Are we too nice in war?

[raimius]

The peace delegation in the Japanese government was losing (and had been for the better part of a generation). They risked their lives even to suggest surrender. It took the Emperor stepping in to finally initiate surrender (and he was almost assassinated because of it!)

We did not demonstrate the bomb first. We only had two. There were several reasons why we didn't demonstrate.
A) What if it "fizzled?" We had never tested a "gun" type nuclear weapon. The physics said it would work, but it had never actually been done. (Trinity was an "implosion" design)
B) What if the Japanese were not impressed? We would then have 1 actual bomb to deliver, with the material for the next being 6 months away.

The debate over moral justification can easily go both ways.
We were winning. We did target the center of the city. We knew a TON of civilians would die.
We also knew that invasion would be even costlier to both sides.
Truman faced a terrible choice: put millions of lives at risk (including many American GIs), or kill 250K+ Japanese (mostly civilians).

 

[LineInTheSand]

Concur Zaph. It's not always advisable to "show your hand" in war either.

They didn't surrender when we leveled a city, but you think they would have if the bomb had just been dropped at sea? Maybe we should have just said please.

 

[flieger83]

Flieger, to answer your question, I have heard the point debated (that we could have used a demonstration), and have read it in books before. Don't ask for titles please, because honestly I don't remember. I am well aware of the monumental losses a mainland invasion would have had, and I think you misunderstood what I was saying slightly. I would have agreed with the decision to drop the bomb on civilian targets, after a demonstration, if Japan had still not surrendered. I just believe we should have had a "demonstration" first. As you alluded to though, it was 65 years ago, and it's easy to critique their decisions now that the danger is long-past. Concerning the people saying "it doesn't take three days to surrender"...that should be true, but my understanding is that there was alot of debate going on among the higher ups in the Japanese military and government, but that the side for surrender seemed likely to win the debate. That has been my understanding, I could be mistaken. If my understanding is correct...we should have taken longer to drop the next bomb. Again...hindsight is 20/20.

No, I pretty much assumed that was your position. It's also the position that was taken by quite a few VERY learned men in the US Cabinet, Department of War, etc., at the time.

The problem with the demonstration, in reality, is multifaceted.

First...where do you do it? Second...who do you invite? Remember, Japan at this time was ruled by a group of six military and civilian leaders (referred to often as the BIG SIX), wholly subservient to the Emperor who was believed to be Divine. Their national culture; indeed, their very identity completely devoted the individuals life to serving the Divine Emperor. Death in battle for the nation, Emperor, family, was considered a sacred thing; one to be revered and in reality, longed for.

Hmm...does this sound familiar today?

Back to the original dilemma...Third...you get all these folks together and tell them "We've got this incredible weapon, we want you to see how destructive it is, and then we want you to surrender..." and then you fire it off, in an area that you really aren't going to show its destructive capability because there's nothing there but open space? Hmm...nope, don't think that's going to impress much. And Fourth...well, there goes one of the only two atomic bombs in existence...NOW what?

Another factor in the equation: the Japanese "Big Six" were somewhat divided on what course of action to take. After the first bomb was dropped, they pressed to continue the war as to the Japanese culture, surrender was simply not in the equation of life. After the second bomb was dropped, there was still division in the group: some wanted to end the war and accept the Potsdam declaration, others wanted to commit the nation to repelling the invader and fighting to the death. If memory serves, it was actually a 3-3 split. And then the Japanese cabinet met and was pretty much at the same impasse: a chief concern was the future of the Emperor!

Again, if memory serves, Emperor Hirohito met with the key members and basically said he couldn't see any reason to continue the fight and that he was ready to bear the unbearable, and so must the people.

At that point, the government agreed with the Emperor (like they would argue?).

And then there was an attempted military Coup d'etat! It was launched by some officers that couldn't bear the thought of surrender...fortunately the military was loyal to the Emperor and the Coup was defeated.

So...two bombs in 72 hours AND the Soviet Union declaring war and invading Manchuria...that hammered home to the Japanese government and army that they were NOT going to survive.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

 

[Xyz]

"War is Cruelty, but the crueler the war, the sooner it is over." -William Tecumseh Sherman

Sometimes being 'nice' in war is not as great as the bleeders make it out to be.

 

[BeatNavy]

They hate us enough to kill us in our own country.

Thats not really a fair statement, but I won't address it here because its off topic.

I don't think it would have ended the war sooner. The western front was completely lost, the Army of Northern Virginia had already been forced back after Gettysburg and had already lost significant numbers in the Battle of the Wilderness. It was obvious even after Lee's loss at Antietam and surely by that time in the war that the Confederacy was not going to win foreign recognition, which was its only true hope of survival. The South's economy was already in the pits and it had almost no industry to support the war effort. After Sherman had taken Atlanta, Lees army was almost done with and the war was for all intents and purposes over. Sherman was just needlessly rubbing it in.

The idea of a "demonstration" bomb in Japan is honestly ridiculous. We had two nuclear bombs at the time and even the best scientists of the Manhattan project weren't sure about the bombs reliability. Honestly when thinking about civilian deaths, we killed many many more Japanese civilians by burning up their cities on a mass scale. Dropping the second bomb, especially only 3 days later, is much more debatable.

 

[AF6872]

Demonstrate this! If you mess with us you will suddenly be a stone age civilization. We can't keep up this attrition forever. Spending national treasure to be the policeman of the world will only lead to our becoming a second or third rate power. Sherman was an optimist. Russia declared war on Japan after we droped the bombs to try to get parts of Asia. MacArthur told them to stick it or we would have had a divided Japan like Europe and Germany and probably a wall down the middle of Japan.

 

[linkgmr]

They were preparing to surrender after Hiroshima. Nagasaki was a show of force to the Soviets. If you want to argue that it was a necessary show of force, ok then, but in terms of actually defeating Japan...Nagasaki was unnecessary.

What the Japanese were preparing to do was offer a CONDITIONAL surrender, one that would leave the emperor in power, and would simply put an end to the fighting. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary in order to force Japan to submit to an UNCONDITIONAL surrender, a complete acknowledgement of defeat, which would allow for a much more stable peace than would leaving the Japanese Empire intact. A conditional surrender was unacceptable to the United States, and with two ways of achieving an unconditional surrender; an invasion of the Home Islands or the use of nuclear weapons(Which was really a gamble. If the Japanese hadn't submitted to the unconditional surrender after that, an invasion would follow), the nuclear weapons seemed to be the method that would conserve the most lives - an invasion would have cost millions more.
Granted, it was also used a show of force to the Soviet Union, but I'm of the opinion that the former was the priority.

 

[goldfarb1]

Go to GA and mention Gen Sherman, if you don't get beat up, you'll at least get some choice words.

And I grew up in the DC area and we are still taught of the northern atrocities in school.

I disagree. I live in GA and can tell you that 85% of people couldn't tell you who Gen. Sherman was, let alone that he fought for the yanks or confeds. Maybe if you go to rural GA wearing a yank uniform in front of a house flying the confederate colors.......

 

[capolo13]

I believe there was also a plan to blast a path into Japan using 12+ nuclear bombs to cut swaths of area down to allow for the invasion force to enter with minimal casulties (i don't know if they knew about the effects of fallout yet?). I think I saw the plans in a museum somewhere. Imagine the outrage now if we would have done that. Japan would STILL be recovering. If Hirohito had not lived through the coupe, or did not want to surrender, that was one of the plans they would have considered implementing. I think we got the best possible outcome, given the circumstances, materials, and information we had.

 

[flieger83]

I believe there was also a plan to blast a path into Japan using 12+ nuclear bombs to cut swaths of area down to allow for the invasion force to enter with minimal casulties (i don't know if they knew about the effects of fallout yet?). I think I saw the plans in a museum somewhere. Imagine the outrage now if we would have done that. Japan would STILL be recovering. If Hirohito had not lived through the coupe, or did not want to surrender, that was one of the plans they would have considered implementing. I think we got the best possible outcome, given the circumstances, materials, and information we had.

Operation Downfall plans that are available do NOT mention any use of atomic weapons. Of course, when the plans were being drawn up, there were no atomic bombs; or their knowledge was CLOSELY guarded secret (Manhattan Project).

Doing a little digging into Operation Downfall (can you tell I'm a military historian by hobby?) you will find the following:

Major-General John E. Hull looked into the tactical use of nuclear weapons for the invasion of the Japanese home islands (even after dropping two strategic atomic bombs on Japan, General Marshall did not think that the Japanese would capitulate immediately). Colonel Lyle E. Seeman reported that at least seven bombs would be available by X-Day, which could be dropped on defending forces. Seeman advised that American troops not enter an area hit by a bomb for "at least 48 hours"; the risk of fallout was not well understood, and such a short amount of time after detonation would have resulted in substantial radiation exposure for the American troops.

Then doing a little more digging you can find the following concerns about casualties (what it really tells you is that, even with the best people involved, and their models, etc., the planners of the day HAD NO IDEA how bad it would be, but it really concerned them.) Why?...take a look at this:

...A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan...

We were NOT ready for that.

And finally, here's a telling piece of data:

...Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the sixty plus years following the end of World War II—including the Korean and Vietnam Wars—have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock. There are so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan are able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to wounded soldiers on the field.

I think we did a fine job ending the war as we did. Revisionists that condemn the USA for using a nuclear weapon, calling it cruel, inhumane, etc...well, I'm simply going to say this:

In total war, I have but one goal: to kill the enemy and break their things to the point they decide to quit. Only then can I ensure my nations survival. And that is ALL I care about. There's a reason the enemy is called "the enemy." Perhaps if nations thought more about the consequences of war, they'd be a whole lot less bellicose.

Okay, off my classroom/soapbox.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

 

[Zaphod]

I believe there was also a plan to blast a path into Japan using 12+ nuclear bombs to cut swaths of area down to allow for the invasion force to enter with minimal casulties (i don't know if they knew about the effects of fallout yet?). I think I saw the plans in a museum somewhere. Imagine the outrage now if we would have done that. Japan would STILL be recovering. If Hirohito had not lived through the coupe, or did not want to surrender, that was one of the plans they would have considered implementing. I think we got the best possible outcome, given the circumstances, materials, and information we had.

The scale of destruction described in Operation Downfall is simply unimaginable short of a full-scale nuclear exchange between the Warsaw Pact and NATO.

I seem to recall the same tactic of multiple nuclear bombs. There were also plans to employ mass nerve gas attacks ahead of the landing troops, and a bombardment schedule that would have left nothing of Japan but a bloody smear on the map.

And this was all BEFORE the troops began fighting on the ground.

On the other side were surprises like the thousands of aircraft (some purpose-built) that the Japanese had hidden all over the islands for the express purpose of kamikaze attacks. The American Fleet would have taken horrid losses even before landing the landing force because the intel was wrong.

As crazy as it sounds, Truman should be considered one of the greatest humanitarians in history for the hundreds of thousands, if not MILLIONS, of lives he saved by dropping those two bombs.