Are we too nice in war?

It certainly ended the war quicker.

As for resentment, who gives a damn? They hate us enough to kill us in our own country. Bring them to their knees in abject terror of us, THEN build them up.

Good grief, we had to nuke the Japanese, TWICE, to get them to see the light, and by that time there was ZERO chance that they were going to win anyway.

If you're going to fight, FIGHT. The only rule at that point is WIN. If you're not willing to do that, then don't fight at all.


We did not HAVE to nuke the Japanese twice. We did not even have to nuke them once. We could have detonated a nuke on some unpopulated part of Japan, had them watch it, and tell them "the next one is landing on Tokyo in two hours, if you do not surrender RIGHT NOW". For the record, I mean "two hours" figuratively...I don't know how long it would have taken to get another bomb ready to go, but I think you get my point.
 
Doing that would have had the exact same effect, without killing and mutilating hundreds of thousands or people.
 
And for the record...Grant's actions in the Civil War were indeed justified, IMO. Without the March to the Sea, that war could have gone on for at least several more years, and maybe even longer in some type of insurgency capacity. I can't remember where, but I've read that near the end, Lee briefly considered going into the Appalachians and becoming some type of guerilla force. The North needed to break the spirit of the South.
 
We did not HAVE to nuke the Japanese twice. We did not even have to nuke them once. We could have detonated a nuke on some unpopulated part of Japan, had them watch it, and tell them "the next one is landing on Tokyo in two hours, if you do not surrender RIGHT NOW". For the record, I mean "two hours" figuratively...I don't know how long it would have taken to get another bomb ready to go, but I think you get my point.

:yllol:

Oh, I see. So they would have surrendered after seeing it dropped on a remote island, but they DIDN'T surrender after seeing Hiroshima vaporized.

Yeah. That makes sense. :thumb:
 
So...you're saying the ends justify the means.


...Only if the alternative is worse than the results of the means. If the March to the Sea hadn't occurred, how many more soldiers and civilians would have died as a result of the extension of the war?
 
:yllol:

Oh, I see. So they would have surrendered after seeing it dropped on a remote island, but they DIDN'T surrender after seeing Hiroshima vaporized.

Yeah. That makes sense. :thumb:


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.
 
I'm going to respond to FuturePilot22 here, but it's really just a thought or several...

First, a couple of quotes:

"We did not HAVE to nuke the Japanese twice. We did not even have to nuke them once. We could have detonated a nuke on some unpopulated part of Japan, had them watch it, and tell them "the next one is landing on Tokyo in two hours, if you do not surrender RIGHT NOW". For the record, I mean "two hours" figuratively...I don't know how long it would have taken to get another bomb ready to go, but I think you get my point."

"Doing that would have had the exact same effect, without killing and mutilating hundreds of thousands or people."


I guess where I'd start is a simple question: Do you really believe this? (NOT a slam, just my curiosity) Or is it something you've seen discussed in a class/book, and perhaps debated? I ask because the "set it off on an island and invite the Japanese to watch" was actually a point of argument during the war.

And it was rejected. Why it was rejected is a LONG standing bone of contention. Some folks believe it was a rascist decision to punish the "yellow man" for starting a war. Some believe it was to save lives.

What's the truth? We can never know precisely because the people that made the ultimate decisions are dead and can't tell us. Oh, they wrote about it in papers and books, and it would appear that the real reason was simply to end the war quickly and to avoid the millions of dead that would have occurred had Operation Downfall been implemented. FYI...OP Downfall comprised two invasions: Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet.

The US assumed that they would face over 32,000,000 militia members in Japan alone. Basically this was the Japanese nation's ENTIRE population aged 15 - 60, armed to defend their homeland with weapons as diverse as spears and machine guns. After WWII it was discovered that the population had been trained to use suicide bombers (like in Iraq/Afghanistan now) from the populace, including children, to kill the American invaders. As a combat force we would have been placed in the position of possibly having to annihilate entire population centers to take the area. Estimates of civilian deaths were on the order of 1,000,000 to unknown during the invasion and subsequent combat to take the country.

US military casualties were estimated in the range of up to 1,000,000 killed/wounded/missing. In truth, NOBODY KNEW how bad it would be. After the experience of Okinawa, numbers were quickly re-evaluated.

I thought a telling point was this: over 500,000 purple hearts were made in preparation for the invasion. FYI...the ENTIRE casualty list for the USA (military and civilian) for WWII was on the order of 418,000 dead. In other words, the USA was estimating that our casualties for invading Japan would be HIGHER than our entire losses for the entire war up to that point.

Instead, we chose to use our atomic weapons: both of them, we didn't have a third one. Total casualties (recognized by global groups) of the two bombings were: approximately 250,000 by 1950 is estimated (initial blast and follow-on ailments/illness). These numbers come from the Japanese government.

Huge numbers of dead, I will agree. BUT...remember, this was WAR. Not the "oh, we're in a global war...but let's not hurt anyone" type that is popular now, this was TOTAL WAR: destroy your enemy, completely.. We firebombed Tokyo and destroyed 16 square MILES of the city and killed over 100,000 people and injured almost twice that many and left over 1,000,000 homeless. That was in one night.

My entire point behind this long post? It's now 2010...65 years after the war in question. We've had a LONG time to debate/rethink/revise, etc., and now it's not terribly popular to talk about WWII in a "positive" light, from the American perspective. In many school history books, the WWII experience is rather short and sort of glossed over. But you must remember, what we call "war" now isn't the same as "war" in WWII.

Today we fight a global war on terror...and yes, war by definition is basically "...a conflict carried on by force of arms between two groups..."

We fight the Taliban and Al Queda in the GWOT...but its NOT like WWII. That was a war between nation states on a global scale with the entire nation at stake. EVERYTHING was thrown into the mix. The fight was for your nations very existance. That's something that younger generations (mine included) don't really understand as we've never faced it. Our "wars" have been very small and limited. And yet we are, as a nation, agonized over the numbers of casualties. To put that in perspective.

To date we've lost 58,000 +/- in Viet Nam (occasionally a name is added when remains are found), and 5,400 +/- in Iraq/Afghanistan. (I mean no disrespect obviously but I just don't know the precise numbers).

In WWII at the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa ALONE we lost: 19,334 dead (several thousands died afterward of their injuries but aren't counted as battlefield losses, for some reason I can't fathom). Two battles...19,000 dead.

My entire point here is this: we have become so removed from a global war (thank GOD) that what would be considered small numbers of casualties in a global war, actually causes us national pain. And perhaps that will help us in the future to think CLOSELY about war.

So...how do we AVOID a war like that? I think we do it by fighting ANY war as we would a global war, and the BEST way to fight it IMHO, is:

a. Make it the MOST HORRIFYING thing you can
b. Commit to total and absolute destruction of your enemy
c. Make your enemy's losses SO HORRIFYING that they are willing to do ANYTHING to both END the war and AVOID another

NONE of those are "politically correct" however I think they're the only way to avoid the constant states of "war" that we seem to be finding our country and many others engaging in.

Again, just MHO.

Final thought, if you've read this far...The Japanese government met immediately after the first atomic bomb was dropped and discussed their options. They universally rejected surrender and voted to continue their fight. THAT vote, to me, is the MOST telling of all: they had seen what the bomb could do and they STILL voted to continue fighting. A demonstration on a "painless" level would have done nothing, again, IMHO.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
Slightly less than three days.

And it what way, in three days did Japan surrender? I wonder because Japan sent the declaration of war after the attack Pearl Harbor, but not that far after. It didn't take them 3 days to send the declaration.

I wonder, after the first one was dropped....were the U.S. forces supposed to wait indefinately, just hoping that Japan was near surrender?

Three days? It doesn't take 3 days to surrender.
 
Home run, Flieger.

Out of the park, man! :beer1:
 
And it what way, in three days did Japan surrender? I wonder because Japan sent the declaration of war after the attack Pearl Harbor, but not that far after. It didn't take them 3 days to send the declaration.

You really shouldn't compare the two, although your underlying point is sound: It doesn't take three days to surrender.

Japan's "declaration of war" (IIRC, it was, but it wasn't) was scheduled to be delivered to SECSTATE Hull about 30 minutes before the bombs began dropping on Pearl. Due to transmission and transcription problems, that was delayed, and ended up arriving about an hour after Fuchida had presented his credentials in Hawaii.

That little fact, combined with the attack itself, sent America into a rage. It showed that Japan had been dirty-dealing us the whole time they had been talking peace.

My, how times have changed..... :rolleyes:
 
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.

It was worthless as a show of force to the Soviets. We had already destroyed a city with one bomb. Stalin had known about Trinity before FDR told him. They already knew what we had.

Nagasaki was necessary because Japan's response to Hiroshima was, "We will not surrender."

Our response to that was, "Oh, yeah? Watch this! Plutonium, *****es!"

Their response to that was, "UNCLE, America-san! UNCLE!"

...and a LOT of people who otherwise would have died, DIDN'T.
 
You really shouldn't compare the two, although your underlying point is sound: It doesn't take three days to surrender.

Japan's "declaration of war" (IIRC, it was, but it wasn't) was scheduled to be delivered to SECSTATE Hull about 30 minutes before the bombs began dropping on Pearl. Due to transmission and transcription problems, that was delayed, and ended up arriving about an hour after Fuchida had presented his credentials in Hawaii.

That little fact, combined with the attack itself, sent America into a rage. It showed that Japan had been dirty-dealing us the whole time they had been talking peace.

My, how times have changed..... :rolleyes:


Couldn't remember the timeline...you made the point I was trying to make....they didn't send a declaration 3 days before the attacks began because it didn't take 3 days to send one...
 
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.
 
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.


You continue to miss the point that your position is flawed. It would be much more believeable if the Japanese had surrendered immediately after Hiroshima. However, they didn't.

Therefore, if they did not surrender after seeing on of their cities reduced to rubble in a flash, it is impossible that they would have surrendered upon seeing a demonstration that they most likely would not have believed in the first place.
 
Back
Top