New thinking re A-bombs dropped on Japan

[Tigerman]

There are a good many more points that now extend our understanding beyond the debates of 1995. But it is clear that all three of the critics’ central premises are wrong. The Japanese did not see their situation as catastrophically hopeless. They were not seeking to surrender, but pursuing a negotiated end to the war that preserved the old order in Japan, not just a figurehead emperor. Finally, thanks to radio intelligence, American leaders, far from knowing that peace was at hand, understood–as one analytical piece in the “Magic” Far East Summary stated in July 1945, after a review of both the military and diplomatic intercepts–that “until the Japanese leaders realize that an invasion can not be repelled, there is little likelihood that they will accept any peace terms satisfactory to the Allies.” This cannot be improved upon as a succinct and accurate summary of the military and diplomatic realities of the summer of 1945.

[MikeN]

@Tigerman

[quote]There are a good many more points that now extend our understanding beyond the debates of 1995. But it is clear that all three of the critics’ central premises are wrong. The Japanese did not see their situation as catastrophically hopeless. They were not seeking to surrender, but pursuing a negotiated end to the war that preserved the old order in Japan, not just a figurehead emperor. Finally, thanks to radio intelligence, American leaders, far from knowing that peace was at hand, understood–as one analytical piece in the “Magic” Far East Summary stated in July 1945, after a review of both the military and diplomatic intercepts–that “until the Japanese leaders realize that an invasion can not be repelled, there is little likelihood that they will accept any peace terms satisfactory to the Allies.” This cannot be improved upon as a succinct and accurate summary of the military and diplomatic realities of the summer of 1945.[/quote]

Don’t see anything particularly new about this- seems a pretty accurate summary of my History 102 (Modern History1918- 1965) term paper

Happy to realise one of my main sources on Evil American Imperialism was Horowitz- and, even as an armband wearing member of the Revolution I was never dumb enough to swallow his revisionism wholesale.

[Tigerman]

@MikeN

[quote=“Tigerman”][quote]There are a good many more points that now extend our understanding beyond the debates of 1995. But it is clear that all three of the critics’ central premises are wrong. The Japanese did not see their situation as catastrophically hopeless. They were not seeking to surrender, but pursuing a negotiated end to the war that preserved the old order in Japan, not just a figurehead emperor. Finally, thanks to radio intelligence, American leaders, far from knowing that peace was at hand, understood–as one analytical piece in the “Magic” Far East Summary stated in July 1945, after a review of both the military and diplomatic intercepts–that “until the Japanese leaders realize that an invasion can not be repelled, there is little likelihood that they will accept any peace terms satisfactory to the Allies.” This cannot be improved upon as a succinct and accurate summary of the military and diplomatic realities of the summer of 1945.[/quote]

Don’t see anything particularly new about this- seems a pretty accurate summary of my History 102 (Modern History1918- 1965) term paper

Happy to realise one of my main sources on Evil American Imperialism was Horowitz- and, even as an armband wearing member of the Revolution I was never dumb enough to swallow his revisionism wholesale.[/quote]

Did you miss the entire debate that began in the later 1960s where it was argued that evidence showed that dropping the bombs was unnecessary due to the facts that at the time we dropped the bombs a) the Japanese saw their situation as catastrophically hopeless, b) the Japanese were seeking to surrender and c) the Japanese leaders realized that an invasion could not be repelled?

[politbureau]

Arguing that 200,000 innocent men, women, and children had to die in Japan in order to make a point sounds suspiciously to me like Osama bin Laden’s argument that 3,000 innocent people had to die in New York in order to make a point.

[fred_smith]

You are making it sound Spook as if the US was responsible for the war. The Japanese were incredibly violent and brutal conquerors but due to historical revisionism, they end up the “victims” with the US the evil aggressor? I know that this is what passes for intelligent debate on the left these days but… we all know my feelings about that…

[Tigerman]

@spook

Arguing that 200,000 innocent men, women, and children had to die in Japan in order to make a point …

Did you read the article, spook?

[politbureau]

@Tigerman

[quote=“spook”]Arguing that 200,000 innocent men, women, and children had to die in Japan in order to make a point …

Did you read the article, spook?[/quote]

Why not hit the target below with the first warhead instead of the civilian target? Was it for the same reason bin Laden chose to hit a soft target instead of a military one? Maybe the shock value is higher and the risk lower?"

"From mid-July onwards, Ultra intercepts exposed a huge military buildup on Kyushu. Japanese ground forces exceeded prior estimates by a factor of four. Instead of 3 Japanese field divisions deployed in southern Kyushu to meet the 9 U.S. divisions, there were 10 Imperial Army divisions plus additional brigades. Japanese air forces exceeded prior estimates by a factor of two to four. Instead of 2,500 to 3,000 Japanese aircraft, estimates varied between about 6,000 and 10,000. One intelligence officer commented that the Japanese defenses threatened “to grow to [the] point where we attack on a ratio of one (1) to one (1) which is not the recipe for victory.”

[Jive_Turkey]

@spook

"From mid-July onwards, Ultra intercepts exposed a huge military buildup on Kyushu. Japanese ground forces exceeded prior estimates by a factor of four. Instead of 3 Japanese field divisions deployed in southern Kyushu to meet the 9 U.S. divisions, there were 10 Imperial Army divisions plus additional brigades. Japanese air forces exceeded prior estimates by a factor of two to four. Instead of 2,500 to 3,000 Japanese aircraft, estimates varied between about 6,000 and 10,000. One intelligence officer commented that the Japanese defenses threatened “to grow to [the] point where we attack on a ratio of one (1) to one (1) which is not the recipe for victory.”

My understanding, and it could very well be false, has been that two softer targets were chosen because the Army Air Force didn’t want to take any risks. They could not afford to lose those bombs over Japan. Perhaps the reason they didn’t attack a place like Kyushu is because the Japanese air force there was still strong enough to pose a threat to B-29s.

[Durins_Bane]

@spook

[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“spook”]Arguing that 200,000 innocent men, women, and children had to die in Japan in order to make a point …

Did you read the article, spook?[/quote]

Why not hit the target below with the first warhead instead of the civilian target? Was it for the same reason bin Laden chose to hit a soft target instead of a military one? Maybe the shock value is higher and the risk lower?"

"From mid-July onwards, Ultra intercepts exposed a huge military buildup on Kyushu. Japanese ground forces exceeded prior estimates by a factor of four. Instead of 3 Japanese field divisions deployed in southern Kyushu to meet the 9 U.S. divisions, there were 10 Imperial Army divisions plus additional brigades. Japanese air forces exceeded prior estimates by a factor of two to four. Instead of 2,500 to 3,000 Japanese aircraft, estimates varied between about 6,000 and 10,000. One intelligence officer commented that the Japanese defenses threatened “to grow to [the] point where we attack on a ratio of one (1) to one (1) which is not the recipe for victory.”[/quote]

Bin Laden struck soft targets to start a war, not to end one. The United States was in a state of total war and had every right to use whatever means it had at its’ disposal to end the war.

The A-bombs were not used against military units simply because the bombs were not tactical weapons…they were strategic weapons.

The A-bombs were also unique strategic weapons at the time because they were also political weapons. They were built for one thing…to facilitate a quick end to the war. The message to Tojo and his little emperor lackey was clear. “Look assholes, what one one of these bad boys can do. We know how to make them. What if we drop ten of them at the same time?”

An amphibious/airborne assault on Japan proper would have been a tactical nightmare. And the size of Japan, the Japanese soldier’s fanatical resistence on the battlefield, and the civilian suicides seen on Okinawa, led military and political leaders to give the go-ahead to use the Bombs. With Japanese soldiers forcing civilains to whack themselves on Okinawa, it would of been logical to assume that same thing could have happened on a much larger scale in Japan proper.

The choice of targets and the choice to use the Bombs were correct.

BTW, should America feel shame or remorse for using nukes? Absolutely not. If they Japanese didn’t want to get their asses gakked then they should have picked up another hobby besides bombing harbours.

[politbureau]

[quote=“Durins Bane”]
Bin Laden struck soft targets to start a war, not to end one.[/quote]
"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, “and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.”
–Osama bin Laden, 23Feb1998, call to Jihad

@Durins Bane

The A-bombs were not used against military units simply because the bombs were not tactical weapons…they were strategic weapons.

“Ultra intercepts exposed a huge military buildup on Kyushu. Japanese ground forces exceeded prior estimates by a factor of four. Instead of 3 Japanese field divisions deployed in southern Kyushu to meet the 9 U.S. divisions, there were 10 Imperial Army divisions plus additional brigades. Japanese air forces exceeded prior estimates by a factor of two to four. Instead of 2,500 to 3,000 Japanese aircraft, estimates varied between about 6,000 and 10,000.”

[Durins_Bane]

[quote=“spook”]

“Ultra intercepts exposed a huge military buildup on Kyushu. Japanese ground forces exceeded prior estimates by a factor of four. Instead of 3 Japanese field divisions deployed in southern Kyushu to meet the 9 U.S. divisions, there were 10 Imperial Army divisions plus additional brigades. Japanese air forces exceeded prior estimates by a factor of two to four. Instead of 2,500 to 3,000 Japanese aircraft, estimates varied between about 6,000 and 10,000.”[/quote]

Why would you use a strategic weapon on military units when you aren’t planning to invade in the first place?

[politbureau]

[quote=“Durins Bane”][quote=“spook”]

“Ultra intercepts exposed a huge military buildup on Kyushu. Japanese ground forces exceeded prior estimates by a factor of four. Instead of 3 Japanese field divisions deployed in southern Kyushu to meet the 9 U.S. divisions, there were 10 Imperial Army divisions plus additional brigades. Japanese air forces exceeded prior estimates by a factor of two to four. Instead of 2,500 to 3,000 Japanese aircraft, estimates varied between about 6,000 and 10,000.”[/quote]

Why would you use a strategic weapon on military units when you aren’t planning to invade in the first place?[/quote]

Because if you can demonstrate your ability to vaporize ten divisions of the Imperial Army along with 6,000 to 10,000 aircraft in one blow you might be able to convince the emperor that resistance is futile.

[Durins_Bane]

[quote=“spook”][quote=“Durins Bane”][quote=“spook”]

“Ultra intercepts exposed a huge military buildup on Kyushu. Japanese ground forces exceeded prior estimates by a factor of four. Instead of 3 Japanese field divisions deployed in southern Kyushu to meet the 9 U.S. divisions, there were 10 Imperial Army divisions plus additional brigades. Japanese air forces exceeded prior estimates by a factor of two to four. Instead of 2,500 to 3,000 Japanese aircraft, estimates varied between about 6,000 and 10,000.”[/quote]

Why would you use a strategic weapon on military units when you aren’t planning to invade in the first place?[/quote]

Because if you can demonstrate your ability to vaporize ten divisions of the Imperial Army along with 6,000 to 10,000 aircraft in one blow you might be able to convince the emperor that resistance is futile.[/quote]

I don’t think the emperor held much regard for the lives of Imperial Japanese troops.

[twocs]

Not everybody believes targeting civilians is okay even in war. If the politicians and military scientists approve such measures, there is bound to be massive outcry despite the propaganda regarding the enemy.

The argument that two bombs alone can show a nation that an invasion cannot be repelled seems to be flawed. Showing a nation that you don’t care about the civilians in that nation might show a different message. Thus the terrorists today want to attack innocent people in order to prove that they cannot be stopped. Would two atomic bombs detonated/dropped in the United States be sufficient to stop the United States from the “War on Terror”? Would the United States surrender, knowing that at any time more innocent Americans could be killed? I say no, and for these and other reasons believe that the thinking of the American leaders was flawed.

[Dragonbones]

@twocs

The argument that two bombs alone can show a nation that an invasion cannot be repelled seems to be flawed…Would two atomic bombs detonated/dropped in the United States be sufficient to stop the United States from the “War on Terror”? Would the United States surrender, knowing that at any time more innocent Americans could be killed? I say no, and for these and other reasons believe that the thinking of the American leaders was flawed.

Bad analogy. The situation in Japan at the time in no way resembled that in the US now. No one had ever seen weapons of such destructive power, and Japan had nothing to match that. The bombs did convince Japan to surrender, which also shows the flaw in your argument, IMO.

[Jive_Turkey]

@twocs

The argument that two bombs alone can show a nation that an invasion cannot be repelled seems to be flawed. Showing a nation that you don’t care about the civilians in that nation might show a different message. Thus the terrorists today want to attack innocent people in order to prove that they cannot be stopped.

Actually, it seems to me that present day terrorists attack innocent people because they simply lack the means, and perhaps the balls, to attack the US military head on.

Would two atomic bombs detonated/dropped in the United States be sufficient to stop the United States from the “War on Terror”? Would the United States surrender, knowing that at any time more innocent Americans could be killed? I say no, and for these and other reasons believe that the thinking of the American leaders was flawed.

Maybe I’m not following you here. Why are you saying that the thinking of American leaders was flawed if they got their desired result: a Japanese surrender?

[Richardm]

It seems to me that people don’t think about radiation sickness as much now as they used to. It used to be that whenever someone considered the A-bombs, they would show footage of Japanese suffering from radiation burns and pealing skin. Really sick stuff. Now it seems people just talk about numbers. This many died instead of that many if we didn’t do that. As time goes by the realities of nuclear war are slowly forgotten.

[Shin-Gua]

The A-bombs were used on Nagasaki and Hiroshima for two reasons:

1. President Truman’s (Democrat) main objective was to save American (and Allied) lives: not Japanese (only rightful in the circumstances)
2. The destructive power of the bombs was not fully realized or understood (a test in the desert didn’t really demonstrate this), so an untouched target was necessary so that the destructive effects could be accurately evaluated.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima fit the requirements.

(We only had two bombs. Thank goodness more were not needed.)

Its that simple, folks.

[Tigerman]

@Saipan Tribune reporting on statements made recently by a Hiroshima bomb survivor

Matsushima said he had understood why such a gruesome event had happened. He said it happened for a reason and if it did not take place and the war continued, there would be more people who would have suffered and probably died due to war.

[politbureau]

[quote=“Shin-Gua”]The A-bombs were used on Nagasaki and Hiroshima for two reasons:

1. President Truman’s (Democrat) main objective was to save American (and Allied) lives: not Japanese (only rightful in the circumstances)
2. The destructive power of the bombs was not fully realized or understood (a test in the desert didn’t really demonstrate this), so an untouched target was necessary so that the destructive effects could be accurately evaluated.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima fit the requirements.

(We only had two bombs. Thank goodness more were not needed.)

Its that simple, folks.[/quote]

Are you saying that if the other side is too powerful or determined to defeat militarily without a very high casualty rate that it’s legitimate to use weapons of mass destruction on its civilian non-combatant population?