The Reluctant SingerPlease, somebody, lead me to Taggart Terminal!
About this Entry
Posted by: thereluctantsinger

Visit thereluctantsinger's Xanga Site

Original: 11/16/2006 3:31 AM
Views: 941
Comments: 24
eProps: 22

Read Comments
Post a Comment
Back to Your Xanga Site



Thursday, November 16, 2006

Why Did We Nuke Japan?

 Three times in as many days now I have read something on different sites that condemns America's use of the A-Bomb on Japan in 1945. It seems that we are finally at the point were we have collectively lost sight of the facts about the war in the Pacific and why the United States dropped the Atom Bomb on Japan. I'd like to present a brief history for the benefit of those who may not be fully aware of what the situation was.

During the entire duration of that war in the Pacific, no Japanese troops ever surrundered during any skirmish, any firefight, or any battle either on land or sea. They repeatedly fought to the death of the last man, losing on average 3 men for every 1 of our men lost.

For months before the dropping of the A-bomb we offered to negotiate a peace. For weeks before the dropping of the A-bomb, we had been inviting the Japanese to surrender. We had even quietly backed away from our demand for unconditrional surrender. They consistently refused our offers. Why should they? What nation would surrender when they still had between 3 and 4 million fresh, fully supplied troops protecting their islands; troops who had already proved they they were willing to die to the last man rather than surrender?

As a consequence of this, a bitter and protracted fight was certain. Casualities among our own troops were estimated to reach a million men if we had to invade the islands, and casualities among Japanese troops and civilians were estimated to go as high as 4 million.

Now realize that Japan had been carpet bombed for many months by planes using non-nuclear explosives. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians had already died in these attacks. The country's cities had been devastated by incendary munitions, and that nation was no closer to surrender than it was at the beginning of the war.

So there we are on their door step. Offers to negotiate have failed, and we are no closer to peace than we were on December 7th 1941. You are the commander-in-chief. You must decide. What do you do Mr./Madam President?

1. Do you commit our troops to a house to house, street by street battle that will run the casualities up on both sides and extend the war for 2 or 3 more years?

2. Do you withdraw saying, "Well, I'm sorry. We made a good go of it, but I guess we just can't beat you, so if you don't want to surrender I guess we'll go home? Sorry 'bout all the blood spilt across the Pacific over the last four years, but you win some and you lose some. And by the way, we'd appreciate it if you wouldn't bomb Pearl Harbor any more." Or

3. Do you drop the bomb and end the war with a minimum number of casualities?

This is the real thing Mr./Madam President. You are in charge, and you must do something! Worldwide estimates already put the total dead and missing at over 60 million since 1938, and you have already lost over 400,000 of your own troops in the war. What's in gonna be? Choose now. Every moment you delay your answer results in more casualities.

I'm sorry if you don't like the options. Hell, I don't like them either! But there are times when we are left with no good choices. And remember, we were the ones attacked, not they.

By the way, it might interest you to know that even after the bombs were dropped, there was an element within the Japanese Army that did not want to surrender, and a coup to prevent the emperor from doing so had to be put down. Many high ranking army officers committed sucide rather than accept surrender. It may also interest you to know that the total Japanese dead from the bomb were less than we had already killed with conventional bombing.

Oh how I wish that our schools would teach, not just the names, events, and dates, of history, but would also teach the "why" of history. Perhaps then we might have fewer armchair generals so quick to condemn that which they have no direct knowledge of sixty years after the fact.
 Posted 11/16/2006 3:31 AM - 941 Views - 22 eProps - 24 comments

Give eProps or Post a Comment

24 Comments

Visit Persianfan's Xanga Site!

Too bad that's not something we can do now.  Our fingers are in too many wars at the moment.  We'd end up in a polluted world we ourselves would be able to live in.  I don't see the Afgani, or Iraqi war going away any time soon.

What do we do?  I've no answers that are suitable.

Like your site.  Pershz.

Posted 11/15/2006 10:44 PM by Persianfan - recommend - reply

Visit AnabaptistMK's Xanga Site!
I agree with Truman's decision, provided I don't know the horrible long term consequences of the two bombs. I'm an missionary kid from Japan, and I know people younger than me who are going to suffer all the rest of their life because of gene-related diseases because their great-grandfather went in to help after Hiroshima. If Truman had known what we know now, it would have been wrong for him to drop the bombs.
Posted 11/16/2006 8:16 AM by AnabaptistMK - recommend - reply

Visit Leonidas's Xanga Site!
Truman was thinking past WW II to cutting off Stalin and engaging him and that was something that was a show of power. So we should drop the bombs on a country full of Iranians who according to a gallup poll 70% of them admire us and like us for what our country stands for because the 10% in power don't? Things are not always so black and white in this complex world...
Posted 11/16/2006 9:21 AM by Leonidas Xanga True Member Xanga Lifetime Member - recommend - reply

Visit SwordAndSacrifice's Xanga Site!

"If Truman had known what we know now, it would have been wrong for him to drop the bombs."

Wake up, kid. I'll assume that since you didn't have concrete numbers in the preceding entry that you just can't do the math.

In 1945, the War Department projected that an Allied invasion of the Japanese mainland would meet total resistance. "Total resistance" means that not only will the military fight until its last man is dead, but that civilians, too, would arm themselves and fight to the death. The end result was predicted to be close to one million Allied troops killed (approximately 750,000 of these would have been Americans) and 5.5 million Japanese killed.

Now, you let me know when you think your later generations have suffered "horrible long term consequences" to that level. Because preventing that level of bloodshed was why the bomb was dropped. And those "later generations" haven't suffered to anything close to that level. And they won't in my lifetime or yours, if ever.

I don't know your family history, but there's a VERY strong likelihood that without Truman's decision, you wouldn't be here arguing this point. I know I wouldn't.

Posted 11/16/2006 9:37 AM by SwordAndSacrifice Xanga True Member - recommend - reply

Visit adriansluzky's Xanga Site!
Thanks for your insightful reply. As is true with the history of conflict, one can never account for everything and many have set forth things I hadn't thought about. Actually, I think what's dawning here is a public response to chuck on the bottom of my post as an edit. Part of the learning process comes by advertising what we don't know and then listening to the follow up. The idea that the world is what we make it keeps me to the side that says, "War, well, I don't like it." But its the taste for trivia that drives the mind to bury itself inside, keeps us busy from ever dealing with it.
Posted 11/16/2006 1:49 PM by adriansluzky - recommend - reply

Visit Argent_Paladin's Xanga Site!
I agree with your analysis. However, I think that option two is the only moral one. Demanding total surrender was excessive and there was plenty we could do, short of invading the home island or nuking it, to secure our interests in the Pacific.
The Soviets joined in the last few days of the war. Eventually, with pressure from the Soviets and a total blockade of the island, I think they would have surrendered, even it it was a year later.
It is speculative and perhaps it wouldn't have turned out that way. But it is immoral to directly target innocent civilians. If it can't be done morally, it can't be done at all.
Posted 11/16/2006 3:52 PM by Argent_Paladin - recommend - reply

Visit Argent_Paladin's Xanga Site!
Of course, that means that we shouldn't have firebombed Dresden or Tokyo as well. The end doesn't always justify the means.
Posted 11/16/2006 3:53 PM by Argent_Paladin - recommend - reply

Visit thereluctantsinger's Xanga Site!
AnabaptistMK: You can't expect a man 60 years ago to have acted with knowledge that was not available to him, so your caveat doesn't make any sense to me. We can not hold Truman responsible, or say he was wrong, based upon that which he could not have known. But even if Truman had known of the long-term genetic effects that bomb would have, it is my opinion that his action would still be justified.
Posted 11/16/2006 3:59 PM by thereluctantsinger Xanga True Member Xanga Premium Member - recommend - reply

Visit thereluctantsinger's Xanga Site!
Leonidas: I am well aware of the fact that things are not always black and white. And I have not suggested bombing Iran. The situation today is not the situation that existed in 1945. Trying to infer any more from my post than what is shown would be a mistake.
Posted 11/16/2006 4:00 PM by thereluctantsinger Xanga True Member Xanga Premium Member - recommend - reply

Visit thereluctantsinger's Xanga Site!
Argent_Paladin: I think you are looking at this through the eyes of someone living in 2006 rather than through the eyes of someone living in 1945. If you don't see the difference, then I am certainly glad that you were not the President back then.

The Soviet contribution was non-existent. Japan surrendered before they agreed to help. Second, the Soviets wanted the opportunity to extend their influence in the region. They were not interested in peace; they wanted conquest. We deprived them of that by denying them the opportunity to move large numbers of troops into the area. Had they don so, Japan would never have recovered and become the economic power it is today. The proof? Look at the eastern block of nations in europe. Look at the difference between East and West Germany.
Posted 11/16/2006 4:13 PM by thereluctantsinger Xanga True Member Xanga Premium Member - recommend - reply

Visit AnabaptistMK's Xanga Site!
To SwordAndSacrifice: I think you've made the mistake of only considering two options: invading flat out and nuking Japan. The US had been fire-bombing Japanese and German cities for years and, though that didn't have the same psychological effect that atomic weapons had, they still were crippling the economy and the war machine. If the allies had "merely" firebombed Japan and kept them isolated, Japan would have been forced to surrender, since they have very little natural resources- that was one major reason why Japan got into the war in the first place. Granted, it wouldn't be smart to merely bomb Japan until they finally surrendered, and some time we would probably have to go in, but there would be no reason why we couldn't wait while we bomb them incessantly for six months to a year. By then, the Japanese would have been starving and had mostly run out of goods, and they would not be able to defend the islands even if they wanted to use total resistance as a tactic.

We didn't have to go in right then. We waited for a good amount of time with Germany, firebombing them. There was no reason why we couldn't do the same with Japan. The atomic bomb just seemed like a faster way to do it that had a psychological effect, and so would win the war even more quickly. If we used different, smarter tactics than just barging on in to Japan, the death toll, at least on our side, wouldn't have had to be nearly what you predicted.

To thereluctantsinger: I agree that we can't hold Truman responsible for what he couldn't have known would happen. I do think, though, that we can look at what happened and what we know now and be absolutely sure that we very much do not want to drop nuclear weapons ever again.
Posted 11/16/2006 6:50 PM by AnabaptistMK - recommend - reply

Visit thereluctantsinger's Xanga Site!
AnabaptistMK: I would agree with the idea that we do not want to drop nuclear weapons ever again. Note the emphasis on the word "want." I hope the day never comes when "want" aside, necessity gets in the way. Certainly we don't want such weapons used except at the uttermost end of need (to paraphrase the Stewart of Gondor).
Posted 11/16/2006 7:08 PM by thereluctantsinger Xanga True Member Xanga Premium Member - recommend - reply

Visit simoncat1010's Xanga Site!

Excellent debate.

The realization of the horror and devastation of the nuclear bomb is why the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty was signed in 1968. Civilized nations and peoples understand the dire consequences of its use. And while we argue about the morality of using nuclear weaponry, the morality of war, period, and continue to villify America for Horoshima , and the British for Dresdan, Iran is busily building nuclear technology with the full announced intent of blowing Israel off the map forever. For starters.

Some of us have consciences, some of us don't. Which is why there will always be war, and regrettably, why we have not seen the last of the A-bomb.

Posted 11/17/2006 8:51 AM by simoncat1010 - recommend - reply

Visit thereluctantsinger's Xanga Site!
AnabaptistMK: SwordAndSacrifice hasn't been back to this discussion yet. I can not suppose to speak for him, but I might speculate he would view your suggestion of firebombing Japan incessantly (which translates to almost round the clock bombing) for a year or more with horror. I expect he would feel that would be more immoral than dropping the bomb. Why? If that suggestion were taken, not just 150,000 Japanese would die, but several million would die.

Have you ever seen a human body burning like a torch in the night? Multiply that picture in your mind 2 or 300,000 times. Then add in horrible, lingering death as a result of diease, starvation, famine, and perhaps even plague. If you understand the Japanese mind of the time, then you must know that this is what it would have taken before they would finally submit. They are, afterall, a proud people who could not conceive of being conquered.

What you are saying is that it's better to starve an entire nation - millions upon millions of men, women, and children - and subject them to all kinds of lingering death than to kill 100,000 and end it once and for all. It that what you are advocating? Is that what you really want? Do you think the world could do that with a clean conscience?
Posted 11/17/2006 2:58 PM by thereluctantsinger Xanga True Member Xanga Premium Member - recommend - reply

Visit casey_at_bat's Xanga Site!

ryc I stand corrected, you are right.  I got my two OT men mixed up just a bit there.  ryp I think my answer would be to have waited just a bit longer.  I have heard that there was very serious talk among the Japanese of surrender and that they were in fact on the verge of surrendering when we dropped the bomb.  This is obviously something that if true, wasn't known at the time so it may not be a real answer to your question.  If dropping it was estimated to save millions then by all means "bombs away!".

Tim

Posted 11/17/2006 6:02 PM by casey_at_bat - recommend - reply

Visit Simone_De_Beauvoir's Xanga Site!
IMO, the reason we dropped the bombs was to WIN. Compromise wasn't an option. We had to completely destroy our enemy, like rodent pests. If the bomb was such a great answer, why have we sworn to never do such a thing again? I'd like to hear less advocation for war and more advocation for peaceful solutions to our problems.
Posted 11/18/2006 8:40 PM by Simone_De_Beauvoir - recommend - reply

Visit marigold_mom's Xanga Site!

Well of course we wanted to win, and I agree with the writer here.  Compromise would have been an option I am sure.  And I think that the bomb was a blessing in disguise:  we as humans now have the power to destroy ourselves utterly.  with that power comes a renewed responsibility to avoid armed conflict.  Sigh.  We'll either get it right or go extinct as unfit to survive.

Posted 11/18/2006 10:59 PM by marigold_mom Xanga True Member Xanga Premium Member - recommend - reply

Visit thereluctantsinger's Xanga Site!
Simone_De_Beauvoir: This post is not an advocation for war. It is one which presents the reasoning for a single action in an already existing war, and it offers the reader an opportunity to indicate what s/he would have done at the time and given the circumstances.
Posted 11/19/2006 5:57 AM by thereluctantsinger Xanga True Member Xanga Premium Member - recommend - reply

Visit thereluctantsinger's Xanga Site!
butshebites: Compromise is not always possible. If you had read the post and the comments of others, you would know that the Japanese was still prety much a feutal society that could not conceive of lose in war, and that many officers tried to prevent a surrender even after the bombs were dropped. How much time do you give an enemy who is actively killing your people? How many must die before you act? A blocade would have been impossible to maintain and too each to run, given the number of islands and the total length of coast; and as I told AnabaptistMK a few comments up, continuous firebombing of cities would have been les humane than the bomb.
Posted 11/19/2006 6:05 AM by thereluctantsinger Xanga True Member Xanga Premium Member - recommend - reply

Visit Simone_De_Beauvoir's Xanga Site!
I've had this discussion with my husband several times before. Your argument mirrors his. I've heard it before. I just don't feel it's a moral action to crush people just because we can. You say we had to. I say we should have sought another way. We need to seek other ways. . .now. It's too easy to resort to violence. We shame ourselves by our actions.
Posted 11/19/2006 2:53 PM by Simone_De_Beauvoir - recommend - reply

Visit thereluctantsinger's Xanga Site!
Simone_De_Beauvoir: You say we should have sought another way, yet you have not offered one. What would you have done? Remember, you only have 1945 knowledge to work with and no certain knowledge of the consequences of dropping the bomb. What would you have done? Ofter an alternative that hasn't been covered in the post or in the comments.
Posted 11/19/2006 5:37 PM by thereluctantsinger Xanga True Member Xanga Premium Member - recommend - reply

Visit Simone_De_Beauvoir's Xanga Site!
Hindsight is always 20/20. It isn't logical to ask me how I would act back then without the knowledge because I DO know what I know now. Everything else is speculation, something I deplore. Here and now, we've depleted our list of aggressive tactics  (and we know what the results are and have been from them because of our experiences) and would benefit from listening to those who advocate diplomatic means.
Posted 11/20/2006 5:22 PM by Simone_De_Beauvoir - recommend - reply

Visit Creed_of_Kings's Xanga Site!

Simone would probably steal Aragorn's sword in an effort to achieve peace with Saron.

I'd pick #3.

Posted 11/21/2006 1:55 PM by Creed_of_Kings Xanga True Member - recommend - reply

Visit thereluctantsinger's Xanga Site!
Simone_De_Beauvoir: If it isn't logical to ask how you would have acted back then without the knowledge that you have 60 years after the event, then surely it isn't reasonable or fair for us to condemn those who had to make the decision back then without the benefit of the knowledge and wisdom we have today.

And that really is the point of all this. Truman and his advisors knew that they had a big bomb, but the didn't really understand just how big it was until they say the BDA photos (Bomb Damage Assessment) taken after the drop and realized that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were completely obliterated. And they had no foreknowledge of the long-term genetic effects of the radiation released by the explosions.

Indeed, I'm not sure how the critics of using these weapons back then can find a way to condemn killing 100,000 people all at once, but don't seem to be able to muster up the same sense of outrage and horror at the killing of 100,000 people over a two or three week period of time using other weapons.
Posted 11/21/2006 7:59 PM by thereluctantsinger Xanga True Member Xanga Premium Member - recommend - reply


Sign in to CommentChoose Identity
Give eProps (?)
Post a Comment
Add Link | Preview HTML comment help 
Profile Pic:
Default  |  Choose »  (?)

(?)

Back to thereluctantsinger's Xanga Site!
Note: your comment will appear in thereluctantsinger's local time zone:
GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)