| The Atomic Bomb | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 6 2015, 02:17 PM (343 Views) | |
| Basil Fawlty | Aug 6 2015, 02:17 PM Post #1 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Today is the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, which marked the official beginning of the nuclear age. Naturally, there is still a robust debate over whether the bombings were morally justified under the circumstances and whether they were the main instrument in bringing about Japanese surrender. They do seem to have convinced Hirohito of the need to intervene and end the war, to avoid the complete ruin of Japan. I couldn't help thinking how different this was from Hitler's and Mussolini's actions in the final days of the war in Europe. It does seem, whatever can be said about his knowledge or approval of war crimes, that Hirohito was on a different moral plane than the other two Axis leaders. |
![]() |
|
| John | Aug 6 2015, 05:06 PM Post #2 |
|
Emperor Hirohito was known to have been against the war prior to the start of it. The reality is that the Tojo Government and the Army had far too much power in Japan. For the Emperor to stick his neck out was to risk an overthrow of the monarchy and civil war, I think. It almost did, even in 1945, when the Emperor did intervene. So, I certainly do not believe that Hirohito can be placed into the same classification as Hitler and Mussolini. With regard to the atomic bombings, I maintain that the fire-bombings of Tokyo, Dresden, and other such instances were far more reprehensible and did more human damage than the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But, that is what war is; reprehensible. You do what you must to end it as quickly as possible, which quite frequently involves doing horrible things. The incontrovertible fact is that the atomic bombings likely saved millions of Japanese lives and at least hundreds of thousands of American and Russian lives. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Aug 6 2015, 06:02 PM Post #3 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
I reach the same conclusions, having revisited the topic off and on over a decade. Each time, I grow more convinced it was the only thing to do, even if it seems horrendous. Refraining from using the atomic bombs would not have affected the blockade or the air attacks, or their attendant civilian casualties. Simple mathematics strongly suggests there would have been at least as many if not more Japanese dead from continued hostilities, let alone an invasion of Kyushu. 100,000 soldiers died on Okinawa plus another 100,000 civilians; multiply that number several times if Downfall occurs. Additionally, more Japanese would have starved to death if LeMay's assault on the rail system had gone forward and the blockade continued. About the only evidence in favor of the other side is the demoralizing effect that Soviet entry into the war had. But even this seems like it would not have been enough, in the absence of the atomic bombings, given that many in the Japanese military wanted to keep fighting in spite of everything. The Russian entry itself also needs to be viewed through the lens of the atomic strikes: though it had been promised at Yalta, it came when it did because of the suddenness of Hiroshima. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Aug 6 2015, 10:48 PM Post #4 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Hiroshima wasn't the decisive event; that was arguably Nagasaki. That showed that it wasn't a one off and that the rain of destruction from the air referred to by Truman would happen. Nothing that complex is due to a single event, but rather the confluence of multiple events with one finally serving as the tipping point. Hitting the rail system would have meant the deaths of millions and collapsed the country, perhaps past the point of no return. That option was held back quite rightly for use in the last resort. The atomic bombs shortened the war. Every day the war went on, thousands upon thousands of Chinese, South East Asians and Allied prisoners of war would have continued to die or be put at risk of madness inspired murder. It saved their lives. The POWs and Asians are often forgotten with the focus on the Japanese, the Soviets and the Americans, but It saved the lives of the millions of Allied personnel who would have taken part in further operations against Japan - not just from a potential invasion, but further losses to bomber crews, carrier personnel, naval crew and soldiers from accidents, attrition, combat losses, sickness and misadventure. The war was going on strong outside of the Home Islands. It saved the lives of millions of Japanese civilians. I'm not so swift to absolve the Emperor from blame; it was a convenient postwar fiction, but the rot came from the top as well as from other areas. Dresden stood out as an operation because it came towards the end of the war in Europe. It was certainly less damaging that Hamburg and has only been inflated since due to the work of dubious Nazi sympathizers infiltrating what passes for general public knowledge. Tokyo was damaging, but not reprehensible. It was a devastating and terrible act of war, in the old meaning of the words. I agree with the conclusion on the aim of war. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Aug 7 2015, 03:36 PM Post #5 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
That would certainly counter a common narrative that the Hiroshima bombing was necessary and justified, but the Nagasaki one wasn't. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Aug 7 2015, 06:19 PM Post #6 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Nagasaki even more so. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Aug 7 2015, 11:08 PM Post #7 |
|
The atomic attacks really had nothing to do with the surrender of Japan. The Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." The big what if is really more in terms of what would have happened if atomic weapons hadn't been developed and used at the end of World War II. Without having actually used them, there might not have been a nuclear taboo going forwards. |
![]() |
|
| John | Aug 7 2015, 11:41 PM Post #8 |
|
Your opinion on the matter was quite predictable. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Aug 7 2015, 11:50 PM Post #9 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
There is more data available now than would have been available immediately after the war. That so many in the army wanted to keep fighting, in spite of the bombings, speaks volumes about the Japanese militarists' thinking. In any event, suppose it is correct; we must ask what would have happened during those three to four months. Casualties would have continued to mount without an invasion of Japan and without Russian entry. There seems little doubt that the bombs saved more lives in the long run at the expense of many in the short run. However, in the end, Halsey was right: "If I had to give credit to the instruments and machines that won us the war in the Pacific, I would rate them in this order: submarines first, radar second, planes third, bulldozers fourth." Japan had been defeated well before the atomic bombs. They simply broke the camel's back and made any thought of continued resistance delusional. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Aug 8 2015, 01:03 AM Post #10 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Looking at events after the fact always has that sense of detachment and thus it was with the SBS. To a large extent, it got the results it was after. After the Soviets and two atom bombs, there was still an attempted coup to stop the Emperor's message going out. As previously said, the Jap disconnect with reality had cost too many lives to that point; they didn't deserve the benefit of any doubt. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Aug 8 2015, 01:14 AM Post #11 |
|
I'm talking about the perception of atomic weapons themselves having won the war, not about the overall air campaign. If the atomic bomb hadn't been used at the end of World War II, it probably wouldn't have had a significant impact on the outcome of the war. Apart from the nature of the weapons being used, Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't really that different in outcome relative to the mass firebombings. The inhabitants of the cities would have been living on borrowed time as it was, since LeMay was about a month or so away from running out of targets warranting a mass air raid. The food infrastructure of Japan was collapsing as well, as the naval blockade and aerial minelaying efforts of B-29 units had severed food and material imports. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Aug 8 2015, 01:27 AM Post #12 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
However, it was and it did. Atom bombs allowed true strategic bombing to work as advertised. In this life, a man can be dying of many things, but we do remember the one that ultimately dispatched him. Differences on perception are a long way from a blanket statement that atom bombs really having nothing to do with Japan's surrender. If two didn't do the job, then four and more would have prevented Golden Gate in '48. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Aug 8 2015, 02:34 AM Post #13 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Not to mention that the atomic bomb was the first weapon that truly could end a war in a single stroke. Its reputation was deserved, even if the submarines, B-29s and amphibious invasions had done the heavy lifting before August 1945. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Aug 10 2015, 08:49 AM Post #14 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/aug/06/nuclear.japan A nice interview. He said, "Colonel, we wouldn't be playing with atoms today, would we?" I said, "Bob, you've got it just exactly right." |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · History · Next Topic » |







2:39 PM Jul 11