Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki NECESSARY?

COL Ted Mc — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:24:45 -0400

From "Scoop"

Why Americans Believe that Bombing Hiroshima was Necessary

August 6, 2015, is the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, a civilian city that had minimal military value, despite the claims of President Truman when he announced the event to the American people.

The whole truth of what the Nuremburg tribunal would later help define as an international war crime and a crime against humanity has been heavily censored and mythologized ever since war-weary Americans in 1945 accepted the propaganda that the bombings were necessary to shorten the war and prevent the loss of a million US soldiers during the allegedly planned November 1945 invasion.

Of course, the reason that the United States wasn’t sanctioned like Germany was for the Jewish holocaust was that America was the victor and the occupier and thus it was in charge of making and enforcing the rules in the New World Order.

The United States military ambushed the equally defenseless Nagasaki City three days later with the second atomic bomb to ever be used against a civilian population (that no longer had any military value to Japan). “Fat Man”, the plutonium bomb named after Winston Churchill, was detonated before the Japanese leadership fully understood what had happened at Hiroshima.

<<>>

My high school history teachers all seemed to be ex-jocks who weren’t athletically talented enough to make it to the majors. The main chance for them to continue playing games for pay was to join the teaching profession and coach high school athletics. American history was of secondary importance in many small town high schools but it hardly made the list of interests for coaches, who reluctantly accepted the job; and so my classmates and I “learned” our lessons from some very uninspired, very bored and/or very uninformed teachers who would rather have been on the playing field.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1507/S00170/why-americans-believe-that-bombing-hiroshima-was-necessary.htm

EDITORIAL COMMENT:- A view seldom seen.

Why Americans Believe that Bombing Hiroshima was Necessary

August 6, 2015, is the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, a civilian city that had minimal military value, despite the claims of President Truman when he announced the event to the American people.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jul 30 at 2015 1:27 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:27:39 -0400

Yes, COL Ted Mc dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki broke the will of the Japanese people to continue fighting and saved up to one million allied service members from becoming casualties.
The bombs could have been dropped on more populated areas such as Tokyo but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were far enough away removed from large population centers that while horrific loss of life occurred instantly, the longer term death by radiation sickness did not affect that who Japanese island.
There were horrific losses of life in the fire bombing of Dresden and the bombings of Tokyo which burnt much as well as German bombing of London and Japanese bombing of Shanghai and other Chinese population centers.
If Japan or Germany had developed the bomb before we did they would not have hesitated in using it against civilian and military targets to break our will. People in the early 21st century generally were not of age when the horror that was Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were sweeping through Europe and purging Gypsies, homosexuals, Jews, mentally disabled, and Slavs while Japan was sweeping through eastern and southern Asia and destroying and enslaving in the name of their God emperor.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Jul 30 at 2015 1:29 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:29:27 -0400

In hindsight, maybe not. At the time though, there's no indication it seemed anything but necessary.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jul 30 at 2015 1:44 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:44:28 -0400

No. They were not necessary. Yes, they made sense at the time. Yes they were a logical insanity.
http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-42-blitz-logical-insanity/

Hardcore History 42 - (BLITZ) Logical Insanity - Dan Carlin

After many listener requests, Dan examines the issue of the morality of dropping the Atomic Bombs in the Second World War. As usual, he does so in his own unique, unexpected way.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2015 1:48 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:48:15 -0400

I don't t think it will be the last time we drink the "Kool-aid". Right or wrong, it has always been,
"survival of the fittest".

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2015 1:59 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:59:56 -0400

I don't believe there is a truly righteous answer to be found here. The choice was to either sacrifice the lives of potentially hundreds of thousands of service members in effort to conduct a conventional invasion or to drop newly developed weapons to break the will of the people we were fighting.

Either way, massive collateral damage was going to occur. You can't conduct an invasion of the likes that would have been required without the destruction of non military targets. It is arguable that the destruction incurred by the use of the two nuclear weapons is less than the level of destruction an invasion would have caused. The thing is though that this is all history and there's no way to know anything for sure.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jul 30 at 2015 3:00 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:00:57 -0400

It's easy to collect sound bites from somewhere to tell the story you already decided the conclusion to. Necessary? Most likely. It was probably a 70/30 decision. Absolutely needed? No. Saved US lives? Yes, if invasion was the COA selected. Reasonable decision at the time? Probably in the fat part of the bell curve. I dislike people who look at history out of context and without the values and culture of the time. This limited thinking is what causes history to repeat itself because they can't have an intelligent conversation. There's this Disney song, oh yes, "Let it Go".

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jul 30 at 2015 3:05 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:05:59 -0400

I am glad they were used, so the whole world could see the destructive power of the bombs.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Jul 30 at 2015 4:10 PM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:10:54 -0400

Propaganda or no, dropping those bombs brought the Japanese to the negotiating table from a humble position. So they did have the desired effect at the time. The real issue with using any nuclear weapon is that it has a GLOBAL impact. We are still seeing the effects of those bombs dropped almost 70 years ago.
The answer to the question is that it does not really matter whether they were strategically necessary or not. They were deemed necessary at the time that they were used. Deemed necessary by people raised in a different era, with different education and a different mindset. I do believe that Truman thought he was doing the right thing for the American People to end the war in a short life saving manner. I think that the people of Japan (specially those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) would feel that there was nothing life saving about the way that those weapons were deployed.
I am afraid that one day there will come a time when another government decides to use these horrible weapons against an enemy. They will wield these weapons with impunity because when the dust settles there will be no international court to bring them before. The world will be irrevocably changed for the worse.
So the answer from a personal point of view is no, I do not believe that ANY nuclear weapons should ever be deployed. Without exception.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jul 30 at 2015 4:42 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:42:56 -0400

Over the years I waffled in my judgment regarding the necessity of the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan until I read a book a few years ago written by a Japanese author, a detailed account of the decision to surrender and the race between those who recorded the Emperor's voice reading the declaration of surrender and the Imperial officers who wanted to quash it. It clearly demonstrated the necessity of the nuclear detonations, both of them. I wish I could remember the title to recommend to you, but can't find it. Hopefully someone else on RP will have access to it. The simple truth is that Japan was prepared to carry on indefinitely. They had ample supplies of warplanes and the capacity to build more. Training pilots to take off, follow a leader to the American fleet, and then attack in a suicide dive, didn't take much time, and there were plenty of volunteers to fly them. Millions, including women and children, were prepared to greet American invaders on the beaches and detonate suicide vests. The cost to both Japanese and Americans would have exceeded the deaths at Nagasaki and Hiroshima by factors that are too terrible to conceive. Anyone who has visited the cliffs of Okinawa where mothers threw their children to their deaths and then jumped after them, as I saw, would not hesitate to believe that it was a prelude to an even greater tragedy that awaited in Japan. So, were they necessary? We needn't ask unless we remain ignorant of the facts. Sadly, many do so voluntarily...

Response by CPL(P) Bret Farritor made Jul 30 at 2015 5:16 PM

CPL(P) Bret Farritor — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 17:16:48 -0400

ABSOLUTELY!

If Operation Coronet actually took place - I am confident I would not be sitting here typing away at this keyboard. I keep a small 'Fat Man' on my key chain as a reminder.

My paternal grandfather, 1stSgt John Francis Farritor, USMC (Ret) was a Marine in the Pacific during WW II and Korea but despite having survived action on Guadalcanal, Guam, Bougainville, and Iwo Jima I (and he) seriously doubt he would have survived the invasion and pacification of the Japanese main islands. The actions on Iwo Jima and Okinawa specifically gave great pause to the planners and I honestly believe those two weapons saved hundreds of thousands of American, British, (All Allied Nations) and Japanese lives.

My grandfather continued to serve and actually participated in the occupation to include time in Hiroshima then on to Korea.

My father was born January 14, 1949 - simply put he would not have been born, nor would I or my son.

To think otherwise is denial of the highest order and IMHO offensive.

http://www.amazon.com/Through-All-John-Farritor/dp/ [login to see] /ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid= [login to see] &sr=1-1&keywords=John+Farritor

Response by PO2 Skip Kirkwood made Jul 30 at 2015 5:18 PM

PO2 Skip Kirkwood — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 17:18:18 -0400

At the time, they were deemed necessary. Good enough for me.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Jul 30 at 2015 5:38 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 17:38:12 -0400

Hiroshima - Yes... Nagasaki - No... Especially with only a 3 day separation between the two with no indication of a retaliation. I think anyone can make a logical argument for Hiroshima, and I remember this debate quite a few times in my career, but (to me) the destruction of Nagasaki was more of a "You don't think I can do this again? Dude, hold my beer..." type of move that really served no purpose other than to take more lives than necessary by kicking a man (country) when he's down... With the shock of the sudden destruction of THE CITY of Hiroshima, with only ONE PLANE and ONE BOMB, the FIRST TIME EVER, the human nature within me really can't believe they had the will to fight after that... And even if they were, and they didn't need another city destroyed as a "just in case" measure without knowing that they would... Now, that being said... USA!!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jul 30 at 2015 5:44 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 17:44:52 -0400

Forgive me for "double-dipping" on this discussion thread, but I just came across an interesting commentary by Bill Whittle regarding this subject. I hope that you can see it at this link

http://www.pjtv.com/series/afterburner-with-bill-whittle-56/from-the-archives-jon-stewarts-stupid-nuclear-commentary-1808/

I looked and couldn't find it freely available on YouTube...

Retiring John Stewart's Nuclear Stupidity | PJTV

As comedian Jon Stewart retires from his longtime Comedy Central gig, we salute him... his stupidity. Check out this Bill Whittle video from the archive...

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2015 8:36 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 20:36:06 -0400

At the time, there was a very strong desire to see the war end. The bomb was seen as a means to that end. History has borne out that it was a decision that achieved the desired result.

Having said that, Japan was crippled at this point. Their Navy was all but destroyed. Their Army was still formidable but much of it was in Asia. They had very little oil or other resources left. They couldn't really manufacture war material anymore.
The US Navy was a juggernaut of epic proportions. A blockade would have brought them to their knees, albeit at the cost of great human suffering. It also would have taken a while.
They were done. They just didn't know it yet.
The bombs fixed that.

Response by SPC Robert Patrick made Jul 31 at 2015 9:05 AM

SPC Robert Patrick — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:05:25 -0400

Honestly looking back at history and seeing how the Japanese were willing to die to complete their objectives, ie the kamikaze bombers, it was necessary. It broke the Japanese Fighting Spirit. The Emperor was willing to send his Soldiers to die but was not willing to watch another bomb go off over another city full of civilians. Was it the morally right thing to do no but there is an old saying, "All is fair in love and war."

Then you have the after effects of seeing what those bombs could do. People were scared. Yes it led to the nuclear arms race but no nation wants to be the nation that starts that nuclear war.

Personally, I am glad it was the US to drop the bombs and not the Soviets or Germans or Japanese, for I could see them hitting higher populated targets and causing more destruction than the US did.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Jul 31 at 2015 8:59 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 20:59:50 -0400

I sit here next to Hitomi and we have these type of discussions often. Even she, losing her grandfather in the fighting, and being raised by an extremely bitter mother and grandmother, acknowledges that if it weren't for the use of nuclear weapons we would have either had to exterminate the Japanese population. After Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, it was obvious that we were fighting the most dedicated military force the world has ever known. The civilian population was training with sharpened bamboo sticks as soon as they were able to walk. The Hiroshima blast killed 60,000 instantly, but the firebombings on Tokyo prior to Nagasaki killed over 100,000. Still they continued to fight. Those 2 nuclear bombs saved the lives of untold millions of Japanese civilians. Can you imagine the political fallout of losing 100,000+ American lives after 4 years of fighting when the American public discovered that we had nuclear capabilities and chose not to act? A little known fact is that the Japanese were only weeks from being able to develop nuclear weapons for themselves and I promise you that they would have used them relentlessly.

http://articles.latimes.com/1997-06-01/news/mn-64618_1_atomic-bomb

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Aug 1 at 2015 3:45 AM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 03:45:04 -0400

Yes. The invasion of Japan would have cost many more thousands of lives

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Aug 3 at 2015 6:15 PM

Sgt Kelli Mays — Mon, 03 Aug 2015 18:15:53 -0400

I am half Japanese. I was born and raised in Japan. I have heard relatives speak about this time. It was a horrible time...but I believe if the bombs were not dropped Japan would have gone on fighting....They would not have surrendered...the Emperor was not really in charge...it was the military and the Japanese Military back then was relentless and a little crazed.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Sep 1 at 2016 11:28 AM

SN Greg Wright — Thu, 01 Sep 2016 11:28:23 -0400

There were going to be hundreds of thousands of casualties no matter what. The only difference? Would they be Americans, when invading? Or Japanese, with the intent of breaking their will?

Who was it said, "The thing isn't to die for your country. It's to make the other poor bastard die for his." So yes. It was necessary.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Sep 1 at 2016 12:31 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Thu, 01 Sep 2016 12:31:20 -0400

Did you know Kyoto was never bombed.

Response by 1SG Al Brown made Sep 1 at 2016 1:56 PM

1SG Al Brown — Thu, 01 Sep 2016 13:56:37 -0400

It would be easy to vote yes if you were island hopping towards Japan in 1945.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 9 at 2016 1:24 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Sep 2016 13:24:40 -0400

Under the just war doctrine, it was debated and decided that Japan would more than likely never surrender. In loss of lives estimates, there would have been less lives lost in the display of nuclear power than a protracted war. It should be noted that both locations were communicated well in advance in order to spare lives and display the power of the nuclear bomb. The first was considered a bluff. The second was also considered a bluff as the Japanese government did not believe we had more than one bomb. Little Guy and Fat Boy. I believe Fat Man was named for its design shape and for a character in The Maltese Falcon and not named after Winston Churchill.

Here is some interesting information for you:

Home//Library//Center for the Study of Intelligence//CSI Publications//Studies in Intelligence//studies//vol46no3//The Information War in the Pacific, 1945

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol46no3/article07.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-leaflets/

The Information War in the Pacific, 1945 — Central Intelligence Agency

Response by Cpl Tom Headrick made Sep 28 at 2016 11:56 AM

Cpl Tom Headrick — Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:56:03 -0400

Yes, because military targets would have been fine from the American and International way of thinking, but from the Japanese way of thinking, the military would always be blamed for cowardice by the civilian population of Japan if the civilian population were not the ones made aware of the defeat, ultimately. The Civilians' 'Face' and the idea of the Emperor we the things driving the heart of the war. Total annihilation of a military target would not have ended the war, which was the ultimate target of any sane person. AS it was the Civilians were still near impossible to convince because it was THEY who couldn't fathom a bomb of that magnitude. No, the correct delivery form and targets were the best that could be chosen to shorten the war and save the most lives, American, Allied and Japanese.

I have on-line chatted with Tibbets, the commander of the Enola Gay.

In my Honest opinion, I think the real reason that this question hasn't "died yet," is because the American People, in DEMANDING an investigation of a magnitude comparable to the event, can't believe that such a decision COULD have been made correctly, ethically, in correlation to the time used and the completely unimaginable magnitude of the event, "To This Day, 71 years later and every brain on the planet to consider the question 'Humanistically.'"

THAT is the real answer to this question, is that it was Shear Dumb Luck (5 points to Gryphendore) That America came up with the best answer, to date I.E. 71 years later, in just a matter of a few months with the brain power available at the time... Because with 71 years and all the brain power SINCE "WE" still can't come up with any better rationale than that which was used at the time, as it was used at the time.

And, we refuse to let the 'Magnitude of the Question, itself,' be forgotten, least we forget how 'out classed' any 'complacent' Nation might end up being challenged to the same type of question time and time again in the future, near and far. Any lesson forgotten is doomed to be repeated and a lesson of THIS magnitude is one that we know now, "Humanity cannot afford to repeat the asking of the question, EVER again!" And, it is the answer to that question, "How to avoid the asking of it 'Forever in Humanity's Future,'" that it is the real question we are asking there.

In spite of the misdirection to the real reason we ask this, I hope this question is one we never stop asking...

(The military were forced by the availability of only two bombs, and the need to make the second one had the best chance to 'count at all' despite its fragile and unproven nature. They had to make sure that a second, single plane would be allowed to deliver its payload to show the Japanese people what it would be like to continue the war, a war where "The Allies" could remove Japan from the face of the ocean, literally. Ergo that exact time frame, not a minute more, not a minute less, on exact regular bombing mission time tables of regularity to show what would be happening if the war didn't stop, then and there. There was not a deceit there, it was a schooling. It might not have been the third day where a continuation like that occurred. But, if the war continued then the day would come when that frequency of bombing would occur. THAT was the message to be conveyed to the 'Face' of the country of Japan, as surely as could be managed at the time. )

(( You're asking someone who thinks that Humanity's 'big nuclear mistake' was WhiteSands, not Hiroshima or Nagasaki... It was less than 24 hours to an assured "we're gonna blow this thing" before anyone had the presence of mind to even consider asking the question if "It was going to 'Vaporize the entire planet as well?'" Humanity is a child with powerfully destructive weapons, yet. THAT is the real 'Current Battle Field.' ))

original posting to
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/were-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-necessary
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1507/S00170/why-americans-believe-that-bombing-hiroshima-was-necessary.htm

Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki NECESSARY? | RallyPoint