Hiroshima - US State Terrorism to end WWII

[Caduceus]

One thing being left out of the calculus here is this: H&N established the consequences of provoking a nuclear power and therefore set up an ironclad deterrent. Even without it we came dangerously close to destruction on too many occasions during the Cold War. Imagine what might have happened during the Berlin airlift if the thought of a hundred thousand people vaporizing in an instant before the unholy mushroom cloud weren't still forged into their memories.

Those complaining about "nuclear terror" need to understand that it is the only thing that saved us later on. Fear of the bomb is a good thing to have considering the alternatives. And since no nuclear weapon has been used in war since then, I'd say this "nuclear terror" has done humanity a pretty good service.

[Nono]

Quote by: Pat I think the US was wrong to use the nukes. It upped the scale of warfare from barbaric firebombing of civilian populations to nuclear terror. The US did need a bigger hammer to finally crush the Japanese military, true. And it MAY BE TRUE that the horror of the nukes brought a capitulation leading to lower loss of life than an extended bombing campaign on the main islands would have. I think the US was wary of an invasion in any case and as an alternative to nukes may have chosen to simply bomb Japan into starvation and industrial convulsion. Their war machine had been largely wrecked, their merchant fleet was sunk, fuel supplies would have run low quickly. I think it is possible more Japanese civilians may have died, but the US would not have been the world's first nuclear bomber...

By that time the US was realizing that massive bombing of Germany hadn't produced the desired effect. But no matter -- they knew from invading dinky islands like Iwo Jima and Okinawa* the sort of thing that would be waiting for them even if the Imperial Navy or whoever was on the ropes. (They also had the recent close shave in Normandy to consider.) It would have been carnage -- perhaps extremely lengthy carnage -- on an unprecedented scale.

Anyway, they had this extremely powerful new bomb. It's unrealistic to imagine that there's any way they wouldn't have used it. Of course they were going to use it.

And, finally, they suspected (rightly) that Japan had its own nuclear programme, as Germany had had. How could they be sure that the Japanese weren't within weeks of building their own bomb?

And so on. Really, I'm not blind to the horrors of H&N, or the implications about the age it was about to pitch us all into. But this war (started by the Germans, Italians and Japanese) had produced The Bomb. Innocent Japanese in H&N died horrible deaths, just as thousands-maybe-millions of innocent Asians from Nanking to the Burma Railway had died -- starved, tortured or worked to death -- under sadistic Japanese occupation.

If I had been Truman, I would have gulped and used the thing too.

* In which the Japanese military made sure that their own civilians wouldn't be spared.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Nono If I had been Truman, I would have gulped and used the thing too.

I guess you're not the guy I thought you were, Nono.

[Nono]

Quote by: Pat I guess you're not the guy I thought you were, Nono.

Did you think I was a pacificist? I'm not. There are some situations (though rare) when armed force is justified. (You, Pat, would not have dropped it. I think you would have had quite a situation on your hands. I wonder how history would have viewed you.)

Whatever you may believe about the war in the Pacific, it's difficult to see how the US could ultimately have stayed out of a conflict with Japan, this owing to sheer frenetic Japanese belligerence. This conflict would have concluded somehow, and what with Einstein, Fermi & Co., somebody somewhere would have soon built and used The Bomb. Imagine if it had been the Germans, the Japanese or Joe Stalin....

I repeat: The end of the war with Japan meant not only all those American, Australian, NZ, etc. boys coming home, it also meant an end to the hell that life had been under Japanese occupation in much of East Asia (lest we forget -- the Asians haven't). And it meant an end to the increasing misery of civilians in Japan whose idea the war decidedly wasn't.

Progress in physics and a hugely determined war effort opened Pandora's Box. It can't be shut. Or, to use another metaphor, you can't unburn a burnt bridge.

* It seems to me probable that Roosevelt helped bring it about, and sneaky though it was I believe his intentions were honourable.

[Caduceus]

The most sugar-coated projection had Allied casualties alone at 1.2 million and didn't even take Japanese casualties into consideration. The bloodiest projection I saw was 4 million Allied casualties and 10 million Japanese.

That is not preferable to the 200,000+ that died in H&N, especially when you consider how many tens of millions were saved from the nuclear fires of WW3 had the deterrent effect not been established.

[Nono]

Quote by: Caduceux That is not preferable to the 200,000+ that died in H&N, especially when you consider how many tens of millions were saved from the nuclear fires of WW3 had the deterrent effect not been established.

Meaning that the "balance of terror" prevented war between the superpowers from breaking out (though there were some damned close calls -- and it isn't over yet). But your reasoning seems a bit circular. You can't salute the advent of a threat on the grounds that having that threat around saved people from that threat.

[Caduceus]

You can't salute the advent of a threat on the grounds that having that threat around saved people from that threat.

This is true in a purely ideological way, though you have to be realistic and understand that the threat was going to arise one way or another. Such technology was going to be used sooner or later, that's simply the nature of new technology, especially when it's got applications of war. Better that it be used once in controlled circumstances in Japan than in a hellstorm of nuclear fire in Europe.

though there were some damned close calls -- and it isn't over yet

Yeah, and like I said, we came close even with the deterrent, so imagine what might have happened without it.

I would not argue that the world is better off without nuclear weapons, as I tend to think the mere threat they might be used has deterred even non-nuclear wars. Rather like gun ownership, no one wants to pick on a nuclear superpower.

[Nono]

Quote by: Caduceus I would not argue that the world is better off without nuclear weapons, as I tend to think the mere threat they might be used has deterred even non-nuclear wars. Rather like gun ownership, no one wants to pick on a nuclear superpower.

While taking your point, I would argue that sooner or later there is going to be an accident, or a mistake, or a nutcase* and when that happens we can all kiss our asses goodbye. Unleashing a firestorm à la Dr Strangelove would spell the end of human civilization (such as it is...) and possibly of human life period.

I recognize the inevitability of The Bomb, but no way we're better off with it.

* See Kissinger on his worries about a depressed and inebriated Nixon-with-finger-on-Button.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Caduceus The most sugar-coated projection had Allied casualties alone at 1.2 million and didn't even take Japanese casualties into consideration. The bloodiest projection I saw was 4 million Allied casualties and 10 million Japanese.

These are the numbers I have seen, quite different from what you say. http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/425...001.html#rtoc5

On 15 June 1945, the Joint War Plans Committee submitted its draft of the requested paper to the Joint Planning Staff. (24) The paper presented essentially the same case for an invasion of Kyushu that had been made in the earlier debates preceding the operational directive of 25 May. It also incorporated the same forecast of Japanese forces (six combat divisions, two depot divisions, 350,000 men) that had been presented in intelligence estimates going back to mid-1944.

In response to the presidential request for casualty estimates, the Joint War Plans Committee report laid down strong caveats on uncertainty and emphasized that the level of opposition and the time required to complete the operation could result in major variations. The report then offered the following figures as an "educated guess":

Invasion Scenarios Killed Wounded Missing Total
Southern Kyushu, followed by Tokyo Plain 40,000(K) 150,000(W) 3,500(M) 193,500(Total)
Southern Kyushu-Northwestern Kyushu (Japan sur-renders) 25,000 105,000 2,500 132,500
Southern Kyushu-Northwestern Kyushu-Tokyo Plain 46,000 170,000 4,000 220,000


Note: The JWPC assessment did not give a specific breakdown for each area individually, but a nominal breakdown can be derived by comparing the component figures given for each scenario. For example, the differences between the second and third scenarios for total casualties and numbers killed are 87,500 and 21,000, respectively. The operational difference between these two scenarios is the inclusion or absence of an attack on the Tokyo Plain. Thus, an interpretation could be made that the estimated casualty total for the attack on the Tokyo Plain was 87,500, including 21,000 killed. Subtracting these figures from the first scenario would yield figures for southern Kyushu of 106,000 total casualties and 19,000 killed, and a similar calculation shows 26,500 total casualties and 6,000 killed for northwestern Kyushu. These breakdowns have been used by some scholars for analysis of the JWPC estimates. Such calculations, however, need to be read with the caveat that the JWPC figures were scenario-driven. For example, an estimate for an attack directly on northwestern Kyushu not preceded by an attack on southern Kyushu would probably result in figures that were different from those obtained through this derivative process.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Nono Did you think I was a pacificist? I'm not. There are some situations (though rare) when armed force is justified. (You, Pat, would not have dropped it. I think you would have had quite a situation on your hands. I wonder how history would have viewed you.)

I am not a pacifist either, and justify the US military response to Japanese aggression as a necessary defensive action. The nuclear bombings were an unwarranted escalation of the war, however. You are correct that if I were Truman, with the knowledge I have at present, there would be no way I could hit Hiroshima with a nuke. In Truman's defense, it is likely that he didn't understand the effects of radiation and how it traumatizes civilians.

Quote by: Nono Whatever you may believe about the war in the Pacific, it's difficult to see how the US could ultimately have stayed out of a conflict with Japan, this owing to sheer frenetic Japanese belligerence. This conflict would have concluded somehow, and what with Einstein, Fermi & Co., somebody somewhere would have soon built and used The Bomb. Imagine if it had been the Germans, the Japanese or Joe Stalin....

Built? Yeah, Fermi was in Chicago and the Manhattan Project was flush with funding. It was built in 1945, alright. The inevitablity of setting it off on a civilian target is far from being established. As the events played out, the US has the dubious distinction of being the only Nuclear Bomber in world history and now telling those without nukes that they can't have them. (Presumably because they might use them, an irresponsible act, resulting in mass civilian casualties.)

Quote by: Nono I repeat: The end of the war with Japan meant not only all those American, Australian, NZ, etc. boys coming home, it also meant an end to the hell that life had been under Japanese occupation in much of East Asia (lest we forget -- the Asians haven't). And it meant an end to the increasing misery of civilians in Japan whose idea the war decidedly wasn't.

Yes, the War ended. Every war ended back then. The home islands were vulnerable to standoff attacks, and the food supply was moved by rail lines through difficult terrain. Conventional bombing would have resulted in starvation and a force too weak to fight. Likely, greater numbers of Japanese would have died from such an alternative course. Perhaps a case can be made for the humanitarianism of sparing these additional millions of civilians by the sacrifice of their countrymen to the Nuclear Molech. But the US bears the guilt of selling its soul to the Atomic Devil.

Quote by: Nono Progress in physics and a hugely determined war effort opened Pandora's Box. It can't be shut. Or, to use another metaphor, you can't unburn a burnt bridge. * It seems to me probable that Roosevelt helped bring it about, and sneaky though it was I believe his intentions were honourable.

You can't unburn a radiation-burnt kid, you shoulda said. As for FDR (cursed be his name) his conspiracy may have brought the desired result of the US entry into war with a bloody shirt, but it was dishonorable all the same. General Short's and Admiral Kimmel's families labored for decades to clear their reputations after they were sandbagged by Pearl Harbor. http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/...enate_vote.htm

No, FDR was not "honourable." He was a collectivist powergrabber with dishonesty writ large on his soul.

[lsbskins1]

Please do not misunderstand... I do not post this (above) to imply that I am sure the atomic bomb was absolutely unnecessary, only to bring honesty and realism to a logical debate topic.

[monty of ll]

Here's a little more honesty and realism:

http://www.antiwar.com/ocregister/sa...-the-bomb.html

"As I read on it became apparent to me that much of the raw data on enemy strength was gathered by dubious radio intercepts and the conclusions were even more questionable. Space does not permit detailing all of the misjudgments that were made in the process of estimating enemy defense capabilities, but the most grievous was the practice of intelligence officers considering every enemy unit identified by number as a division of 15,000 troops."

"Another false calculation was that our intelligence considered all Japanese troops deployed in Manchuria transportable to defend the homeland and included them in the "enormous enemy force" waiting to repel American landings. The United States had absolute control of the air and sea at that time and no such movement could have ever been made."

[Nono]

Quote by: Ibs Kyushu ... Kyushu ... Kyushu ... Kyushu ... Kyushu ... Kyushu ...

So much for Kyushu. What about the rest of that enormous archipelago?

[Nono]

Quote by: as quoted by monty Space does not permit detailing ...

Jeez, monty, we've got lots of space here. So kick back and give us the details.

The United States had absolute control of the air and sea at that time and no such movement could have ever been made.

That was also the case in Normandy (just a hop, skip and a jump from Britain), a battle the Allies came damned close to losing all the same.

You'd do better to think about dinky little islands like Iwo Jima and Okinawa, then extrapolate, as the Americans clearly must have.

[Nono]

Quote by: Pat You can't unburn a radiation-burnt kid, you shoulda said.

You're right, Pat. That would have been a much more apt metaphor.

You really hate FDR, as we know. And FDR oversaw the Manhattan Project. By contrast you greatly admire Barry Goldwater, who publicly advocated the use of nuclear weapons on North Vietnam. (Among other things Goldwater said, at a time when B52s were already dropping on the Vietnamese the biggest conventional bombs in the US arsenal, that the following message should be delivered to Hanoi: " 'You quit the war in three days or the next time these babies come over there going to drop some big bombs on you.' And I'd make a swamp out of North Vietnam ... I'd rather kill a hell of a lot of North Vietnamese than one American and we've lost enough of them.")

So imagine you're Truman, Pat, Truman in August '45. You have two A-bombs in your possession and more are on the way. How would you have proceeded with the war?

[righthand]

monty of ll [CENTER]Here's a little more honesty and realism:[/CENTER] "The truth is, I now believe, that in August of 1945, the Japanese Imperial Army could not have defended its homeland against a well-trained troop of Eagle Scouts." [CENTER] Eye witness account [/CENTER] "The misjudgments that were made in the process of estimating enemy defense capabilities, but the most grievous was the practice of intelligence officers considering every enemy unit identified by number as a division of 15,000 troops...The United States had absolute control of the air and sea at that time and no such movement could have ever been made. Constant references also were made to "suicide" anti-landing-craft boats and the threat they presented to amphibious operations. I never saw them in Japan, but the few I did see in previous campaigns were laughable - Rube Goldberg-type bomb detonators mounted on a rowboat."

Very good article. Only two US reporters are known to have every made it to Hiroshima.

[CENTER] The Hiroshima Cover-Up by Amy Goodman and David Goodman Aug 5 2005[/CENTER] A month after the bombings, two reporters defied General MacArthur and struck out on their own. Mr. Weller, of the Chicago Daily News, took row boats and trains to reach devastated Nagasaki. Independent journalist Wilfred Burchett rode a train for 30 hours and walked into the charred remains of Hiroshima. Quote by: Burchett In Hiroshima, 30 days after the first atomic bomb destroyed the city and shook the world, people are still dying, mysteriously and horribly - people who were uninjured in the cataclysm from an unknown something which I can only describe as the atomic plague. Hiroshima does not look like a bombed city. It looks as if a monster steamroller has passed over it and squashed it out of existence. I write these facts as dispassionately as I can in the hope that they will act as a warning to the world." Mr. Burchett's article, headlined "The Atomic Plague," was published Sept. 5, 1945, in the London Daily Express. The story caused a worldwide sensation and was a public relations fiasco for the U.S. military. The official U.S. narrative of the atomic bombings downplayed civilian casualties and categorically dismissed as "Japanese propaganda" reports of the deadly lingering effects of radiation. So when Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter George Weller's 25,000-word story on the horror that he encountered in Nagasaki was submitted to military censors, General MacArthur ordered the story killed, and the manuscript was never returned. Mr. Weller's son, Anthony, discovered a carbon copy of the suppressed dispatches among his father's papers (George Weller died in 2002). After killing Mr. Weller's reports, U.S. authorities tried to counter Mr. Burchett's articles by attacking the messenger. General MacArthur ordered Mr. Burchett expelled from Japan (the order was later rescinded), his camera mysteriously vanished while he was in a Tokyo hospital and U.S. officials accused him of being influenced by Japanese propaganda. Then the U.S. military unleashed a secret propaganda weapon: It deployed its own Times man. It turns out that William L. Laurence, the science reporter for The New York Times, was also on the payroll of the War Department.

The truth will out, even 60 years later. What else is hidden? I quote a last paragraph from the very long article.

[CENTER] The Hiroshima Cover-Up by Amy Goodman and David Goodman Aug 5 2005[/CENTER] Mr. Laurence won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the atomic bomb, and his faithful parroting of the government line was crucial in launching a half-century of silence about the deadly lingering effects of the bomb. It is time for the Pulitzer board to strip Hiroshima's apologist and his newspaper of this undeserved prize.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Nono So imagine you're Truman, Pat, Truman in August '45. You have two A-bombs in your possession and more are on the way. How would you have proceeded with the war?

The US had the means to reduce Japan to a supplicant in short order through conventional bombing. Japan's rail links and hence its food supply were fixed targets and US air superiority was overwhelming. In fact there was no fighter opposition to the nuclear strikes. The merchant fleet was completely obliterated. No US lives were at risk in a conventional bombing campaign. You figure it out, Nono.

[monty of ll]

Quote by: Nono Jeez, monty, we've got lots of space here. So kick back and give us the details. That was also the case in Normandy (just a hop, skip and a jump from Britain), a battle the Allies came damned close to losing all the same. You'd do better to think about dinky little islands like Iwo Jima and Okinawa, then extrapolate, as the Americans clearly must have.

Nono, I could go into the details from my POV but that wouldn't carry the same weight as an eyewitness. I would really like to hear more from those such as the author of my reference above though, because I think it lends a great deal of credibility to the discussion.

Did I detect a note of sarcasm when you asked me to kick back and give you the details? If so, I'm not interested in arguments that are solely for the purpose of clearing the U.S. of it's responsibility and I suggest that you shouldn't be either, rather we should all be interested in coming to the correct conclusion. If there was no sarcasm intended then my apologies.

[Nono]

Quote by: monty ... solely for the purpose of clearing the U.S. of it's responsibility ...

People who know me on this board will know that this is something I would never dream of doing.

The US was responsible for what happened in H&N, and must answer to the world for it.
No one has been able to convince me that the US is unable to provide that answer and explain what it it did in Japan (in marked contrast with what it did in Iran, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador ... and the list goes on).

I ask you, as I ask PH, to tell me how you would have conducted yourself if you had been in Truman's shoes.

[Pooeypants]

Waited for Russia to declare war on Japan and then accept their conditional surrender?

I've found these articles to be quite thought provoking. Apologies if anyone has already cited them.