Hourglass history' What if Japan was never nuked?

[I_H8_Crawford]

The Japanese never have forgiven the whales and dolphins that dropped the bombs.

(Language warning)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_335175.html

[troutman]

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...roshima&page=2


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:

Immediate use of the bomb convinced the world of its horror and prevented future use when nuclear stockpiles were far larger.

Would there have been a larger nuclear conflict between USA and CCCP if Japan was never nuked?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Interesting point.

But I counter that it was the first technology created that made the concept of a winnable war between soveriegn states unwinnable, and therefore there was the benefit that this technology and these weapons actually created a understanding between two completely different and at times hostile and incompatible political systems that in any other way were destined for an inevitable showdown.

Since the Second World War, we've had several major conflicts that easily dwarf some of the greatest human conflicts in human history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

I would argue that all nuclear power did was give sovereign powers more incentive to conduct highly-destructive and costly proxy wars.

Not to mention, that the existence of nuclear weapons creates the first and only conditions in human history for absolute war where every individual, civilian or soldier, is essentially on the front lines of combat.

Now that we have them, things like M.A.D. and other game theory calculations are useful and necessary. Doesn't mean that I don't think we should dismantle the globe's arsenal entirely. The problem with technology though is that once the cat is out of the bag, it's out to stay, so to speak. We can't undo this great and horrific mistake of the past, unfortunately.

[Agamemnon]

Deja vu... I believe we've discussed the ol 'should the bomb have been dropped' a few times already.

I remain unconvinced that Japan had the ability for 'prolonged fighting' inducing 'massive American casualties'. I think the Japanese were broke, starved (both of food and industrial resources), most of their male manpower of fighting age dead, the firebombings routinely devastated cities and killed 20-50% of their populations.

Japan was a dead man still on his feet.

I'd wager the bomb shortened the war (I don't think by much), but I don't necessarily agree that it saved many American lives. If you want to argue it was needed to warn off the Soviets, fair enough... but then you have to examine the morality of destroying a few cities to warn off a third party... by the US. Why not nuke a few Taliban strongholds to let the Chinese know they mean business?

Interesting stuff though.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by peter12

Since the Second World War, we've had several major conflicts that easily dwarf some of the greatest human conflicts in human history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

I would argue that all nuclear power did was give sovereign powers more incentive to conduct highly-destructive and costly proxy wars.

Not to mention, that the existence of nuclear weapons creates the first and only conditions in human history for absolute war where every individual, civilian or soldier, is essentially on the front lines of combat.

Now that we have them, things like M.A.D. and other game theory calculations are useful and necessary. Doesn't mean that I don't think we should dismantle the globe's arsenal entirely. The problem with technology though is that once the cat is out of the bag, it's out to stay, so to speak. We can't undo this great and horrific mistake of the past, unfortunately.

I'll give you desert storm and the Gulf War.

But I would argue that the presence of a strong Soviet Nuclear deterrence by the Soviets and American's in Korea kept that war from rapidly spirally out of control.

Without Nuclear deterence Douglas MaCarthur and Curtis LeMay would have rapidly escalated the war into China itself by using conventional bombing to disrupt Chinese troop buildup. The American's might not have been all that interested in stopping at the Yalu River and tried to create a buffer zone into China. Without Nuclear detterence we would have seen more Soviet "Volunteers" entering the Korean conflict.

In Vietnam without Soviet deterence the American's would have intensified that war especially in the end phase of the war because they wouldn't have worried about drawing the Soviets into the conflict. The logical American response to the war would have been to destroy every piece of North Vietnam infrastructure since they were incapable of destroying the North Vietnamese logistics and supply system once supplies left the main hubs.

Without nuclear deterrence I firmly believe we would have seen a Soviet armored push into Germany to counter Kennedy's naval blockade of Cuba. The Russians would have attempted to seize NATO territory to trade with the American's for a more favorable Soviet settlement.

While the American's and Nato were militarily strong, they counted on nuclear deterence to counter the 7-1 Soviet advantage in infantry, armour and artillary in the European region.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

There was another book called Fatherland which became a fairly decent movie called Fatherland.

The American's never got involved in the European war. The German's won on the Eastern front but were still fighting a 30 year war on the Western front.

Because of this the world never found out about the Holocaust.

I enjoyed that HBO movie it had some neat thoughts.

I like the part where polio was still around in the 80's as Jonas Salk was a jew so he never made a cure. They also had Berlin constructed as Hitler's vision with the Grand Hall.

The first time I saw the movie I caught it 15 minutes in and it took me half the movie to figure out what was going on

[Hack&Lube]

Given the course of the 20th century and how wars between developed first nations were going global and increasingly lethal and far reaching through mechanization and technology, I'd say that we would have totally been on course for a WWIII or a WWIV if not for M.A.D.

Proxy wars and occupations between cold war powers battling over scraps of developing countries is preferable to the larger and larger scale global conflicts that seem inevitable of human nature had not the possibility of M.A.D. impose some sense into people by their natural self-preservation instincts.

The cold war and existence of the atom bomb also healed centuries old rifts between Western European countries as they united against the Soviet threat and redefined themselves as allies and the west. It further encouraged Western Europe to integrate their economies (European Coal and Steel Community which is the prescursor to the EU) to further prevent any possibility of future war by pretext of allying against the larger threat.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Deja vu... I believe we've discussed the ol 'should the bomb have been dropped' a few times already.

I remain unconvinced that Japan had the ability for 'prolonged fighting' inducing 'massive American casualties'. I think the Japanese were broke, starved (both of food and industrial resources), most of their male manpower of fighting age dead, the firebombings routinely devastated cities and killed 20-50% of their populations.

Japan was a dead man still on his feet.

I'd wager the bomb shortened the war (I don't think by much), but I don't necessarily agree that it saved many American lives. If you want to argue it was needed to warn off the Soviets, fair enough... but then you have to examine the morality of destroying a few cities to warn off a third party... by the US. Why not nuke a few Taliban strongholds to let the Chinese know they mean business?

Interesting stuff though.

The most dangerous enemy is one on the verge of defeat.

If you look at how the Japanese military fought to the last man on Iwo Jima and throughout the Pacific Theatre. If you look at the escalation of suicide units against the American Navy in the Pacific there was no reason not to believe that Japanese fanatism on their homeland would not have resulted in the worst building to building fighting since Stalingrad. And that kind of fighting leads to mass casualties on both sides. There's also no reason not to believe that there would have been a worse type of insurgency then we're seeing in todays Afghanistan if the Emperor had refused to surrender.

The American's could have tried to use conventional bombing and firebombing the Japanese to surrender, but two factors precluded that.

1) We saw in Germany that bombing alone didn't force the German Surrender, it took the street to street fighting with massive casualties both to civilian and to the military to end that war.

2) Using conventional weapons you would still have mass bomber strikes, and as we saw in Germany even with the Luftwaffe destroyed there were massive crew deaths due to concentrations of anti aircraft defenses. While the Japanese Airforce was virtually destroyed they still had a thick concentration of AA around each city and they had fanatical and untrained suicide pilots. The cost in terms of American airmen would have been high.

A one plane strike with a weapon that could destroy a city guaranteed next to no American casualites when it came to bringing a end to the hostilities, and it also put a stop the the Soviet plans to enter the war and occupy as much of Japan as possible.

The Russians were more pragmatic, their high command didn't care about public opinion and mass casualties meant nothing to them.

Unlike the European war the Americans had much more of a institutional hatred of the Japanese as did the Chinese. The American's saw the Japanese for what they were in that war. With the Attack on Pearl, with the IJA conduct in every theatre and with the apparent fanatasism of the average Japanese soldier the Americans were not going to give the option of surrender with honor. They wanted to crush the Japanese completely.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

I enjoyed that HBO movie it had some neat thoughts.

I like the part where polio was still around in the 80's as Jonas Salk was a jew so he never made a cure. They also had Berlin constructed as Hitler's vision with the Grand Hall.

The first time I saw the movie I caught it 15 minutes in and it took me half the movie to figure out what was going on

The book is far better and much more detailed.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

In Vietnam without Soviet deterence the American's would have intensified that war especially in the end phase of the war because they wouldn't have worried about drawing the Soviets into the conflict. The logical American response to the war would have been to destroy every piece of North Vietnam infrastructure since they were incapable of destroying the North Vietnamese logistics and supply system once supplies left the main hubs.

Especially when those supplies were in the South. The Americans had no chance as the war dragged on. Too many people in the South were supporting the North. Especially the growing support for the NLF.

The US media didn't help either. That war needed to be won before 1970.. a nice bomb would have helped.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Especially when those supplies were in the South. The Americans had no chance as the war dragged on. Too many people in the South were supporting the North. Especially the growing support for the NLF.

The US media didn't help either. That war needed to be won before 1970.. a nice bomb would have helped.

I remember a book I read on Seal history a few years back, and one seal officer who remained unnamed, bemoaned the way that America fought the war.

As he stated the NVA and VietCong might have respected American Capabilites but they did not fear America.

He was a proponent of a footsteps strategy where North Vietnam and Cambodia shouldn't have been a safe haven for the enemies of America.

They should have sent in a ton of special operations groups, combined with mass bombing compaigns and made the North Vietnam government decided between carrying on the war or survival.