will. What good does that do?

The targets selected for bombing had to meet the requirements:

-Larger than 3 miles in diameter

-Important urban area

-Blast would do effective damage

-Target was not likely to be attacked by August 1945

[Hubbs]

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.

We couldn't have established a realistic "blockade" of all of Japan, and the goal would have been stopping shipments of goods and materiel, not soldiers. You think we'd actually physically stop the Soviets when we had already established the de facto "race" to get to territory first in Europe? And you think we'd actually turn down a Soviet invasion force if Japan really was that determined to tough it out, just so we could lose half a million American lives instead? Truman wanted the war to end, and he overruled the generals who wanted to use force to make Stalin back down in Europe. If the Soviets geared up for an invasion of Japan, we wouldn't have stopped them.

[mcsluggo]

Well, we nuked one of their CITIES and they didn't surrender. It took two.

I'm not sure nuking a mountain would have been more effective.

a mountain within within eyesight of THE major city and capitol. (and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed something like 3 days apart... in the pre-internet days, during wartime.. communication was much slower and stilted. the POINT was to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that we had the technology and the force --- which is why Hiroshima and Nagaski were effective. But bombing the mountain that was viewed as a holy shrine, and that all of the policy makers, and their families, and the largest possible Japanese audience could actually SEE the power and the magnitude.... if they followed the nuke-bomber with several more leaflet dropping bombers they could've had an ENORMOUS reaction-- basically the same one that came from taking out two cities full of civilians.

bombing the cities was preferable to invading, but it wasn't a binary choice equation, they (we) had other options.

[Sticksboi05]

Bombing a mountain does not truly show the destructive force of what was our new weapon. Seeing a major metropolitan area reduced to rubble and ash. Calling the Hiroshima station and getting no answer...seeing shadows burned into the ground..that was the impact we needed.

[mcsluggo]

Nuking a mountain? Talk about a waste of a weapon that back then could not be just produced at will. What good does that do?

The targets selected for bombing had to meet the requirements:

-Larger than 3 miles in diameter

-Important urban area

-Blast would do effective damage

-Target was not likely to be attacked by August 1945

No, the major point of the bombings was to demonstrate incredible force, in teh most awe-inspiring way. Taking out a city with one bomb was one way to accomplish this goal.

any military damage achieved was a side-benefit to the demonstration effect. The japanese govt didn't sue for peace because they lost a few factories, or a bunch of factories. It was the phsychological hit from the awe factor of the bomb.

[Henry]

a mountain within within eyesight of THE major city and capitol. (and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed something like 3 days apart... in the pre-internet days, during wartime.. communication was much slower and stilted. the POINT was to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that we had the technology and the force --- which is why Hiroshima and Nagaski were effective. But bombing the mountain that was viewed as a holy shrine, and that all of the policy makers, and their families, and the largest possible Japanese audience could actually SEE the power and the magnitude.... if they followed the nuke-bomber with several more leaflet dropping bombers they could've had an ENORMOUS reaction-- basically the same one that came from taking out two cities full of civilians.

bombing the cities was preferable to invading, but it wasn't a binary choice equation, they (we) had other options.

COULD have had an enormous reaction, sure. But first of all, Tokyo had already suffered almost total devastation through firebombing. You think a big fireball in the distance and some leaflets would make much of a difference to hundreds of thousands of people pulling their charred children out of the rubble?

Secondly, We had two bombs. We didn't know if they would compel Japan to surrender. Considering that the decimation of Tokyo and other cities hadn't convinced the Japanese to surrender there was no guarantee that dropping nukes would convince them either. We could not assume they would surrender under any circumstance. And given that, it absolutely makes sense to choose a target that would hurt their war effort, and make the possible invasion of the main island less costly to us.

It's war. You do what you have to to help your side win. If the other side doesn't like it, they shouldn't be fighting.

You extend your hand after the war is over, not while you are fighting it.

[Sticksboi05]

What Henry said.

[Sticksboi05]

No, the major point of the bombings was to demonstrate incredible force, in teh most awe-inspiring way. Taking out a city with one bomb was one way to accomplish this goal.

any military damage achieved was a side-benefit to the demonstration effect. The japanese govt didn't sue for peace because they lost a few factories, or a bunch of factories. It was the phsychological hit from the awe factor of the bomb.

Yes, all those requirements were drawn out by the Target Committee led by Oppenheimer. Exactly, you're only proving my point more. The awe comes from seeing an entire metropolitan area wiped out in less than 10 seconds.

[Bang]

a mountain within within eyesight of THE major city and capitol. (and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed something like 3 days apart... in the pre-internet days, during wartime.. communication was much slower and stilted. the POINT was to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that we had the technology and the force --- which is why Hiroshima and Nagaski were effective. But bombing the mountain that was viewed as a holy shrine, and that all of the policy makers, and their families, and the largest possible Japanese audience could actually SEE the power and the magnitude.... if they followed the nuke-bomber with several more leaflet dropping bombers they could've had an ENORMOUS reaction-- basically the same one that came from taking out two cities full of civilians.

bombing the cities was preferable to invading, but it wasn't a binary choice equation, they (we) had other options.

It wouldn't have mattered.

As Henry said, we bombed a city, and they didn't give up.

They were as fanatcial as the radicals we face today, and they had martialed their entire population.

Besides, you have to think of it in context of the times. World War II was the largest cataclysm ever inflicted on the human species, bar none. It killed more people in shorter time than anything else ever before and since. The gravity of the evil we faced in World War II cannot be understated. It meant to rule the world, make no mistake, and it meant to cleanse the world of all who were not considered worthy or pure, and the Japanese were no different than the Nazis in this regard. The Japanese began their war much earlier than the rest of the world, and they brutalized the vanquished as badly as any barbaric army has. (In fact, they viewed other asian nations as unworthy to live for allowing British rule in some places. )

Now, in living through such a calamity, in fighting through such horror there is definitely a sense of do or die. Either our side wins, or the entire world is plunged into slavery or worse.

The Japanese were prepared and were willing to fight to a person to defend their home islands and their emperor, who they believe to be a direct blood descendant of the Sun God. Nationalistic fanatics, pretty much one and all.

They viewed chinese (and some still do) as mongrels, they viewed all other asian peoples as beneath them, and they view themselves as pure humans, divine and clean.

They trained everyone from schoolchildren to housewives in how to attack, kill, set traps, and work as units.

It is easy to sit back with hindsight and say what we could have or should have done.

We've been at war now for almost ten years, and it isn't anything like then. We as everyday people are isolated from it for the most part. Some of us may have relatives fighting, but not like then. In WWII everyone was at war, the entire country from kids on up. Amazing new weapons were coming alonmg and being perfected faster than any other time in history ever... aircraft carriers, dive bombers, u-boats, panzer tanks, radar, long range bombers, V1 and V2 rockets.. there is no way to know what the other side may be dreaming up to kill everyone, and the fact is the Germans would have developed the bomb and used it on US if we had not defeated them when we did. If that had happened, the Axis would probably rule the world today.

The context of what people deemed necessary for survival then and what we think now is entirely different.

~Bang

[Prosperity]

Revisionist history 101

~Bang

nonsense

we could have blockaded Japan indefinitely. Why was invasion a necessity? ALL of their resources were cut off. No Navy. No Air Force. Hell the country was starving before we even dropped the A bombs.

we just wanted an unconditional surrender ASAP

A bomb or invasion is a simplistic cookie cutter way to think.

You say they couldn't break, cause they had honor or fanaticism. I say Bull ****. Everybody breaks at some point. They were just as human as us, they suffer, they bleed, they starve, they would have broken, even without an invasion. And EVEN if they would never have broken, their threat could have been contained.

[DjTj]

a mountain within within eyesight of THE major city and capitol. (and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed something like 3 days apart... in the pre-internet days, during wartime.. communication was much slower and stilted. the POINT was to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that we had the technology and the force --- which is why Hiroshima and Nagaski were effective. But bombing the mountain that was viewed as a holy shrine, and that all of the policy makers, and their families, and the largest possible Japanese audience could actually SEE the power and the magnitude.... if they followed the nuke-bomber with several more leaflet dropping bombers they could've had an ENORMOUS reaction-- basically the same one that came from taking out two cities full of civilians.

Maybe it would have convinced the Japanese military that we were ******* and weren't going to be willing to fight to the death like the Japanese were.

Also, bombing holy sites could easily have the opposite effect. Without the human toll, and just a symbolic bombing, would that have driven them to surrender or strengthened their resolve?

bombing the cities was preferable to invading, but it wasn't a binary choice equation, they (we) had other options.

There were an infinite number of choices, and you can play Monday Morning quarterback with any decision. But at the end of the day, only one decision was made, and it accomplished its intended goal: Japan surrendered, and a nuclear weapon has not been used again in any way.

[Sticksboi05]

You say they couldn't break, cause they had honor or fanaticism. I say Bull ****. Everybody breaks at some point. They were just as human as us, they suffer, they bleed, they starve, they would have broken, even without an invasion.

I don't think you understand their honor and pride.

[Bang]

nonsense

we could have blockaded Japan indefinitely. Why was invasion a necessity? ALL of their resources were cut off. No Navy. No Air Force. Hell the country was starving before we even dropped the A bombs.

we just wanted an unconditional surrender ASAP

A bomb or invasion is a simplistic cookie cutter way to think.

You say they couldn't break, cause they had honor or fanaticism. I say Bull ****. Everybody breaks at some point. They were just as human as us, they suffer, they bleed, they starve, they would have broken, even without an invasion.

Yes, we could have starved them to death.

I guess that would have been the more humane thing to do.

~Bang

[Prosperity]

Yes we could have, the point is that when you are beating someone as thoroughly as we did to Japan, you have a lot of options to work with.

Like I said, false dichotomy

There were an infinite number of choices, and you can play Monday Morning quarterback with any decision. But at the end of the day, only one decision was made, and it accomplished its intended goal: Japan surrendered, and a nuclear weapon has not been used again in any way.

playing MMQ is good, pretending that what happened was a best case scenario stifles thought. Especially if you are talking about nuking cities.. such choices should ALWAYS be doubted... to not doubt them can lead to forming all sorts of dangerous habits.

[DjTj]

playing MMQ is good, pretending that what happened was a best case scenario stifles thought.

Well, I am not saying it was a best case scenario. In fact, I would say that no decision in the history of mankind has ever been a best case scenario. There is always something you can change, and always something you can doubt; that's my point.

Especially if you are talking about nuking cities.. such choices should ALWAYS be doubted... to not doubt them can lead to forming all sorts of dangerous habits.

There were no dangerous habits formed from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is the last time nuclear weapons were ever used in battle. So I don't think the risk of forming habits is a credible fear in this situation. World War II was the nadir of the treatment of civilians during wartime. We saw the horror and have recoiled from it.

This whole U.S. envoy situation highlights that fact. We are using Hiroshima as a platform for nuclear disarmament. The "habit" that was formed was to never do it again.

If we hadn't seen Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would Khrushchev have had an itchier trigger finger?

[Prosperity]

In fact, I would say that no decision in the history of mankind has ever been a best case scenario. There is always something you can change, and always something you can doubt; that's my point.

that's also a part of my point, but you missed the conclusion/impact. Though I am not saying you are wrong, I am more so critical of an attitude displayed by some in this thread. (especially, Zoony, who in his usual matter drops his $.02 as if it were a fundamental principle of knowledge)

the argument is that when you make a decision to annihalate entire groups of people, you should never come to a point that what you did was certainly the only way to go, or even if it was the right thing to do. It is important to understand why we did it, and it's important to empathize with the victims.

It's also important that in cases like this we always have some doubt because an attitude of brash certitude creates arrogance and does us all a disservice. I'm not talking about the difference between a world in which we bombed vs a world in which we didn't, not really. I'm talking about here and now, a world in which we arrogantly accept the nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima as a historical necessity, even as a good historical necessity, versus a world in which we refuse to ever accept the idea that there was no better way. With such important, and bloody decisions, it's always good to MMQ.

sometimes, it's good to actively doubt, this is one such case