Iraq: The worst mistake in American History....or was it?

[troutman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_...a_and_Nagasaki

Hirohito referred to the atomic bombings :

Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.



Those who argue in favor of the decision to drop the bombs generally assert that the bombings ended the war months sooner than would otherwise have been the case, thus saving many lives. It is argued that there would have been massive casualties on both sides in the Operation Downfall invasion of Japan,[52] and that even if Operation Downfall were postponed, the status quo of conventional bombings and the Japanese occupations in Asia were causing tremendous loss of life.

A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes or crimes against humanity and/or state terrorism.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/spe...nt/procon.html

Historians are still divided over whether it was necessary to drop the atomic bomb on Japan to end World War II. Here is a summary of arguments on both sides:

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Big difference though - the A-Bomb is more than just a killing machine, it wiped out thousands of lives in a split second.

I don't think you can underestimate the serious shock factor that dropping this weapon had on the Japanese leadership - the damage of a single bomb.

Apparently the shock factor wasn't big enough considering the US had to drop a second bomb.

Japan did not surrender after firebombs, it did not surrender after the first A bomb was dropped, they only surrendered when they saw the US was serious about finishing the war without a land invasion.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Does that mean they would have just kept firebombing them to get them to surrender? If so, wouldn't that have been even worse?

I don't know. The point is that the a-bomb's didn't 'have to be dropped' to defeat the Japanese. That's an invented argument... the real reason was to show the Russians (and the world) that they had it and were willing to use it. Dropping the A-bomb did not defeat the Japanese, the American Army, Navy, and Marines defeated the Japanese.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Apparently the shock factor wasn't big enough considering the US had to drop a second bomb.

Japan did not surrender after firebombs, it did not surrender after the first A bomb was dropped, they only surrendered when they saw the US was serious about finishing the war without a land invasion.

Japan also didn't know how many Atomic weapons the US had - if the US had only dropped one and waited a few months for a Japanese response, it would have been different. Dropping 2 bombs instead of just 1 is a completely different message which is being sent: That the US can continue to rein down death from above, and that they have more than just 1 prototype of this weapon.

Semantics really, but here is Hirohito's quote:

"Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers."

The A-Bomb got their attention and the Firebombs didn't.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I don't know. The point is that the a-bomb's didn't 'have to be dropped' to defeat the Japanese. That's an invented argument... the real reason was to show the Russians (and the world) that they had it and were willing to use it. Dropping the A-bomb did not defeat the Japanese, the American Army, Navy, and Marines defeated the Japanese.

Mutual Assured Destruction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutuall...ed_destruction

Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender.[1] It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium, in which both sides are attempting to avoid their worst possible outcome—nuclear annihilation.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by blankall

I think the US has been involved in several incidents throughout the world, most notably South America that have had similar results. Not sure how people can call this the worst mistake in US history, are we forgetting about Vietnam? Yes things in Iraq are not perfect, but the casualty toll in Vietnam was happening at about 50X the rate.

Nevermind the civilian casualties that piled up(literally)...after the US pulled out and tried to wash their hands of the incident.

But hey, lets just jump out in Iraq....thats a great exit strategy.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Yes, I remember learning about this in history as well. The alternative (invasion of the mainland) would have been an even more tragic loss of life.

I can't remember what the exact translation for the Japanese Defense plan was, but I do remember it being something about "the glorious death of 100 million", which would have involved lining up unarmed civilians on the beaches to face Allied Soliders.

Not exactly going to be an easy surrender.

I believe the Japanese government had been preaching to their citizens prior to the atomic bombs being dropped about fighting to the death for their homeland.

Considering that their military was already willing to bomb themselves up to kill allies forces....its not crazy to think that their citizens would have done the same thing.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Wasn't there a thing on 20-20 last night where they talked to the FBI agent who interigated Saddam after he was captured. The agent said that Saddam admitted that he destroyed all his WMD but his plans were to restart the program once the international community took the heat off.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I don't know. The point is that the a-bomb's didn't 'have to be dropped' to defeat the Japanese. That's an invented argument... the real reason was to show the Russians (and the world) that they had it and were willing to use it. Dropping the A-bomb did not defeat the Japanese, the American Army, Navy, and Marines defeated the Japanese.

Maybe. I don't know.

I think the phrase 'tough break' can apply to this whole thing though. Obviously it's a terrible tragedy that all those citizens were killed, but Japan pretty much deserved whatever their enemies could send their way at the time.

How many more soldiers would have to die to get the too surrender? Impossible to say the exact number, but whatever it is, you could argue that it would have been too many.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Maybe. I don't know.

I think the phrase 'tough break' can apply to this whole thing though. Obviously it's a terrible tragedy that all those citizens were killed, but Japan pretty much deserved whatever their enemies could send their way at the time.

How many more soldiers would have to die to get the too surrender? Impossible to say the exact number, but whatever it is, you could argue that it would have been too many.

There's two different things to talk about here, 1) did the A-bomb end the war quickly and 2) was the A-bomb needed to end the war quickly.

The answer to 1 could be yes, but the answer to 2 might be no. I guess that's my main point... the A-bomb's didn't defeat the Japanese, they were already defeated, they just refused to admit it. Anyone who thinks the Japanese would have put up a huge resistance with a shortage of a) oil b) food/ammunition c) medical supplies d) effective communication throughout the islands e) most of their manpower already employed (and dead) in the armed forces f) the bulk of their equipment had been destroyed or was stranded in China.

I guess I just don't agree that the Japanese would have given stiff resistance at the cost of 100,000's of US soldiers lives. They were in terrible shape before the A-bomb dropped. My opinion though, obviously it's tough to tell what 'could have' happened, we only know what did happen.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Anyone who thinks the Japanese would have put up a huge resistance with a shortage of a) oil b) food/ammunition c) medical supplies d) effective communication throughout the islands e) most of their manpower already employed (and dead) in the armed forces f) the bulk of their equipment had been destroyed or was stranded in China.

If the Japanese didnt give up a crappy little island like Iwo Jima till the last man, when they had absolutely no supplies or backup, you really don't think they would have put up a fight over the mainland? Come on now, the Japanese are one of the most stubborn, proud societies out there. it took TWO atomic bombs to get them to surrender, and even then im sure it was done with great shame.

These people would have fought with spoons if they had to.

[Antithesis]

If you're a shareholder in Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, or any of the other myriad companies put together to supply this war, I'd have to say it's been an unqualified success.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I guess I just don't agree that the Japanese would have given stiff resistance at the cost of 100,000's of US soldiers lives. They were in terrible shape before the A-bomb dropped. My opinion though, obviously it's tough to tell what 'could have' happened, we only know what did happen.

Maybe millions of lived were saved, in that MAD kept the US and Russia from using A-bombs again. Or, maybe the show of force was unnecessary - MAD would have applied anyway.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

If you're a shareholder in Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, or any of the other myriad companies put together to supply this war, I'd have to say it's been an unqualified success.

considering the majority of the candidates are nowhere as gung-ho about war as the last guy, i think the wise investor would cash in their savings in the near future.

[Sparks]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Wasn't there a thing on 20-20 last night where they talked to the FBI agent who interigated Saddam after he was captured. The agent said that Saddam admitted that he destroyed all his WMD but his plans were to restart the program once the international community took the heat off.

Well, I heard that he said that she said that they heard that someone told them that Saddam said he was actually planning to go to the moon.

Unfortunately, they didn't happen to tape record it.

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Apparently the shock factor wasn't big enough considering the US had to drop a second bomb.

Japan did not surrender after firebombs, it did not surrender after the first A bomb was dropped, they only surrendered when they saw the US was serious about finishing the war without a land invasion.

Was it the US, or Russia? Russia declared war on Japan 2 days after the first bomb was dropped, and it's possible that the thought of the red army sweeping down on them provided that extra little incentive.

[burn_baby_burn]

I watched a thing on TV recently that stated that the US only had two atomic bombs. Once the second one was dropped it took months to build another one.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Apparently the shock factor wasn't big enough considering the US had to drop a second bomb.

Japan did not surrender after firebombs, it did not surrender after the first A bomb was dropped, they only surrendered when they saw the US was serious about finishing the war without a land invasion.

Which kinda proves the point about 'saving lives' by dropping both bombs.

If Japan wasn't willing to surrender after the firebombings, or the first A-bomb....surely they would have fought to the death had the allied forces invaded.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I don't know. The point is that the a-bomb's didn't 'have to be dropped' to defeat the Japanese. That's an invented argument... the real reason was to show the Russians (and the world) that they had it and were willing to use it. Dropping the A-bomb did not defeat the Japanese, the American Army, Navy, and Marines defeated the Japanese.

So don't drop the A-bomb....what other options were there? Kill more people by continuing the carpet bombing on Japanese cities?

Invade the mainland....which by all accounts would have actually killed 'more' people.

Or drop the a-bomb...and end everything?

The idea that there was a better plan going forward outside of dropping atomic bombs....is your 'invented argument.'

[Azure]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Wasn't there a thing on 20-20 last night where they talked to the FBI agent who interigated Saddam after he was captured. The agent said that Saddam admitted that he destroyed all his WMD but his plans were to restart the program once the international community took the heat off.

I thought the FBI agent said that Saddam made up the whole idea of having WMD....and the US fell for it?