North Korea launched a long range missle.

[MindfulCoug]

A scenario was envisioned in which every single Japanese citizen would've taken up arms. The country would've been wrecked, and far more Japanese, not just the mythical "warriors" you speak of would've died. The bombs spared millions.

It is being a difficult job for me to discern ,which one is more disturbing?A horrifying delusion enchanted by the us government and the unwillingness to consider other alternatives in order to end the war in 1945 or the support and passion it is still being given by some people in 2009.
Speaking of delusion ,i have the feeling you are well aware of some facts already being unveiled due to eloquent researches regarding the story ,but i am inserting some of them in here for the sake of substantive conversation.

The evidence today is overwhelming that an invasion of Japan was not necessary to bring the war to an end. Japan was defeated, in disarray, and ready to surrender. The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, which interviewed 700 Japanese military and political officials after the war, came to this conclusion:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Richard Rhodes in his detailed and eloquent history of the making of the bomb says :

"The bombs were authorized not because the Japanese refused to surrender but because they refused to surrender unconditionally

As a clarifying note...The one condition necessary for Japan to end the war was an agreement to maintain the sanctity of the Japanese emperor, who was a holy figure to the Japanese people. Former ambassador to Japan Joseph Grew, based on his knowledge of Japanese culture, had been trying to persuade the U.S. government of the importance of allowing the emperor to remain in place.
Herbert Feis, who had unique access to State Department files and the records on the Manhattan Project, noted that in the end(which was after dropping bomb) the United States did give the assurances the Japanese wanted on the emperor.

So The curious mind lingers over the reasons why the American government was in a rush to drop the bomb???

Historian Gar Alperovitz, after going through the papers of the American officials closest to Truman and most influential in the final decision, and especially the diaries of Henry Stimson, concludes:

that the atomic bombs were dropped to impress the Soviet Union, as a first act in establishing American power in the postwar world.

The scientist Leo Szilard had met with Truman's main policy adviser in May 1945 and reported later:

"Byrnes (the bomb mastermind) did not argue that it was necessary to use the bomb against the cities of Japan in order to win the war.... Mr. Byrnes' view was that our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more manageable.

The end of dropping the bomb seems, from the evidence, to have been not winning the war, which was already assured, not saving lives, for it was highly probably no American invasion would be necessary, but the aggrandizement of American national power at the moment and in the postwar period ,yet devised by human beings-burning people alive, maiming them horribly and leaving them with radiation sickness, which would kill them slowly and with great pain.

Please do not hesitate to ignore the history at your own convenience.

[MindfulCoug]

The Taliban are not the Japanese.....the Japanese had a standing army and wore uniforms. The Taliban are miscreant cowards who use their "religion" as a thin veil to shroud their Medieval culture and desperate clinging to power. They hope to govern through repression and violence.

The use of nuclear weapons was justified in 1945; this is not 1945. We are not going to lose 1 million men and a trillion dollars in the next year fighting the Taliban. There is no clear Talibani nexus that could be attacked with nuclear weapons to destroy their ability to make war. I have no desire to turn Waziristan into a "glass parking lot" like some hate-filled mongrels have clamored. We used nuclear weapons to destroy our enemy's ability to make war, not to eradicate our enemy.

I will say this, we will never be able to defeat the Taliban by obeying international law and Pakistan's national "sovereignty" (as if they had control over Waziristan anyway). I imagine that we'll still be fighting with one hand tied behind our back ten years from now. In the case of the Taliban, if they won't come down out of their Khazad-Dum and agree to peace, then containment or extermination are the only pathways to peace. But, extermination debases us, making us worse than any damned Talibani ever could be.....but what do you say if it's your son sent off to fight evil men, when it's your son who dies because the public doesn't want us to "cross a line" or climb that "slippery slope?"

Well, the project has already drained billions of dollars and million of lives any way.Pakistan ,which once was considered a part of the solution ,has become a huge part of the problem .So you have got to invest on clever strategies .If your ancestors rushing to drop the bomb, have saved your generation ,the next generation is going to be severely affected by any impetuous reaction toward Pakistan ,which might consider exchanging nuclear gift with you out of courtesy!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Richard Rhodes in his detailed and eloquent history of the making of the bomb says :

"The bombs were authorized not because the Japanese refused to surrender but because they refused to surrender unconditionally

You could say that about pretty much any act or battle in the Pacific War after Midway. The Japanese knew that they had lost the war and were fighting a war or attrition hoping to get the US to stop fighting prior to an occupation of Japan and a full surrender. This was non-negotiable for the US because allowing the military government (which included Hirohito) to retain any kind of power was unthinkable. It would be similar to making concessions with Hitler and nazis. Anyone who thinks we should have accepted a conditional surrender is woefully ignorant of history and the depth and scale of Japanese atrocities before and during WWII.

As a clarifying note...The one condition necessary for Japan to end the war was an agreement to maintain the sanctity of the Japanese emperor, who was a holy figure to the Japanese people. Former ambassador to Japan Joseph Grew, based on his knowledge of Japanese culture, had been trying to persuade the U.S. government of the importance of allowing the emperor to remain in place.
Herbert Feis, who had unique access to State Department files and the records on the Manhattan Project, noted that in the end(which was after dropping bomb) the United States did give the assurances the Japanese wanted on the emperor.

So The curious mind lingers over the reasons why the American government was in a rush to drop the bomb???

Historian Gar Alperovitz, after going through the papers of the American officials closest to Truman and most influential in the final decision, and especially the diaries of Henry Stimson, concludes:

The scientist Leo Szilard had met with Truman's main policy adviser in May 1945 and reported later:

The end of dropping the bomb seems, from the evidence, to have been not winning the war, which was already assured, not saving lives, for it was highly probably no American invasion would be necessary, but the aggrandizement of American national power at the moment and in the postwar period ,yet devised by human beings-burning people alive, maiming them horribly and leaving them with radiation sickness, which would kill them slowly and with great pain.

Please do not hesitate to ignore the history at your own convenience.

Congratulations. You have found a few contrary opinions on arguably the most controversial wartime decision in history. Bravo.

Unfortunately, anyone who researches the history in depth discovers that your quotes are bullshit. The Japanese gave no real indication that they were willing to surrender and there was every indication that the invasion was still necessary. In fact, the invasion had already started: Okinawa was a preview of the mainland invasion. 12,500 US soldiers dead, 100,000 Japanese soldiers dead, and 150,000 Japanese civilians (1/3 of the island population at time) dead.

Your last quote from Leo Szilard is especially telling. What complete nonsense.

I am afraid you are the one ignoring history here.

[MindfulCoug]

You could say that about pretty much any act or battle in the Pacific War after Midway. The Japanese knew that they had lost the war and were fighting a war or attrition hoping to get the US to stop fighting prior to an occupation of Japan and a full surrender. This was non-negotiable for the US because allowing the military government (which included Hirohito) to retain any kind of power was unthinkable. It would be similar to making concessions with Hitler and nazis. Anyone who thinks we should have accepted a conditional surrender is woefully ignorant of history and the depth and scale of Japanese atrocities before and during WWII.

So you announced your strict opposition of a Japanese atrocious emperor staying in power in the most atrocious way in warfare history ?
Remind me of this "with a worthwhile end one could justify any means."Nicolo Machiavelli

Congratulations. You have found a few contrary opinions on arguably the most controversial wartime decision in history. Bravo.

Unfortunately, anyone who researches the history in depth discovers that your quotes are bullshit. The Japanese gave no real indication that they were willing to surrender and there was every indication that the invasion was still necessary. In fact, the invasion had already started: Okinawa was a preview of the mainland invasion. 12,500 US soldiers dead, 100,000 Japanese soldiers dead, and 150,000 Japanese civilians (1/3 of the island population at time) dead.
Your last quote from Leo Szilard is especially telling. What complete nonsense.
I am afraid you are the one ignoring history here.

keeping in mind that the us government did accept the emperor retention after dropping the bomb ,the US could have ended the war sooner with fewer deaths on all sides by using the full carrot and stick: 1) offer retention of the Emperor for a quick surrender; and 2) threaten Russian invasion and 3) atomic destruction as the alternative.
None of these key incentives to surrender were used prior to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Had the above method failed, and had the Russian invasion failed to bring surrender soon, the atomic bombs were still available - but as a last resort.
I didnot mention the history just because history is cool to know ,but because there are significant documented evidences to support the claim including The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey.And I have no problem with you dismissing them.

[UtahDan]

So you announced your strict opposition of a Japanese atrocious emperor staying in power in the most atrocious way in warfare history ?
Remind me of this "with a worthwhile end one could justify any means."Nicolo Machiavelli



keeping in mind that the us government did accept the emperor retention after dropping the bomb ,the US could have ended the war sooner with fewer deaths on all sides by using the full carrot and stick: 1) offer retention of the Emperor for a quick surrender; and 2) threaten Russian invasion and 3) atomic destruction as the alternative.
None of these key incentives to surrender were used prior to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Had the above method failed, and had the Russian invasion failed to bring surrender soon, the atomic bombs were still available - but as a last resort.
I didnot mention the history just because history is cool to know ,but because there are significant documented evidences to support the claim including The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey.And I have no problem with you dismissing them.

Why wouldn't invasion be the last resort when that is the option that would cost the most lives by a huge margin? Because it fits your argument of US as nuclear villain?

[wuapinmon]

MindfulCoug,

I think you and I are not going to see eye to eye on this. The nuclear bomb was dropped for ALL of the reasons we mentioned. Does it suck that it happened? Yes. If I could go back and change it, would I? Hell no!

What happened, happened, and no matter how you want to look at it, it was a good thing. No nukes have been used again since then, but, I tell ya, if Iran, Pakistan, or any other nation uses one against the USA, we will retaliate according to your possible-kinsman, Hammurabi's, code.

I do not believe, for one second, that a nation like Iran, with a stated goal to wipe Israel off the map, without an affirmative denunciation of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, that funds irhabists throughout the region, that makes its Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian citizens wear special colors on their clothing so they can be identified by their "morals" police, and that claims to be researching nuclear energy for "peaceable" purposes is beyond using the technology they develop in an attack.

Your president claimed to be the frickin' Mahdi when he addressed the United Nations a couple of years ago. That kind of Millenial zeal coupled with irhabist tendencies and nuclear weapons makes me very worried.

I apologize to Iran for American actions viz a vis the Shah......but that doesn't mean that we'll let you exact nuclear revenge for that injustice.

[Jeff Lebowski]

So you announced your strict opposition of a Japanese atrocious emperor staying in power in the most atrocious way in warfare history ?
Remind me of this "with a worthwhile end one could justify any means."Nicolo Machiavelli

There was more than just the emperor in question. You are twisting facts.

keeping in mind that the us government did accept the emperor retention after dropping the bomb ,the US could have ended the war sooner with fewer deaths on all sides by using the full carrot and stick: 1) offer retention of the Emperor for a quick surrender; and 2) threaten Russian invasion and 3) atomic destruction as the alternative.
None of these key incentives to surrender were used prior to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Had the above method failed, and had the Russian invasion failed to bring surrender soon, the atomic bombs were still available - but as a last resort.
I didnot mention the history just because history is cool to know ,but because there are significant documented evidences to support the claim including The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey.And I have no problem with you dismissing them.

Yes, they decided to allow the emperor to remain well after the unconditional surrender was complete. This was a reversal of previous policy. It was also the wrong decision, IMO. Hirohito was every bit as guilty a war criminal as the top military leaders.

Either way, you are simply playing a convenient "what-if" game that ignores the realities of the situation at the time the decision was made. The fact of the matter is that dropping the bombs brought an immediate end to the war, with zero US casualties.

[MindfulCoug]

Why wouldn't invasion be the last resort when that is the option that would cost the most lives by a huge margin? Because it fits your argument of US as nuclear villain?

The post does say it should have been considered as the last resort after trying three last steps.I think you just rushed to reply and missed the point.

[MindfulCoug]

MindfulCoug,

I think you and I are not going to see eye to eye on this. The nuclear bomb was dropped for ALL of the reasons we mentioned. Does it suck that it happened? Yes. If I could go back and change it, would I? Hell no!

What happened, happened, and no matter how you want to look at it, it was a good thing.

You have perfectly proved my point. Cannot thank you enough!

[MindfulCoug]

There was more than just the emperor in question. You are twisting facts.
Yes, they decided to allow the emperor to remain well after the unconditional surrender was complete. This was a reversal of previous policy. It was also the wrong decision, IMO. Hirohito was every bit as guilty a war criminal as the top military leaders.
Either way, you are simply playing a convenient "what-if" game that ignores the realities of the situation at the time the decision was made. The fact of the matter is that dropping the bombs brought an immediate end to the war, with zero US casualties.

I think you and the people who are too concerned about American lives are just too moral .The point is your morality is limited to nationalism ,if not racism.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think you and the people who are too concerned about American lives are just too moral .The point is your morality is limited to nationalism ,if not racism.

lol. Wow.

You are right. We should have invaded the mainland killing an equal number of US and Japanese. That would have been much less racist.

[byu71]

I think you and the people who are too concerned about American lives are just too moral .The point is your morality is limited to nationalism ,if not racism.

I am not sure of what you are saying. Should I take it to mean if the Japanese were white, we wouldn't have used the Nuke? I will bet the Russians weren't aware of that during the cold war.

[wuapinmon]

I think you and the people who are too concerned about American lives are just too moral .The point is your morality is limited to nationalism ,if not racism.

Too moral? What does that even mean? A life is a life, no? I'm going to save those of my neighbors before I worry about the people who attacked me, wanted to kill me, and refused to surrender when faced with destruction.

If I attacked Iran and invaded Qom, would you use a nuclear bomb on Miami if you knew it would prevent the slaughter of millions of Iranian troops (your friends and family) to protect Tehran and Yazd? Of course you would. Anyone would. You wouldn't care about the feelings of the invading Americans or the poor children who can't duck and cover in Miami....you do what you can to protect your own. So, don't sit there and pass judgment on America for using the bomb. We saved millions of lives, on all sides, including a probably Hot War with the Soviets, by showing what our country was capable of building and doing.....you could easily be another province of the USSR right now if we hadn't.

America has some dark things to answer for, dropping the Bomb is not one of them.

[RobinFinderson]

The American nukes that vaporized so many women, children and babies, and which left the skin rotting off of so many others, served a practical purpose, but no one should ever mistake a violent short cut for the moral high ground. Dropping those bombs was evil. Firebombing Japanese villages and cities was evil. Firebombing Dresden was evil.

The logic that leads a nation to drop these kinds of weapons on non-military targets is the logic of Osama bin Laden. It is born in the belief that civilian populations are offering material support to an enemy, and therefore they are fair game. That is the reasoning of terrorists.

Sometimes that reasoning serves some practical end, but it is always evil.

[MindfulCoug]

Too moral? What does that even mean? A life is a life, no? I'm going to save those of my neighbors before I worry about the people who attacked me, wanted to kill me, and refused to surrender when faced with destruction.

If I attacked Iran and invaded Qom, would you use a nuclear bomb on Miami if you knew it would prevent the slaughter of millions of Iranian troops (your friends and family) to protect Tehran and Yazd? Of course you would. Anyone would. You wouldn't care about the feelings of the invading Americans or the poor children who can't duck and cover in Miami....you do what you can to protect your own. So, don't sit there and pass judgment on America for using the bomb. We saved millions of lives, on all sides, including a probably Hot War with the Soviets, by showing what our country was capable of building and doing.....you could easily be another province of the USSR right now if we hadn't.

America has some dark things to answer for, dropping the Bomb is not one of them.

Your analogy is completely wrong .Japan was not under the same circumstances (as you exemplified) and some indisputable indications have shown she was ready to give up,just not unconditional.The one she was given later ,after dropping the bomb.

And about the case you mentioned ,i have to tell you that in a theocracy no mean justifies modus . Having inherited one of the first civilization in the world ,we would definitely come up with some non-barbaric deterrents rather than bombing civilians.So bombing Miami? no way .Washington ? May be