Hiroshima, 64 years ago

[jammies]

I don't see how the question of dropping atomic bombs on civilians is any different from dropping conventional bombs on civilians; once you've made the decision to kill non-combatants as part of your war, the exact method by which it is done doesn't matter much. In the context of the times, dropping the a-bombs was absolutely the right decision, whether or not it actually shortened the war; the whole point of developing nuclear weapons had always been to use them and demonstrate the futility of further resistance.

If they had been ready by the summer of 1944, there is no question in my mind that they would have been dropped on German cities, and that the Nazis would have surrendered as well - there is a qualitative and psychological difference between dropping thousands of bombs to destroy a city, and dropping just one.

This is not to say that using nuclear weapons is morally defensible - it isn't. However, total war is not about morality, it is about survival; you cannot practice a superior morality if a more pragmatic enemy simply conquers you and imposes their worldview upon you. Ever since WWI demonstrated that any nation unwilling to mobilize its entire population to war would be defeated, there has been only a choice between accepting defeat or accepting that the entire nation becomes an extension of the military and that "civilian" is as legitimate, albeit unwilling, a target as "conscript".

That the ultimate outcome of total war, when nations are armed with nuclear weapons, becomes annihilation of everything, is a problem to which there is no solution, moral or otherwise. If your nation can only survive by having nuclear weapons and being willing to use them, yet the use of them also means the nation does not survive, there is no way out of the logic box.

[badnarik]

Maybe the best solution would have been to allow Japan to surrender conditionally. No a-bombs and no land invasion necessary.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I'll pull the apples and oranges defense here. Stalingrad was a built up city of steel and concrete, I don't think the Japanese had many equivalents to that kind of urban-warfare environment. Also, both sides were steadily re-supplying and reinforcing their units in Stalingrad (until the Soviets encircled), which must have enormously magnified the casualties and horror of the battle. Japan wouldn't (imo) be ably to steadily re-supply and reinforce their units in an invasion defense because American air-power would be busy crippling their capability to do exactly that. German airpower was contested by Soviet airpower, the Germans couldn't just dominate supply lines to Stalingrad through arial bombing. I'm not sure Stalingrad's lessons can apply to Japanese cities in this scenario.

If you look at Vietnam though, the lessons learned in the aftermath of that shows that in the face of a determined and motivated enemy, something that the Japanese definitely were, a huge number of casualties can be inflicted. After that the Japanese war machine at the time wasn't as industrialized as the Americans or the Soviets per say, but what they did do a fantastic job of doing was using the "civilian population" to help build weaponry, such as ceramic grenades. The Japanese didn't stand a chance of winning, especially considering the fact that the Soviets were coming down from the North, but still there would have been significant casualties.

Plus, a mud hut will stop a round just as well, if not better than a concrete wall.

Either way in a time of all out war, you don't not fire a shot when given the opportunity to do so.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by badnarik

Maybe the best solution would have been to allow Japan to surrender conditionally. No a-bombs and no land invasion necessary.

1. They really didn't show much interest in surrendering, even when an atomic bomb had been dropped on them.
2. What conditions? The last thing that the Americans would want in the situation would be to not finish the job the first time and then 15 years later be called in to complete the job that they should have originally done, thus costing more lives and money.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by badnarik

Maybe the best solution would have been to allow Japan to surrender conditionally. No a-bombs and no land invasion necessary.

Maybe the best solution would have been to invite the Japanese over for a nice tea party?

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

1. They really didn't show much interest in surrendering, even when an atomic bomb had been dropped on them.
2. What conditions? The last thing that the Americans would want in the situation would be to not finish the job the first time and then 15 years later be called in to complete the job that they should have originally done, thus costing more lives and money.

Maybe what I've read is wrong, but I seem to remember the Japanese were willing to surrender if the emperor could remain in power and not face trial for war crimes. FDR's policy of unconditional surrender was carried on by Truman and led to the bombs.

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by blankall

Maybe the best solution would have been to invite the Japanese over for a nice tea party?

Not maybe, definitely.

[starseed]

Didn't the royal family get immunity anyway?

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by starseed

Didn't the royal family get immunity anyway?

yes. Some revisionist history says the bomb was dropped to demonstrate American power to the Soviets. I'm no expert and really don't care about any of this, but I just thought I would mention that there could have been other options including a tea party.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

If you look at Vietnam though, the lessons learned in the aftermath of that shows that in the face of a determined and motivated enemy, something that the Japanese definitely were, a huge number of casualties can be inflicted. After that the Japanese war machine at the time wasn't as industrialized as the Americans or the Soviets per say, but what they did do a fantastic job of doing was using the "civilian population" to help build weaponry, such as ceramic grenades. The Japanese didn't stand a chance of winning, especially considering the fact that the Soviets were coming down from the North, but still there would have been significant casualties.

I suppose the difference would be that North Vietnam was supplied largely externally, through overt or covert allies, with all kinds of munitions, technology, and expertise that weren't native to Vietnam. Japan wouldn't have had that benefit, it was essentially entirely cut off. There was no place to re-supply from, no external support, no secret allies. North Vietnam and the VC likely supplied through Laos, Cambodia, China, and probably received logistical and material support from Russia, among others. I don't think they're great comparisons.

Iraq & Afghanistan have 'determined and motivated enemies', and I don't see us writing the US off in those cases with horrific casualties and unbeatable odds, so I don't think determination and motivation are all the ingredients required.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by badnarik

Maybe the best solution would have been to allow Japan to surrender conditionally. No a-bombs and no land invasion necessary.

There were very good reasons at the time for the unconditional surrender policy. One reason was that Stalin was insistent of it, and it was paramount at the time of the decision because it kept the Russians fighting the germans as opposed to negotiating a seperate peace, which would have allowed the German's to redistribute their troops back into the fight against the Brits and American's.

The second reason was because of the militaristic nature of the Japanese government and their patrons. The American's believed that the Japanese government if allowed to stay in place would represent a far greater threat down the road then the German's after they surrendered.

The original plan with the German's was far more harsh, the original plan was to reduce that country to basically a farming society with all industrial capability supplied by the allies.

With the Japanese a big reason for the demand for total surrender was to ensure the removal of any possibility of Japan pulling a Germany and rearming themselves again.

More to the point with the unacceptable losses theory, I was out to lunch with the old man and debated this with him, and he felt that the other reason why the American's didn't want to take further heavy casualties to ground and naval assets was because the American Government thought that they were going to be fighting a war against an aggressive Stalin and they needed to preserve their strength. While the American's had atomic bombs, they didn't have them in numbers big enough to do much damage to the Soviet Union at the time, and it was unlikely that a bomber strike could penetrate to Moscow. The cost of the bombs was also murderous, and the bomb material was extremely rare, so the prevalent thought was that even threatening Stalin with a nuclear strike with late 1940's technology might not deter uncle joe and they might need conventional strategies to hold him off if he didn't stop.

My two cents.

[starseed]

...and Stalin was far more willing to sacrifice his population to serve his purposes. Taming the Russian bear would have been a nearly impossible task even despite the devastation already wrought on the soviet union. The generals who wanted to keep fighting into Russia after Berlin fell must have been too blinded to see how that route would have meant disaster.

[CaptainCrunch]

Curtis LeMay was a true cold warrior and in his day was considered the prototypical commander to be in charge of America's strategic bomber command.

These are some of his quotes

I think there are many times when it would be most efficient to use nuclear weapons. However, the public opinion in this country and throughout the world throw up their hands in horror when you mention nuclear weapons, just because of the propaganda that's been fed to them.
Curtis Lemay


If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting.
Curtis Lemay

My solution to the problem would be to tell the North Vietnamese Communists frankly that they've got to drawn in their horns and stop their aggression or we're going to bomb them into the stone age.
Curtis Lemay

That was the era when we might have destroyed Russia completely and not even skinned our elbows doing it.
Curtis Lemay


We should bomb Vietnam back into the stone age.
Curtis Lemay

“I don't mind being called tough since I find in this racket it's the tough guys who lead the survivors.” Curtis E. Lemay quote


If you are going to use military force, then you ought to use overwhelming military force. Use too much and deliberately use too much; you'll save lives, not only your own, but the enemy's too."


"I had blood upon my hands as I did this, but not because I preferred to bathe in blood. It was because I was part of a primitive world where men still had to kill in order to avoid being killed, or in order to avoid having their beloved Nation stricken and emasculated."


If you want to get an idea of the type of military leaders the American's wanted during the second world war then Curtis LeMay would be that type of mustang. He was certainly different then the modern day officers who worry about the political aspects of what they're doing.

[starseed]

Perhaps there is always going to be a need for that kind of attitude in the military. I would not say he is evil for believing what he believed. But there is a need for people who call him out, to temper the lust for violence and retribution. Keep the military forces in check.

It is the more libertarian minded people who can bring a lasting peace, violence should only be used as a last resort. But when it comes down to it, I agree with some of his sentiments.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I can't help but think that humanity failed in this instance.

Humanity failed a long time before those bombs were dropped and it fails on a daily basis thousands of times.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Iraq & Afghanistan have 'determined and motivated enemies', and I don't see us writing the US off in those cases with horrific casualties and unbeatable odds, so I don't think determination and motivation are all the ingredients required.

How many Taliban/Militants are fighting in Afghanistan right now, I have heard estimates of around 15,000 at a high end with this number including those who have been shipped in from areas such as Chechnya, Pakistan and China to name a few of the places. Think as to how difficult life would be for us over there if there were millions of people willing to die for their country, the war would be catastrophic for us and our allies... plus this is with modern technology.

[starseed]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Humanity failed a long time before those bombs were dropped and it fails on a daily basis thousands of times.

It has, but I am optimistic about the future.

The world is contracting with the advancement of information technology, even the most oppressive regimes have had to give up some authoritarian control for economic prosperity. Only North Korea seems to not be making any progress.

China is gradually easing their grip on their citizens, they may still have evil practices and policies, but it is a much better place for it's citizens to live than it was 2, 3 or 4 decades ago.

Technology is starting to make our resources go further, solve previously unsolvable problems, and improve the health and well being of people the world over. Africa may be regressing, and it is a huge problem that the world needs to do more to fix, but we are increasingly better equipped to help them build themselves up. If only we had the will to do it.

I think that with the increase in communication and information technology, we will see barriers of mistrust and hatred crumble. I think we are starting to see this in the Balkans today, and in what few Marxist states remain. Cuba has been easing its authoritarian control even before Castro got sick.

The world is gradually moving away from ethnic nationalism and marxism. The democratic powers are learning lessons about how to improve conditions in the world. They learned in bosnia and kosovo that a soft hand from the international community was inadequate, and they are learning in Afghanistan and Iraq that you need to build up the infrastructure and economies of those countries if you want any hope of peace.

[CaptainCrunch]

As much as I'd like to see a Utopian viewpoint of the future where information distribution removes hate, I just don't believe that it will ever happen.

Things like war do more to drive human innovation then peace does.

There will always be despots driven by a desire for power, and are willing to sacrifice their fellow man in order to obtain power or keep power.

Humanity will always be divided by lines, racial lines will give away to religious lines which will one day probably separate into a true battle of the sexes for example.

With diminishing resources, farmable land, changes in climate and increasing population and no alternative places to live in sight, look for an increase in violence on a nation to nation basis.

One days bears will evolve to a point where they have thumbs, then we'll be boned. Thats if the damned dirty apes don't get to us first.

[starseed]

Computers are getting faster and faster at an exponential rate, some estimates have computer processors matching the human brain in processing capability by the mid 2010s, and the complete reverse engineering of the human brain by 2030. Technology is advancing so fast that problems we faced that seemed impossible to solve are now a normal part of our lives. Meat, for example, is a food resource that takes more resources to grow than it produces. Bioengineering and cloning technology is not that far off from being able to basically grow meat (just the meat, not the actual animal) from a petri dish.

One of the biggest problems that threaten world stability is oil. Western societies are now trying to get serious about ending our reliance on this non-renewable resource. We have already developed the technology to produce plastics, fuel, energy etc etc without oil. Like with all technologies, they will continue to become more efficient and inexpensive if there is a need for it. Eventually the oil scarcity will be a problem, but I believe we will be able to get around it with human ingenuity before it destroys us.

As for those people who have a desire to set up oppressive regimes, I think the resource they most rely on will be eliminated. It pretty much always stems from a lack of prosperity and resources. If you are having trouble feeding your family, blame the jews/blacks/muslims. But I think that once technology advances to the point where resource scarcity becomes a non-issue, those problems will disappear. I think the serbian-croatian/serbian-muslim problem is one that sticks out like a sore thumb, it is more based on ethnic hatred, but I think cooperative democratic governments combined with education and economic prosperity will wipe out that hatred in a generation or so. (I go on random tangents, but meh)

There will, of course, always be crime and bad people wanting to do bad things, so science probably cannot bring us Utopia. However I think it can make war and hunger disappear. War has to be made pointless for it to go away, it cannot just be forcibly ended with more violence.

As for the threat from religion... that is probably the most worrisome thing. But I think the world is becoming less and less religious authoritarian. There are still those countries who violently oppress women and other minorities in the name of religion, but the picture of religious oppression is getting smaller and smaller. Eventually there will be pressure on the Iranian government to be less controlling, that is what we have been seeing since their last election. Human rights are becoming more and more a part of the global picture. On the bigger picture, we have been continuing to give our own peoples more and more freedoms and rights. I strongly believe that information technology and cooperative economies will be a boon for democracy and human rights, and bring about world peace and stability.

The Taleban and fundamentalist terror groups in countries like afghanistan and pakistan have had some recruits join them simply because they and their families were starving and the Taleban offered them food and a sense of belonging.

[CaptainCrunch]

Violence and our ability to lose our temper at the drop of a hat have been bred into us over our entire history. Computers and education aren't going to filter that out of our genetic makeup, it will make us better and smarter killers over time.

Our evolution is directly tied to our ability to make war, its part of natural selection. The weak get ground under and removed from the gene pool. At the most common level thats what war is about, to establish dominance and to posses resources.

Tha'ts not going to change for millions of years. Remember that most of our innovations and inventions come in an accelerated clip during periods of war. And periods of peace, aren't about peace, they're about re-preparing for war.

I have little faith in humanity at all, and even less faith is diplomacy. fact is that diplomacy is more often a post war art as apposed to war prevention.