www.ditl.org

Sonic Glitch wrote:While I agree with all the reasons stated here for dropping the bomb, there is another I've heard as well: Dropping the bomb wasn't just an attack on Japan but meant to be a demonstration to the USSR. "Look what we have..."

This is almost certainly true, but doesn't change the effect it had in stopping the war before millions more people died. The fact that it was also a political demonstration of power doesn't make it evil.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Sonic Glitch wrote:While I agree with all the reasons stated here for dropping the bomb, there is another I've heard as well: Dropping the bomb wasn't just an attack on Japan but meant to be a demonstration to the USSR. "Look what we have..."

This is almost certainly true, but doesn't change the effect it had in stopping the war before millions more people died. The fact that it was also a political demonstration of power doesn't make it evil.

I never said it did

In my experience people tend to approach the end of the Pacific War backwards from two respects.

1. The Japan was ready to surrender crowd

They will cite numerous, and true, sources saying that Japan was looking for a way out of the war. This is factually correct but they were looking for a way out of the war that rightly was not acceptable to the allied nations in general and the US in particular. The details are too numerous to get into but suffice to say the only way Japan was going to quit the war was if it got to keep substantial territory outside of Japan and it was not occupied. The US was fully right to reject this as a basis for peace.

Additionally some will argue that Japan would have been forced to quit the war absent the Atomic bombings. This is possibly true but likely not. The Japanese welcomed the invasion. Strangely enough they pinned their hope for negotiations for what they wanted on making the initial invasion a bloodbath. The bombings were critical in convincing Japan that an invasion was not likely to happen, or that if it did they might all be dead before they could extract a price from US forces.

2. The the Atomic Bombs were a unique event visited upon Japan

In the context of the time they really were not. First of all the commanders did not really understand what it was fully, beyond the fact that it was a big bomb. Second they were making these decisions in an environment where the other nastiness of war made it seem...sadly....not all that out of place. The is a key concept really. People are often shocked to find out Truman never really made a "drop the bomb" decision. He was briefed on it. He approved using it in a war. But where it got dropped was delegated to a committee. When it got dropped was at the discretion of the commander on the scene. The second bomb was dropped without any real input from Washington. It was not at the time considered a huge departure from what was happening, only a vastly more efficient means of accomplishing the same task the firebombers were already doing, which was to strip Japan of its means to resist.

What I wanted to say has already been said. Darn you guys for being so smart!

But yeah. Civilians were jumping off cliffs on Okinawa rather than surrender. Operation: Olympic might've seen the annihilation of the populace. We're talking Stalingrad for all four islands, basically.

BigJKU316 wrote:Additionally some will argue that Japan would have been forced to quit the war absent the Atomic bombings. This is possibly true but likely not.

I wouldn't make the case that strongly. Smarter people than either of us have been arguing for the best part of seventy years over whether Hiroshima or August Storm was the decisive event that led to the Japanese surrender, and I doubt the argument will end any time soon.

Captain Seafort wrote:

BigJKU316 wrote:Additionally some will argue that Japan would have been forced to quit the war absent the Atomic bombings. This is possibly true but likely not.

I wouldn't make the case that strongly. Smarter people than either of us have been arguing for the best part of seventy years over whether Hiroshima or August Storm was the decisive event that led to the Japanese surrender, and I doubt the argument will end any time soon.

Here's an interesting question: would either of those things, on their own, have forced the surrender the same way?

Unlikely. The two posed completely different (and therefore complementary) threats. Personally I lean towards August Storm being the more important of the two - seeing their most powerful field force steamrolled, combined with the threat of an amphibious assault against the relatively weakly defended north hammered home the point that they were going to lose in a way that merely obliterating cities didn't. The damage done by the nuke was, after all, less than had already been done to Tokyo on 9-10 March, and vastly less than the cumulative damage 21 Bomber Command had inflicted.

Captain Seafort wrote:Unlikely. The two posed completely different (and therefore complementary) threats. Personally I lean towards August Storm being the more important of the two - seeing their most powerful field force steamrolled, combined with the threat of an amphibious assault against the relatively weakly defended north hammered home the point that they were going to lose in a way that merely obliterating cities didn't. The damage done by the nuke was, after all, less than had already been done to Tokyo on 9-10 March, and vastly less than the cumulative damage 21 Bomber Command had inflicted.

To your other point I agree that both needed to happen to end the war. I would tend to agree with this general premise. The Soviet attack was important in getting the army to realize they were screwed. But to the politicians that was just one more disaster of many. Given the political makeup of the cabinet the impact the A Bombs had on a few politicians and the emperor who is said to have shown particular interest in the two attacks was crucial in completing the surrender.

I tend to agree both were necessary.

The most basic way I look at it is it saved Allied lives. Regardless if Japan may or may not have surrendered before the Allies got to invade. That is all I have to say about it for the time being.

Lighthawk wrote:So by and large, pretty much everything we've already said back to the person. And yet they remain unswayed. Oh well, only so much you can do.

What about the whole "experiment" thing. This is, according to our nay sayer, "a widely held belief". I've never even heard of it, anyone here have?

And thanks guys

I've no doubt they wanted to see what the bomb would do detonated in an actual city - they'd done a test, but there's nothing like combat to show real effectiveness. How much that factored into the decision is really unknowable unless you know any time travelling telepaths.

But so what? New weapons get tested in combat all the time. In and of itself, it's no sin - it's routine, and even pretty much unavoidable.

The difference is the scale of the weapon.

The scale is indeed different - but to call it business as usual for one weapon and a brutal experiment for another, regardless of scale, is disingenuous.

Who are you responding to?

Deepcrush wrote:Who are you responding to?

You. You are absolutely correct in saying that the scale was on a whole different level of warfare than ever seen before; but that still doesn't support some wing-nut who says that the primary purpose of dropping the bombs was anything other than trying to win a war.

Mikey wrote:You are absolutely correct in saying that the scale was on a whole different level of warfare than ever seen before

Not really. The effects of the early nukes were nothing particularly special by the standards of the war, in that they obliterated cities. Sure, they were technically very impressive and destructive as individual weapons, but there was very little difference in the end result from a typical raid.