Was the USA right to drop the Bomb on Japan to end WW2?

by stillajwexelder 131 Replies latest members politics

Pole

frankie,

Ive' replied on a new thread to avoid hijacking this one:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/84834/1.ashx

Pole
upside/down

We had a Japanese foreign exchange student live with us for 4 years and he stayed illegally for another 6 years. He is from Tokyo and is like family. His family although we've never phycically met sends us gifts every holiday and pictures and acts like we're family to them. He comes once a year to visit and LOVES this country.
If Iraq ends up like Japan- we could only wish! You need to put the blame on the individuals and governments that started the war in the first place. Don't cry fowl when the nation that is unjustly attacked rataliates with so much destructive force as to take you by surprise and now it's "unfair"? The US learned from this and to this day, although being BY FAR the strongest nation on the planet has not used nukes. Do you bleeding hearts think that Iran or N. Korea will be so "restrained" with their new found powers? What's more interesting is that the US is conveniently isolated by distance and thus somewhat protected from a nuke attack (barring terrorists).
But once the "fight" is started- who says there are rules? In the Gulf War I remember Iraqi soldiers making the comments when asked by reporters why they were surrendering without a fight they said that US & UK prisons were better than Iraqi hotels.
The US rebuilt both Japan and Europe after WW2 and protected both while recovering from the new enemy- did everyone forget? Show some manners and at least be thankful.
The subject of WW2 has obviously come up and they have NEVER even hinted at any impropriety on the part of the Allies. Even the subject of "the bomb" has come up and they say they DESERVED it! My ex-Marine father regrets it having to be used but acknowledges it was the best option at the time. My dad was stationed in Japan and speaks fluently. Why aren't the Japanese as "hung up" on this as many so called "liberals"? Because the Japanese understand what it means to lose- they were kickin-ass and taken names and then got knocked off their high horse.
As a matter of fact the Japanese (brass) expected to be humiliated by the Allies (US especially) at the surrender on the Missouri and were instead shocked that they were allowed their dignity and were told to just get this whole mess behind us and start looking to the future!
You know if the Americans were the assholes their enemies to this day claim, why didn't they go for world domination then? They alone had the bomb and could have "held hostage" any whome they chose. In Korea Mac Arthur wanted to drop "the bomb", instead the UN was used.
To compare the use of any and all force as being tantamount to terrorism is assinine! Remember the Allies military exploits would never have happened if the Axis hadn't engaged in all out war!
chappy
Both Fermi and Oppenhiemer were in favor of using the bomb. There had been calls from the scientific community for a demonsstration of the bomb in a non-populated area. as noted in the document below, Oppenheimer stated that a demonsstration would in all likelyhood not bring an end to the war.
chappy
Source: U. S. National Archives, Record Group 77, Records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, Manhattan Engineer District, Harrison-Bundy File, Folder #76.
TOP SECRET
THIS PAGE REGRADED UNCLASSIFIED
Order Sec Army By TAG per
720564
THIS DOCUMENT CONSISTS OF 2 PAGE(S)
NO. 1 OF 12 COPIES, SERIES A
RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE IMMEDIATE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
A. H. Compton E. O. Lawrence J. R. Oppenheimer E. Fermi [signature] J. R. Oppenheimer For the Panel
June 16, 1945
You have asked us to comment on the initial use of the new weapon. This use, in our opinion, should be such as to promote a satisfactory adjustment of our international relations. At the same time, we recognize our obligation to our nation to use the weapons to help save American lives in the Japanese war.
(1) To accomplish these ends we recommend that before the weapons are used not only Britain, but also Russia, France, and China be advised that we have made considerable progress in our work on atomic weapons, that these may be ready to use during the present war, and that we would welcome suggestions as to how we can cooperate in making this development contribute to improved international relations.
(2) The opinions of our scientific colleagues on the initial use of these weapons are not unanimous: they range from the proposal of a purely technical demonstration to that of the military application best designed to induce surrender. Those who advocate a purely technical demonstration would wish to outlaw the use of atomic weapons, and have feared that if we use the weapons now our position in future negotiations will be prejudiced. Others emphasize the opportunity of saving American lives by immediate military use, and believe that such use will improve the international prospects, in that they are more concerned with the prevention of war than with the elimination of this specific weapon. We find ourselves closer to these latter views; we can propose no technical demonstration likely to bring an end to the war; we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use.
(3) With regard to these general aspects of the use of atomic energy, it is clear that we, as scientific men, have no proprietary rights. It is true that we are among the few citizens who have had occasion to give thoughtful consideration to these problems during the past few years. We have, however, no claim to special competence in solving the political, social, and military problems which are presented by the advent of atomic power.
chappy

Googlemagoogle said:
btw: germany and japan were not "axis partners" as someone else stated before.
What give you this idea? They definately were axis partners, both before and during the war.
chappy
FreeWilly

btw: germany and japan were not "axis partners" as someone else stated before.

Uhhh.... yes they were, it was called the The Tripartite Pact signed in 1940 by Germany, Japan and Italy. In the pact the three nations agreed that for the next ten years they would:
"stand by and co-operate with one another in... their prime purpose to establish and maintain a new order of things... to promote the mutual prosperity and welfare of the peoples concerned".
-and-
"to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Pact)
BrendaCloutier

Six, I simply expressed my "cherished emotions" as personal beliefs. I have some education behind my beliefs. No one person or group can emphatically say it was right or wrong without emotion coloring it their statement. Even scientists. We are, afterall, humans driven by hormones and emotions.
My spousal unit is a WWII historian because of his long-term interest in the incredible technology that came out of that war, especially in aircraft development. In 1939 bi-planes were still being used. The Japanese used fabric and glue covered balsawood aircraft. By 1945 the first jets were being tested, as were helecopters! Awesome advancement in technology.
Because of his interest and my respect for his avocation, I have watched many, many hours of documentaries and movies on WWII. Kevan has a vast library and if you want technical info, I can get it.
The A-bomb is only one of many, many instruments of death used during the war. It caused less death and destruction than more conventional means of bombing. It's developers didn't fully understand the long-term side affects of the bomb. Hindsight being 20/20 would they have still done it? No one can in control of the situation can honestly say. However, because the results of it's actual use in war were so ghastly, it awoke the world to the need to be cautious with this horrible new weapon. With that enlightenment how many lives have been saved in the last 60+ years?
I would like to believe that the world learned from that lesson of war.
BrendaCloutier

I've always wondered why we didn't drop one of the bomb on one of the little Military Target Islands to show what would happen rather than a city.

It was for the same reasons as the Doolittle Raids on Tokyo - hit them in their homeland where they felt secure.
The initial Doolittle Raids were inaffective, however they made the statement to the Japanese that their homeland was not invicible and gave them something to thinkg about. It also gave the US and allies much needed morale after Pearl Harbor.
Again, the A-bombs did less killing and less destruction than the firebombings of other key Japanese cities.
PS thank you for supporting my in my statement of the Axis... I just couldn't remember the name of the signed pact.
FreeWilly

While it may be useful to fuel anti-US rhetoric, I think the real question is which method would bring the war to an end with the fewest casualties to both sides?
Consider:
The US had only 2 operational bombs. A demonstration might have been effective, but would also reveal the US next offensive strategy to their enemy. Also, if a demonstration blast failed to work a ground invasion was certain.
Japan was prepared to defend the imminent US ground invasion TO THE LAST PERSON, consistent with their tenacious fighting thus far. (see Chappy's post) To my knowledge, all historians and military strategists recognize that a ground invasion would have produced many times the Japanese casualties of the A-bombs themselves (notwithstanding Allied casualties).
And let's not forget that the US entered a war in a capacity that they arguably did not have to. Had the US continued with it's "hands-off" approach to world affairs, they needed only to defend against an imperialist Japan. A war on 2 fronts was extremely risky. A weakened Hitler would have been much easier to contend with later, and a Nazi Europe could have been addressed, though at the expense of our European friends. Notwithstanding, just as these two merciless, megalomaniacs (Hitler and the emperor) were being put down; another was showing his face (Stalin) and designs on Europe. An unquestionable show of force would be quite useful in such a context. Perhaps if turn-of-the-century Europe were not so intent on reestablishing the empires of it's colonialist past, we would have nothing to talk about.
It's easy to second-guess many of the war tactics of such as the fire-bombings of Berlin, London and Tokyo (which, BTW were far more devastating to civilians than the two A-bombs). I say a demonstration blast, obviously, would have been more humanitarian - had it worked.
fleaman uk

Chappy
Can you tell me more about the 9 nuclear Weapons that the U.S had in reserve for use against Japan in 1945?Ive looked in a few places and cant find any info.
Thanks.
BrendaCloutier
And let's not forget that the US entered a war in a capacity that they arguably did not have to. Had the US continued with it's "hands-off" approach to world affairs, they needed only to defend against an imperialist Japan.
Sorry, Freewilly, but Germany declared war on the US on 11 Dec 1941
www.ww2homefront.com/timeline/ 1941.html
Dec. 7:
Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor; hitler issues "Night and Fog" decree.
Dec. 8:
United States and Britain declare war on Japan.
Dec. 11:
Germany declares war on United States.
This was part of the Pact to divide and reduce the the power of the US.
Besides, US had pleanty of reason to declare war on Germany. German subs were offshore on US Eastcoast torpedoing merchant ships outlined agains the backdrop of New York and other well-lit cities.

Was the USA right to drop the Bomb on Japan to end WW2?

Share this