EZEIZA
Topic Author
Posts: 4421
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 12:09 am

Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 2:08 pm

Hi everyone,
In another thread, the question came up: Did the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually save lives because it ended the war earlier? What do you think?

note: This is not inteneded as a pro or anti US thread, so please let's try to keep that out!

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/731955/
Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 2:15 pm

See the discussion in the other thread.

You could have kept it in that thread.

The answer is yes. It shortened the war by at least a year ,and made invasion of the Japanese home islands unnecessary. Yes, it saved far more than it cost.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
StowAway
Posts: 619
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:48 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 2:17 pm

You crack me up, Falcon. Yes, he is right, though.
A monkey's ass always talks crap.
 
LAS757300
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 2:04 pm

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 2:19 pm

IMHO, yes. The world saw the horrors of the A-Bomb before they became large and more prevalent. Letting the nuclear cat out of the bag prevented many deaths as nuclear technology progressed.
KMSP
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 2:19 pm

And I'm with Falcon on this - as in the other thread . . .
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
EZEIZA
Topic Author
Posts: 4421
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 12:09 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 2:20 pm

I started another thread because the other one was on Iran today, and this is about Japan 1945  Smile
Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
 
OYRJA
Posts: 2577
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:43 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 2:20 pm

I got 1 very stupid question....

How many died in Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

And how many people would have died if they didn't dropped that bomb? AFAIK Japan gave up pretty soon after the bombs were dropped.
 
Springbok747
Posts: 4007
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 9:13 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 2:34 pm

OYRJA,

See http://www.uic.com.au/nip29.htm

Did "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" save lives? Yes, they did. Many more (maybe even millions) would've been killed if the war had continued.
אני תומך בישראל
 
EZEIZA
Topic Author
Posts: 4421
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 12:09 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 2:38 pm

Thanx for all the replies,

I can't say I stand corrected because I never denied or agreed that more people would have been killed, but I guess that the consensus is that lives were saved.
Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
 
zotan
Posts: 582
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:42 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 2:41 pm

We were afraid over a US soldiers would die if we invaded Japan. The defended their islands in the pacific to the death and that wasnt even the homeland...
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 2:50 pm

Wikipedia gives the total estimated death toll at about 250,000:

- Hiroshima, immediate deaths: 80,000
- Hiroshima, subsequent deaths: 60,000 (due to injuries, disease, and radiation)
- Nagasaki, immediate deaths: 39,000
- Nagasaki, subsequent deaths: 60,000 (exact figure unknown)

Note that the conventional firebombings of Tokyo killed considerably more people than the two atomic bombs put together but generally receive much less attention. Wikipedia mentions that "Monthly tonnage [of conventional ordnance] dropped on Japan had increased from 13,800 tons in March to 42,700 tons in July, and was planned to have continued to increase to around 115,000 tons per month." The two atomic bombs had a total yield of about 40,000 tons. A third atomic bomb was being loaded onto a Navy ship in San Francisco when the Japanese surrendered.


The plan to invade the Japanese home islands was called Operation Downfall. It consisted of an initial beach landing in Kyushu (the southernmost main island) designated Operation Olympic, and a subsequent invasion of Honshu near Tokyo, called Operation Coronet. Olympic was scheduled for November 1, 1945, with Coronet to follow a month later. If Olympic failed, Coronet would have been called off.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that Olympic alone would cost 456,000 men, including 109,000 killed. Including Coronet, it was estimated that America would experience 1.2 million casualties, with 267,000 deaths.

Staff working for Chester Nimitz, calculated that the first 30 days of Olympic alone would cost 49,000 men. MacArthur’s staff concluded that America would suffer 125,000 casualties after 120 days, a figure that was later reduced to 105,000 casualties after his staff subtracted the men who when wounded could return to battle.

General Marshall, in conference with President Truman, estimated 31,000 [dead] in 30 days after landing in Kyushu. Admiral Leahy estimated that the invasion would cost 268,000 casualties. Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths. The same department estimated that there would be up to 10 million Japanese casualties. The ‘Los Angeles Times’ estimated that America would suffer up to 1 million casualties.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/operation_downfall.htm

In hindsight, could the US have used the atomic bombs in a way that forced Japan's surrender without killing so many civilians? Maybe, maybe not; we can never know. What we do know is that President Truman and his commanders did not have the luxury of hindsight or time for philosophical introspection. They knew from bitter experience on Iwo Jima, Saipan, and elsewhere that Japanese soldiers and even civilians fought to the last man. They knew that hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions of Japanese would die in an invasion. There appeared to be no other way to end the war. In my opinion, they chose the least of the available evils.

--B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
jamesag96
Posts: 2007
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2001 2:59 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 2:55 pm

Watched the History Channel the other day. Interesting story on how the Japanese had worked with the Germans on developing a Nuclear device. Their target date for attack was August 10th. If I remember correctly the German U-Boat that had the nuclear material ended up in New York.

Now I wished I had paid more attention to the program.

Anyone else see this?
Why Kate, You're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 2:59 pm

Yes I did . . . interesting.

The U-Boat commander, upon receiving word that Germany had surrendered and in receipt of orders to return to Germany ignored the order.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
OYRJA
Posts: 2577
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:43 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 3:00 pm

Damn I would have loved to see that program!

Did the sub commander seek asylum in US or what?
 
sean1234
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2000 2:52 pm

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 3:01 pm

Yes I too recall seeing that program. I believe it was a radiological device not the big blast type. I thought it was San Francisco, to be the destination?
 
jamesag96
Posts: 2007
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2001 2:59 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 3:08 pm

Yeah...think San Fran was it. They sought asylum in New York and when the military found out what was on the sub they made the Germans remove it by hand.

Think it was to be a Dirty bomb type device.
Why Kate, You're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29943
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 4:06 pm

What was the name of the Programme on History Channel.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
iakobos
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 6:22 pm

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:49 pm

Read this and make up your mind...
Source: US Strategic Bombing survey - Jul 1, 1946 - Washington DC - to the US Government

By the beginning of summer 1945, after a little over 1 year of strategic bombing, the situation in Japan was as follows:

average daily calories: 1,200 (3x less than in the US)
aluminum production had fallen by 91% (all vs summer 1944)
oil refining down by 83%
shipbuilding down 75%
electronics and comunications equipment down 75%
aircraft engines -75%
aircraft frames -60%
army ordnance -55%

There was a huge lack of raw materials such as bauxite (alu), ore (steel), rubber, oil, coal. The only sources of supply were Korea (bauxite-ore) and locally by coastal and inter-island shipping (coal).
There were no fertilizers. (Japan's population was half that of the US but the cultivated area was only 3% of that of the US !)
The economy had been destroyed twice, once by the continuous air attacks, once by the cut off of almost all imports.

A survey conducted by Rear Admiral Takagi betweeen Sep 43 and Feb 44 had concluded that defeat was inevitable. Accordingly, various tentatives of negotiations were instigated, among them via Moscow and Stockholm, during the second half of '44 and into '45. Japan was prepared for conditional surrender. The last tentative took place on 28 July '45, two days after the declaration of Potsdam.

The survey notes that the effect produced by the two atomic bombs could have been achieved in a conventional way
in Hiroshima: by 220 B-29
in Nagasaki: by 125 B-29

It also points out that the strategic bombing of 1 rail ferry (Hakkodate), 2 tunnels and 19 bridges would have completely paralyzed the country and its industry (no coal > no electricity and no railway).

It concludes as:
<>
The estimated period was November 1945.

In other words, the atomic bombs, in the sole context on the war against Japan, were not needed.
Mr Truman choose to use them, under the pretence that the US forces would have to invade, and their use thereby would save millions of lives.

The true reasons why the atomic bombs were launched have to be found somewhere else than in the war on Japan.



 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:53 pm

And how many people would have died if they didn't dropped that bomb?AFAIK Japan gave up pretty soon after the bombs were dropped.

But they only gave up BECAUSE the bombs were dropped. And the fact is that they damn near almost didn't give up even after those two atomic blasts. There was a large faction in the Imperial government that wanted to continue the war anyway. It took the Emporer to intervene personally to tell the government that the war would end. Had he stayed silent, as he did through much of the war it would have continued even after Nagasaki.

Knowing that, no one can tell me Japan would not have kept fighting if no A-bombs had been dropped. They would have, and they would have fought to the death.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
707CMF
Posts: 4698
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2002 5:39 pm

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:57 pm

I think I read somewhere (couldn't give you the sources though, sorry) that Hiro Hito had decided to surrender as soon as the news was out for Hiroshima.

Yet, Nagasaki got bombed as well.

I will not make further comments.

Cheers,

èàè
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:09 pm

Actually, Hirohito didn't even make a comment until after Nagasaki, if memory serves. It was only his intervention after that second attacks that Japan ended the war. And again, there was a large faction that wanted to continue the fight. In fact a group of young officers tried to stage a coup against the Emporer and the government to continue fighting.

So, again, without those two attacks, the war would have gone on, for at least another year.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
airplay
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:58 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:22 pm

Based on my research, my personal opinion is that there was no need to drop those bombs. Except of course for the fact that the US had gone to all the trouble of making them and having no where to drop them was irritating as heck.

So they chose to ignore the information at hand and did their little science experiement. It was sad that they dropped the first one but completely attrocious they dropped a second.



 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:36 pm

Based on my research, my personal opinion is that there was no need to drop those bombs. Except of course for the fact that the US had gone to all the trouble of making them and having no where to drop them was irritating as heck.

A lot of people do believe that the INVASION wasn't necessary, no matter what, but I disagree that that bombs shouldn't have been dropped. I think the first one should have been, absolutely. Japan just wouldn't surrender, and this new, powerful weapon was being used to try and end the war. Some people debate the need for the Nagasaki bomb, but I'm convinced had the U.S. not dropped it, Japan would have continued the war.

My father was an American history teach for 30 years, and he studied WWII, and he really thinks the 2nd bomb was as much a warning to Josef Stalin as it was to get Japan out of the war. He's also of the belief that the U.S. didn't need to invade Japan, even if the bombs had not been dropped, since the nation was practically on it's knees by then anyway.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
NUAir
Posts: 1144
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 4:24 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:41 pm

Since when did the bombs have to do with defeating Japan?

I was always taught (mind you in a very liberal Madison, WI public school system http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Lesson_97_Notes.htm) that the bombs were dropped as more of a signal of the start of the cold war between the US and Russia. That it was more to show Russia what we had as far as military technology and that they shouldn't F*&# with us. As Iakobos pointed out Japan was already on the verge of defeat when they were dropped.
"How Many Assholes we got on this ship?" - Lord Helmet
 
KROC
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:58 pm

Based on my research, my personal opinion is that there was no need to drop those bombs. Except of course for the fact that the US had gone to all the trouble of making them and having no where to drop them was irritating as heck.

So they chose to ignore the information at hand and did their little science experiement. It was sad that they dropped the first one but completely attrocious they dropped a second.


Now I have heard everything....  Insane
 
airplay
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:58 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:29 pm

Now I have heard everything....

I "wrote" that stuff KROC. If you actually "heard" it you should seek help immediately. What other voices are in your head?

 Smile
 
KROC
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:31 pm

After reading that...I am hearing allot of voices now...  Big grin
 
iakobos
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 6:22 pm

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:41 pm

It concludes as:
<>
The estimated period was November 1945.


Sorry the arrows prevented the conclusion to appear. Here it is:

Even without the atomic bombing attacks, unconditional surrender would have been achieved and obviate the need for an invasion......probably around November '45.

This official US report was made immediately after the end of the war, not by Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch a couple of years ago.

In clear, and irrespective of military capabilities, Japan would not have survived another winter, bombs (any type) or not.
Food was lacking, food production was close to zilch, there were no stocks left. By summer '45 only coal miners and workers in the heavy industry received as much as half of normal daily calories, the rest had to do with a fifth (eg. Ethiopian diet during a long draught).

In the context of the Pacific war, the atomic bombs and an invasion were totally unnecessary.

In the wider and global context of summer '45 and Ivan's sheer power and presence stretching from Berlin until Vladivostok, it is a different story, and I tend to believe that H and N played a role in preventing another and probably more damaging clash.
 
ariis
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:04 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:58 pm

Hi there,

I don't entirely agree with your opinions but I understand them well. The reason of my disagreement (I mean, my answer to the main question is 'rather No, because it was done so falsely') is that the Americans, although saying heroic speeches of saving millions of Japanese and American lives, did what apparently and obviously was like a coin with two faces.

By the way, as far as I know, at the time Japan was already secretly carrying out surrender talks with Russians. But Americans would not allow Japan to fall into Soviets' hands so they somehow rushed and dropped the bombs to quicken things up and force Japan's unconditioned surrender to the US.

Back to topic, on one hand the bombs might have saved lives because Japan was not invaded. Also, if Japan fell into Stalin's hands no one could predict what would happen. And as time showed that communism based on idealistic ideology turned out 'not good', you can call that Japan was lucky that it surrendered to the US, not Russia, thus escaping communist regime.

But on the other hand, dropping the bombs was obviously a demonstration of power, to show the Russians what's been developed and what/who should be feared of. The other thing is, that dropping the Uranium-based Little Boy onto Hiroshima was not enough since Plutonium-based Fatman was needed to be tested somewhere too. All done at the expense of those killed and affected in the explosions.

One more thing. Someone's said Hirohito said, or Hirohito did. The emperor Hirohito was nothing but a puppet in the hands of nationalist politics. Unlike Hitler or Mussolini, he really had nothing to say (don't mean to defend him however).

Just my 2 cents
FAO

[Edited 2005-02-04 16:00:20]
FAO - Flight Activities Officer
 
cptkrell
Posts: 3186
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 10:50 pm

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:07 am

Hmmm...maybe we should have dropped a zillion or so Sears and Roebuck catalogues and the Japanese would have wondered "what the f**k are we fighting for?" after seeing all that neat shit.

Seriously, the bombs were needed to shorten the war and spare lives on both sides. Also, remember that all the populace of these cities weren't exactly "innoncent civilians" as a large percentage of homes and shops in these inner cities were mom-and-pop operations employing entire families including the children in the manufacture of war materiel for the Japanese combat forces.

I suppose there will always be those that disagree with the use of the bombs (it's certainly illustrated in many history re-writes, liberal - in the USA context of liberalism - educators and apologists) and it's evident that some A.netters also feel so for whatever their personal convictions may be (as per this topic, which pops up a couple or so times a year) but I am firmly convinced that as horrific as those events were, the bombs were entirely necessary to facilitate an expedited Japanese surrender, which in turn, ultimately saved more lives. Regards...Jack
all best; jack
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:13 am

Since when did the bombs have to do with defeating Japan?

You're kidding, right? Last time I looked, Japan surrendered right after the 2nd one was dropped. What part of that do you, or those who taught you, not understand.

As Iakobos pointed out Japan was already on the verge of defeat when they were dropped.

Read your REAL history. Japan showed no signs of surrendering. They had made it quite clear they were going to resist even to the last square block of Tokyo. Revisionism can't change that fact. Without the bombs being dropped, Japan was going to keep fighting. Again, they almost kept fighting even AFTER the two bombings.

Revisionist history really, really pisses me off.

Japan would not have survived another winter, bombs (any type) or not.
Food was lacking, food production was close to zilch, there were no stocks left. By summer '45 only coal miners and workers in the heavy industry received as much as half of normal daily calories


Those running the dictatorial government could still eat, and that's all they cared about. Again, this is revisionist history at it's very worst, to drive home an anti-US point of view, as far as I'm concerned.

Japan would have kept fighting. Postwar analysis clearly shows that.

By the way, as far as I know, at the time Japan was already secretly carrying out surrender talks with Russians.

They were secertely trying to keep Russia from declaring war on Japan, but they were certainly not looking to hold surrender talks with a power they were not yet at war with. Russia declared war on Japan, if memory serves, right after Nagasaki was bombed. So that's not an accurate statement on your part.

One more thing. Someone's said Hirohito said, or Hirohito did. The emperor Hirohito was nothing but a puppet in the hands of nationalist politics.

Again. READ YOUR HISTORY! Hirohito intervened when the government waffled on weather to continue the war or not. When he told his Prime Minister and that cabinet he wished the war to end, the PM bowed to the Emporer's wishes. In fact, the Emporer made the incredible (at the time) decision to go over the head of the government and talk directly to the Japanese people-who heard his voice for the first time ever-and told them that Japan must surrender.

Figure head or not, Hirohito was thought of as a God, and the government obeyed his wishes. So he had EVERYTHING to do with ending the war. Why do you think some young officers thought of kidnapping or killing him? Easy-to get him out of the way to continue fighting.

Again, revisionism is amazing, sometime. It tries to drive home 21st century loathing of either the U.S. or nuclear weapons and tries to set itself reasonably in a 1945 context, which you simply cannot do.

Had Harry Truman NOT used those bombs, and the war had gone on, which it would have, and the American people had found out we could have ended the war in August, 1945, he would have been impeached. Truman's overriding responsibility-TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE-was to use whatever means he could to end the war, at the cost of as few AMERICAN lives as possible. The atomic bombings did that, because they made a bloody invasion of Japan a moot point.

So, despite the idiotic revisionists, he was 100% correct in using them. Case closed.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
iakobos
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 6:22 pm

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:18 am

You dislike reading Krell, or one eye suffices ?

If the US Air Force (a liberal bunch ?) concludes (in '46) that H and N were not necessary and that the same (tactical) result would have been obtained within 4 months and without the need for an invasion, we may suppose you have a better source. Which one is it ?
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:45 am

What are you saying Iakobos? That the hardships being endured in Japan that winter by everyone but the Emperor and the high military staff would have so softened their hearts that they would have condemned themselves to death and surrendered?

Sell that BS to the people of Nanking.

So what, we park the fleet offshore and seal Japan off from the rest of the world? Starve a million, two million women and children to death and that is more humane? The raw numbers argue against it.

Japan, at the time, was a mad dog. If we could have gotten the bombs there in '44 or '43 it would have been even more merciful. Up until Hiroshima, not one Japanese military unit had ever surrendered. They'd been defeated, in some cases overwhelmed and many captured, but not once had they surrendered.

Google "bushido" and read a little bit about it. Japan would never have surrendered without the bomb. They were already fighting a bolt-action war against a machinegun Army. Surrender for the Japanese Army officers was so shameful that it required suicide. The Emperor was divine, and therefore infallible. Virtually their entire air force was being retrained for kamikaze tactics and you think they would have surrendered because some civilians were hungry.

NUair I would sure love to have sat through your Social Studies course. Consider the phrase "signal of the start of the cold war" for a moment. I assume that your social studies teacher told you that Stalin killed more people than Nazi Germany and Japan combined. Patton was not alone in thinking that Russia was the "real" enemy at the time. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki did nothing more than prevent Russia from occupying Japan at the end of the war (see Poland, East Germany etc.) then the bombs might have been worthwhile. Humane, even.

If you want a horror story let's start with Russia being the force to occupy Japan after the war. The entire world would be unrecognizably different today.

In my opinion most of the human race still believes in magic.

The very people who scorn conservatives for their belief in the "invisble man in the sky" somehow seem to endow atomic bombs with God-like properties. It has somehow gotten into their minds that the roughly 239,000 deaths attributable to the atomic bombs and subsequent radiation effects are somehow worse than a similar number of other deaths. How about deaths by starvation, then forced swallowing of huge quantities of water, followed by beating the abdomen with sticks? How about raping Chinese women with Japanese Army swords? How about catching babies on bayonets? All documented.

Sorry to demystify it, but the atomic bomb is just one more weapon in the arsenal. If you are to wage war at all, you must wage war to win. Winning sooner is always better than winning later. It is too bad Jimmy Doolittle wasn't carrying nukes.

Between the decision to send in armed UN "peacekeepers" and the decision to drop an atomic bomb is a difference in degree, not in kind.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
desertjets
Posts: 7588
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 3:12 pm

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:53 am

I am familiar with the report that Iakobos cites. And it is an interesting counterpoint to the argument that dropping the A-Bomb was the only way to end the war.

On one hand what would have been the death toll from Aug 45 to an unconditional surrender in Nov 45 from continued conventional bombing and starvation of the Japanese people vs. dropping the 2 bombs. That is likely a push.

If a full scale invasion had happened it would have been very bloody. But I question whether or not an invasion and occupation of Japan would have been neccessary. If the US would have essentially blockaded Japan and continued with the air assault than perhaps an invasion would not be needed, they would have still surrendered.



I think the more plausible reason why the bombs were used WHEN they were used was to prevent Soviet entry into the Pacific theater. Tensions between the US, Britain, and the USSR in occupied Germany were growing pretty rapidly after V-E day. Especially when it became clear that the Soviets were not going to allow the people of east Germany and eastern Europe full control in determining what their new governments would be like. Having the Soviets involved in an occupation of Japan would be seen as a HIGHLY undesirable event. So the sooner Japan surrenders and the American occupation began, the better. And perhaps even this saved American and Japanese lives.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
 
iakobos
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 6:22 pm

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:12 am

SlamClick, I do not make history but it does not prevent me for informing myself about it.

If your vision goes beyong the tip of your nose, you could easily find out that Japan had tried several times and through several channels to enter negotiations to end the war ONE YEAR before August '45.
It was clear, very clear that they could in no way win anything in continuing the fight, they intended to stop it before it was too late.
The idea was to get a conditional surrender, their main demand centered around the Emperor being kept in place and in power.

One year later, Japan was by all means on its knees. It does not mean they would not have offered a staunch resistance to an invasion, they certainly would have, but it means there was no need for an invasion.

This is where the "saving millions" (in the context of the Pacific war) takes water and sinks.

 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:17 am

Well Iakobos that is the advantage of having a big nose. I can see pretty far.

"Japan had tried several times and through several channels to enter negotiations to end the war ONE YEAR before August '45."

Obvious bullshit!

They did not need a peace conference.
They did not need a signed document.
They did not need to put on their top hat and tails.
They did not need to hand their swords to General MacArthur.

All they had to do was order their military forces to stand down.
Order the fleet to sail home to Japan or run up a white flag.
Order the kamikaze flights stopped.

They did not do any of these things.

obvious!



[Edited 2005-02-04 17:32:13]
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:18 am

But I question whether or not an invasion and occupation of Japan would have been neccessary.

So do I. So do a lot of people, looking back in the past. But the fact is Washington and London thought it would be necessary, and it would have gone forward on or around Nov 1, 1945. The U.S. was already assembling the troops on islands like Guam, Tinian, Saipan, Okinawa, and the like. The great sigh you heard in mid-August 1945, was a few million US servicemen and women, breathing a great sigh that the invasion they were in would not take place. It was going to happen. That is an historical certainty.

If the US would have essentially blockaded Japan and continued with the air assault than perhaps an invasion would not be needed, they would have still surrendered.

Eventually, perhaps. But we do not know, do we? Japan might have taken a year or two to finally succumb, and the death toll possibly could have been in the millions as well. So, either way, invasion or blockade, a lot of lives would have been lost-far more than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:22 am

By the way, Iakobos Japan DID get a conditional surrender.

The Emperor was allowed to stay in power.
No war crimes trial for the "medica" research in Mongolia.
Hardly any war crimes accountability for atrocities commited in China, the Philippines, Burma etc. etc.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
FDXmech
Posts: 3219
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 9:48 pm

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:28 am

Battle for Okinawa April thru july 1945

More people died during the Battle of Okinawa than all those killed during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Casualties totaled more than 38,000 Americans wounded and 12,000 killed or missing, more than 107,000 Japanese and Okinawan conscripts killed, and perhaps 100,000 Okinawan civilians who perished in the battle.

No, they weren't thru yet.
You're only as good as your last departure.
 
cptkrell
Posts: 3186
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 10:50 pm

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:36 am

"You dislike reading Krell, or one eye suffices ?"

lakobos, in the land of the blind, one eye is KING. Regards...Jack
all best; jack
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:39 am

Unfortunately, FDXMech, those who, almost 60 years after the fact, are trying to put a modern spin on the bombings, are doing an exercise in futility: trying to drive square pegs in round holes. It doesn't change a few truths:

1. Japan started that war. I don't hear those decrying the use of The Bomb decrying the attack on Pearl Harbor.

2. The invasion would have happened, minus The Bomb. That is fact. Nothing would have changed that.

3. As you stated, Japan was still fighting fiercely where they could. The were not ready to surrender, minus The Bomb.

4. The Bomb, in August 1945, was not considered a WMD, as it is today. It was another weapon, pure and simple, that was employed to win a world war that had raged for 6 years. It was seen, in many respects, as nothing different than the P-51, or the B-24, or any other weapon or weapons platform that was used to try and win the war.

You simply CANNOT use 21st century, post-facto aversions of nuclear weapons, which most of us have, and try to place them in context of a World War, and looking for a way to win the war as soon as possible, with the minimum loss of life of American troops, which was Harry Truman's constitutional responsibility.

5. Had Germany or Japan developed this weapon, they also would have used it. Put that into your revisionist perspective, if you will
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
peterpuck
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:59 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:12 am

Can anybody tell me why they had to drop these things on cities? Dropping them in the countryside would get the point across without killing hundreds of thousands of people.
 
iakobos
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 6:22 pm

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:22 am

Well done boys, no one dares to address the US Air Force report ?
(issued July 1946 and likely researched already in 1945)

Unlike many I have no agenda, I dont have to protect what I have been teached nor spit out a theory who makes me happy, and I am old enough to understand a little bit about politics and public manipulation.

If you really wish to inform yourself by yourself, partake in some interesting reading, including the conflicting one.

SlamClick, it was a capitulation = unconditional surrender.
The Emperor remained in place, not in power. Douglas was the man in power.
Hiro was kept as a symbol (which he always was).

Obvious bullshit! since you seem to be a specialist in biomass, can you leave ecology for a second and inform yourself about the Japanese attempts at negotiating an end to the hostilities in 1944 ?
I understand that it does not fit with the generally accepted public "perception", especially in these days where hatred was the common sentiment, but intellectual honesty has a price.

As a general background, think about this:
how long would Truman have stayed in his seat if it was known that he had the atomic capability and had not used it ?

Falcon, nice to see, for a change, that you can be a redneck conservative.




 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:32 am

Can anybody tell me why they had to drop these things on cities? Dropping them in the countryside would get the point across without killing hundreds of thousands of people.

You HURT the enemy. You don't just drop it and not have as much of an effect as you can. That's just a naive statement.

Falcon, nice to see, for a change, that you can be a redneck conservative.

Stick it, Ikabos. This has nothing to do with political ideology. It has to do with studying the event for quite a while. Again, you're using your 21st century mindset, and placing it in 1945, and that doesn't work. I don't like nukes, but I'm not naive or ideologically driven in looking hard at it.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
FDXmech
Posts: 3219
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 9:48 pm

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:33 am

>>>Dropping them in the countryside would get the point across without killing hundreds of thousands of people.<<<

I'm not being hardhearted, but getting a point across is a good idea in preventing a war (eg Munich Pact). Not after when both all sides have proven no quarter would be given.

Would the RAF or Army Air Forces at the time ended the war by showing the Axis powers their determination to win by targeting B-17's, Lancaster's etc over uninhabited spaces?

If you were about to be sent to invade Japan, would you be against any means available to preclude the war?
You're only as good as your last departure.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:39 am

Iakobos you did not answer these points:

They did not need a peace conference.
They did not need a signed document.
They did not need to put on their top hat and tails.
They did not need to hand their swords to General MacArthur.

(you may recognize them from reply #35

The Japanese military could have ordered a unilateral standdown and taken their soldiers out of combat postures.

They did not do this.

Until you address these points you have nothing to say.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
dvk
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 12:18 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:42 am

Iakobos, Falcon is right and you are wrong. Truman didn't sit on the atomic capability that long before using it. The facts are that the bombs did prevent further loss of life in the long run. If the Japanese had been making a serious good faith effort to negotiate a surrender, Truman and the allies would certainly have worked with them to end the long, catastrophic war. They had obvious reasons for having little trust in Japan at that time. ANY of the other allies would have used the bomb, if they had had the capability. Do you really think Churchill wouldn't have used it?

Not falling for the spurious arguments of the historical revisionists, or being blinded by a lopsided hatred of the US, does not make one a "conservative redneck".
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information.
 
peterpuck
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:59 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:43 am

Falcon,

If killing 250 000 INNOCENT CIVILIANS to hurt your enemy is ok, I guess you are saying that 911 was justified too?! The US could have dropped the bomb in an empty part of Japan and they still would have surrendered. If you don't believe that I say you are naive.
 
iakobos
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 6:22 pm

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:57 am

OK SlamClick, reaching boiling point already ?

How would you call someone who gives up everything without trying to save whatever assets are left ? I leave it to your appreciation.

Short reminder, I never argued the usefulness of H and N, to the contrary, I think that they were (unfortunately) necessary.
Where I digress is that they were used primarily for the purpose of avoiding an invasion and thereby saving millions.

I would trust the US Air Force of 1946 over any politician at anytime in history or over any A.netter of 2005.

Sorry Falcon, but I was probably born before your father, so far for the 21st century mindset, and in those times people were teached that politeness and respect are the cement of any civilised society.


 
StowAway
Posts: 619
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:48 am

RE: Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?

Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:57 am

Falcon, nice to see, for a change, that you can be a redneck conservative.

Nice to see that your argument went to shams, and you had to result to that.  Laugh out loud

Quit spinning this crap. Hindsight is 20/20, and America had been through enough of it. Something drastic was needed.

A monkey's ass always talks crap.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos