6
6
0
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.
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.
Posted in these groups: 
WWII World War Two
Nuclear
WWII World War Two Nuclear
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 23
6
6
0
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.
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.
(6)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LTC Stephen F. - Colonel; From the actual historical record, the only "sticking point" to a Japanese surrender was the removal of the Emperor.
The US was insisting that the Emperor be removed and tried for war crimes.
The Japanese insisted that the Emperor be left in place and not tried for war crimes.
After the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki there was a complete reversal of position by one of the parties and that resulted in the end of WWII.
That reversal, of course, was the dropping of the US demand that the Emperor be removed and tried for war crimes.
Everyone should impressed by how quickly the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japanese cities convinced the US government to abandon the only demands which were preventing the ending of WWII.
MAJ (Join to see) - Captain; Considering that the Japanese had absolutely no idea what an atomic bomb was or what it could do, it is difficult to consider ANY "warning" as being "significant".
BTW, the Japanese were NOT "bent on world domination". The Japanese were merely following through on the foreign policy course which every American President from the time of Theodore Roosevelt had encouraged them to follow and the ordering of the attack on Pearl Harbour was in response to American government actions which had totally cut off Japan from supplies which it needed for its existence. As you are no doubt aware, those actions were taken contrary to the orders of the President of the United States of America and by people who had next to no understanding of the "Oriental Psyche".
PS - The Japanese were well aware of the fact that they could not actually win a war against the United States of America but were hoping to have established a strong enough position that they could negotiate an end to the war before America shook off its "non-interventionist" stance. This, of course, shows that the Japanese were just as ignorant of the "American Psyche" as the US government was of the "Japanese Psyche".
The US was insisting that the Emperor be removed and tried for war crimes.
The Japanese insisted that the Emperor be left in place and not tried for war crimes.
After the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki there was a complete reversal of position by one of the parties and that resulted in the end of WWII.
That reversal, of course, was the dropping of the US demand that the Emperor be removed and tried for war crimes.
Everyone should impressed by how quickly the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japanese cities convinced the US government to abandon the only demands which were preventing the ending of WWII.
MAJ (Join to see) - Captain; Considering that the Japanese had absolutely no idea what an atomic bomb was or what it could do, it is difficult to consider ANY "warning" as being "significant".
BTW, the Japanese were NOT "bent on world domination". The Japanese were merely following through on the foreign policy course which every American President from the time of Theodore Roosevelt had encouraged them to follow and the ordering of the attack on Pearl Harbour was in response to American government actions which had totally cut off Japan from supplies which it needed for its existence. As you are no doubt aware, those actions were taken contrary to the orders of the President of the United States of America and by people who had next to no understanding of the "Oriental Psyche".
PS - The Japanese were well aware of the fact that they could not actually win a war against the United States of America but were hoping to have established a strong enough position that they could negotiate an end to the war before America shook off its "non-interventionist" stance. This, of course, shows that the Japanese were just as ignorant of the "American Psyche" as the US government was of the "Japanese Psyche".
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
COL Ted Mc
COL: There were no official negotiations between the two countries the only attempts by the US were basically summarized in the Potsdam Declaration which made no reference to the Emperor nor his future status. In fact there was a significant push among the nuclear committee on the wording of a democratic monarchy The secretary of War Henry Stimson in fact stated in giving such a warning "we should add that we do not exclude a constitutional monarchy under her [Japan] present dynasty, it would substantially add to the chances of acceptance."
There was no demand for the emperors removal aside from the demands of the general populace.
The Japanese empire did attempt to negotiate with the US through Russia as an intermediary but as Russia was preparing to invade Manchuria no avail came of that route. The Japanese after realizing they were incapable of defending themselves began attempts to defend to their deaths and commit mass suicide as they had done before on home islands. Their official response to the Potsdam Declaration was silence. The decision to not specify any further information in the Potsdam was due to the secretary's belief that if notice were given Japan would relocate American POW's to that location.
As far as the Japanese not having any idea LTG Yasuda in October of 1940 reported that the availability to Japan of uranium deposits, in Korea and Burma concluded that Japan had access to sufficient uranium. A bomb was therefore possible. Yoshio Nishina was appointed as the country's leading physicist studied with Niels Bohr in the late 30's and built a cyclotron at his tokyo lab. More than one hundred Japanese scientists, worked under Nishina. The Imperial Army Air Force authorized research toward the development of an atomic bomb. Japan was sufficiently advanced in nuclear research that Tokutaro Hagiwara of the faculty of science of the University of Kyoto was the first scientist to conceive of a thermonuclear reaction (hydrogen bomb) in 1941 the Imperial navy identified U235 separation by gaseous thermal diffusion and electromagnetic centrifuge processes. in 41 the Imperial Navy noted that the US was probably working on a nuclear bomb, but were uncertain on how long it would take for Japan to produce one of their own. Finally in March 1943 Japan determined that the atomic bomb was certainly a possibility it would require a tenth of the annual Japanese electrical capacity and half their copper output, Japan would also need 10 years to build one. They further decided to cancel the work on it and devote to more immediately valuable research, particularly radar. (information available on Richard Rhodes "the making of the atomic bomb)
In terms of world domination find me one example when a totalitarian regeim stated their limit of advance and kept with it. We cut off their fuel supply because they invaded our ally China. Contrary to the presidents will or not it was a treaty obligation.
Certainly agree neither side understood each other just as we and ISIS don't understand each other.
COL: There were no official negotiations between the two countries the only attempts by the US were basically summarized in the Potsdam Declaration which made no reference to the Emperor nor his future status. In fact there was a significant push among the nuclear committee on the wording of a democratic monarchy The secretary of War Henry Stimson in fact stated in giving such a warning "we should add that we do not exclude a constitutional monarchy under her [Japan] present dynasty, it would substantially add to the chances of acceptance."
There was no demand for the emperors removal aside from the demands of the general populace.
The Japanese empire did attempt to negotiate with the US through Russia as an intermediary but as Russia was preparing to invade Manchuria no avail came of that route. The Japanese after realizing they were incapable of defending themselves began attempts to defend to their deaths and commit mass suicide as they had done before on home islands. Their official response to the Potsdam Declaration was silence. The decision to not specify any further information in the Potsdam was due to the secretary's belief that if notice were given Japan would relocate American POW's to that location.
As far as the Japanese not having any idea LTG Yasuda in October of 1940 reported that the availability to Japan of uranium deposits, in Korea and Burma concluded that Japan had access to sufficient uranium. A bomb was therefore possible. Yoshio Nishina was appointed as the country's leading physicist studied with Niels Bohr in the late 30's and built a cyclotron at his tokyo lab. More than one hundred Japanese scientists, worked under Nishina. The Imperial Army Air Force authorized research toward the development of an atomic bomb. Japan was sufficiently advanced in nuclear research that Tokutaro Hagiwara of the faculty of science of the University of Kyoto was the first scientist to conceive of a thermonuclear reaction (hydrogen bomb) in 1941 the Imperial navy identified U235 separation by gaseous thermal diffusion and electromagnetic centrifuge processes. in 41 the Imperial Navy noted that the US was probably working on a nuclear bomb, but were uncertain on how long it would take for Japan to produce one of their own. Finally in March 1943 Japan determined that the atomic bomb was certainly a possibility it would require a tenth of the annual Japanese electrical capacity and half their copper output, Japan would also need 10 years to build one. They further decided to cancel the work on it and devote to more immediately valuable research, particularly radar. (information available on Richard Rhodes "the making of the atomic bomb)
In terms of world domination find me one example when a totalitarian regeim stated their limit of advance and kept with it. We cut off their fuel supply because they invaded our ally China. Contrary to the presidents will or not it was a treaty obligation.
Certainly agree neither side understood each other just as we and ISIS don't understand each other.
(1)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
MAJ (Join to see) - Thank you for weighing in and providing significant background information which is critical to understand what was going on at the time as opposed to what is put out by historical revisionists. Sgt Richard Buckner, CPT Jack Durish,
(1)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
COL Ted Mc - The Japanese were working on an atomic device and were closer than the Germans. Had they started the war a year later, they'd have had a dirty nuke ready in time for Saipan.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
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".
(5)
(0)
3
3
0
I am glad they were used, so the whole world could see the destructive power of the bombs.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
Sure there is. Initial invasion plans for Operations Cornet and Olympic called for 30 days preliminary bombing of Japan. Now considering that on March 10th, 1945, using mere fire bombs (and for the loss of five planes), the USAAC bombed Tokyo killing 300,000 people that we know of. They are still finding "piles" of bodies and remnants to this day. A million people were made homeless.
Had the USAAC bombed for 30 days straight, its possible that half of the known Japanese on the planet would have been exterminated. The Tokyo raid involved 120 B-29 bombers of which the Army had close to 1000. So a loss of 5 planes per raid would be acceptable losses. However, by that time, close to 30 aircraft carriers would be ringing Japan which would have put a lot more supporting/escorting fighters in the air. And like Germany in 1944, once our fighters started roaming the countryside, it was game over from an aerial perspective.
Had the USAAC bombed for 30 days straight, its possible that half of the known Japanese on the planet would have been exterminated. The Tokyo raid involved 120 B-29 bombers of which the Army had close to 1000. So a loss of 5 planes per raid would be acceptable losses. However, by that time, close to 30 aircraft carriers would be ringing Japan which would have put a lot more supporting/escorting fighters in the air. And like Germany in 1944, once our fighters started roaming the countryside, it was game over from an aerial perspective.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Sgt Kelli Mays - Sergeant; The Emperor was more in charge than the myth lets on. However, there were factions inside the Japanese military that were more than willing to assassinate the Emperor if he didn't want to do the same things as they wanted to do.
Having the Emperor present, but behind a screen so that he could not actually be seen, was just one of the devices which the Japanese government used to preserve the illusion that the Emperor was completely above politics. However, there were factions inside the Japanese government that were more than willing to assassinate the Emperor if he didn't want to do the same things as they wanted to do.
Neither the Japanese government nor the Japanese military command COULD "surrender" the very concept was anathema to them.
This, of course, did not mean that either the Japanese government or the Japanese military ever thought that they could DEFEAT the United States of America - they weren't stupid enough to believe that. The BEST that the Japanese government/military could hope for was to create a situation where it was too expensive for the US to DEFEAT Japan and then come to a negotiated settlement (with Japan paying reparations for the "regrettable" attack on Pearl Harbour [all the other attacks having taken place after the United States of America had declared war on Japan being {pretty much} wiped off the slate]).
Had the bombs not have been dropped, then "Operation Downfall" probably would not have been ordered to be carried out since "Operation Ketsugō" was already in full swing ["Operation Ketsugō" was intended to make it too expensive for the US to actually invade and conquer the Home Islands but was also planned without any hope that such an invasion could actually be defeated or that the US could be prevented from actually conquering the Home Islands.] and the US government was well aware of the human cost of actually invading the Home Islands.
The likely alternative would have been an intensification of "Operation Starvation" (which was actually already in progress) which would have resulted (in the grand scheme of things) in minimal American casualties and massive deaths in Japan (likely until the Japanese population had been reduced to the level that the Home Islands could feed on an economy based solely on the agricultural land, minerals and raw materials contained within the Home Islands.
An expanded "Operation Starvation" would have entailed the deaths of [EWAG here] around 65,000,000 Japanese (around 90% of the population of the Home Islands) with American fatalities probably being under 10,000 unless the Japanese surrendered in less than one year.
PS - You'd be surprised at the number of people in Germany who claim that they never once met a Nazi during WWII so please take what the Japanese people tell someone who isn't Japanese happened during WWII with a grain of salt. [NOTE:- If "Person A" is born in Japan but has only one Japanese parent that is is not sufficient for someone who is "really" Japanese to consider "Person A" to be Japanese.]
Having the Emperor present, but behind a screen so that he could not actually be seen, was just one of the devices which the Japanese government used to preserve the illusion that the Emperor was completely above politics. However, there were factions inside the Japanese government that were more than willing to assassinate the Emperor if he didn't want to do the same things as they wanted to do.
Neither the Japanese government nor the Japanese military command COULD "surrender" the very concept was anathema to them.
This, of course, did not mean that either the Japanese government or the Japanese military ever thought that they could DEFEAT the United States of America - they weren't stupid enough to believe that. The BEST that the Japanese government/military could hope for was to create a situation where it was too expensive for the US to DEFEAT Japan and then come to a negotiated settlement (with Japan paying reparations for the "regrettable" attack on Pearl Harbour [all the other attacks having taken place after the United States of America had declared war on Japan being {pretty much} wiped off the slate]).
Had the bombs not have been dropped, then "Operation Downfall" probably would not have been ordered to be carried out since "Operation Ketsugō" was already in full swing ["Operation Ketsugō" was intended to make it too expensive for the US to actually invade and conquer the Home Islands but was also planned without any hope that such an invasion could actually be defeated or that the US could be prevented from actually conquering the Home Islands.] and the US government was well aware of the human cost of actually invading the Home Islands.
The likely alternative would have been an intensification of "Operation Starvation" (which was actually already in progress) which would have resulted (in the grand scheme of things) in minimal American casualties and massive deaths in Japan (likely until the Japanese population had been reduced to the level that the Home Islands could feed on an economy based solely on the agricultural land, minerals and raw materials contained within the Home Islands.
An expanded "Operation Starvation" would have entailed the deaths of [EWAG here] around 65,000,000 Japanese (around 90% of the population of the Home Islands) with American fatalities probably being under 10,000 unless the Japanese surrendered in less than one year.
PS - You'd be surprised at the number of people in Germany who claim that they never once met a Nazi during WWII so please take what the Japanese people tell someone who isn't Japanese happened during WWII with a grain of salt. [NOTE:- If "Person A" is born in Japan but has only one Japanese parent that is is not sufficient for someone who is "really" Japanese to consider "Person A" to be Japanese.]
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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
http://articles.latimes.com/1997-06-01/news/mn-64618_1_atomic-bomb
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SFC Mark Merino - Sergeant; Did you read the last line on the first page of the article?
You know, the one that says ""To suggest the Japanese were 'close' to a nuclear capability is nonsense," he says."?
The rest of the article is just about as strongly in support of your position that "A little known fact is that the Japanese were only weeks from being able to develop nuclear weapons for themselves.", but not quite.
However, your first point - that the two bombs actually saved lives - is valid.
Without the atomic bombs there were two "viable" options. [A] An invasion and conquest of the home islands or [B] a total blockade.
The first would have taken millions of Japanese lives and likely hundreds of thousands of American lives. The second would have taken millions of Japanese lives and very few American lives. The odds on any American President choosing option [A] over option [B] are negligible.
You know, the one that says ""To suggest the Japanese were 'close' to a nuclear capability is nonsense," he says."?
The rest of the article is just about as strongly in support of your position that "A little known fact is that the Japanese were only weeks from being able to develop nuclear weapons for themselves.", but not quite.
However, your first point - that the two bombs actually saved lives - is valid.
Without the atomic bombs there were two "viable" options. [A] An invasion and conquest of the home islands or [B] a total blockade.
The first would have taken millions of Japanese lives and likely hundreds of thousands of American lives. The second would have taken millions of Japanese lives and very few American lives. The odds on any American President choosing option [A] over option [B] are negligible.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
COL Ted Mc - No. There are a lot of books on the subject. "Tenozhan," "Okinawa - Typhoon Of Steel," "U-Boats" by Edwin Hoyt, etc. They were closer than the Germans. So close that Germany was transferring tech and materials to them via U-Boat in the hopes that the Japanese could do a quick dirty bomb for use on Russia. Japan knew that Russia was getting ready to reneg on their treaty so Japan was steeling itself for war with the bear. Japan was all for nuking Russia.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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
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
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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...
(1)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
Simple truth is that the military cabal under Tojo was bent on national suicide. The bomb gave Hirohito an excuse to override them.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
"Japan At War" is a collection of (I believe) 30 stories from ordinary citizens, military, etc. And one of the stories is about the gate guard standing watch outside the radio studio.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
PO3 Donald Murphy - I hadn't thought about it from that perspective. Thanks for the insight.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
PO3 Steven Sherrill - My dad was SAC and the stories he told about General LeMay were 100% true. He was prepared to purify all of America's enemies through nuclear hell-fire. Rumor is that he stayed up late at nights thinking of the best way to do the most killing. He deliberately chose nights to bomb Tokyo when the water would be at it's lowest so the fire trucks would have less fire fighting capability! So picture this guy having the "keys to the car" based on his success and being allowed to bomb Japan willy-nilly with no reins. He'd have easily wiped out ten to twenty million Japanese in under a month. And as death was success, there would have been a million Air Force generals as he promoted them all for their killing successes.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
PO3 Donald Murphy - Which also means that under that plan, we would have completely destroyed the planet with Nuclear Fallout, without fully understanding what lasting effects our actions would have. Scary thought. I will stick to playing fallout for my nuclear apocalypse thank you very much.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
PO3 Steven Sherrill - If you read about it, Oppenheimer and Groves joked minutes before the New Mexico test that "what if it tears a hole in the atmosphere?" Definately playing with fire.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google