Hiroshima, 64 years ago

[WesternCanadaKing]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I've passionately defended the use of Little Boy and Fat Man in the past, citing the usual reason that while they killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians, they ultimately saved more lives (both American AND Japanese) since the alternative would have been a terribly bloody invasion.

Looking at those photos though, particularly the ones of civilians dying from their injuries or radiation, I can't help but think that humanity failed in this instance.

The first half of the 20th century was a complete fail as far as humanity is concerned. The second half wasn't much better.

It'd be interesting/extremely depressing to see just how many people died as a result of conflict in the last 100 years.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Do you think their would be any MAD talks but instead someone would have started a nuclear exchange not knowing how truly hideous the weapons are?

Agreed. I think this one time show could very well have prevented a much larger show that could have killed many more people. Guess we will never know for sure but a valid possibility.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

given that the 'winners write the history books' is a far more real concept than most of us choose to admit

Not so sure that applies so much these days, or even in the 40's. I don't think it's quite as easy to put a real bend on history with the amount of eyes that were on this war. There are still survivors today on both side that can give a pretty clear idea as to what went on.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

When you look at the devastation from the a-bombs and realize that the hydrogen bombs are 1000 times more powerful

Whats even worst is under our oceans there about 45 subs each carrying enough firepower to make the bomb in Hiroshima like like a book of matches.

[Huntingwhale]

Boston.com ALWAYS has the best blog pictures. Browse through all the catergories and you will see. Thanks for the link!

[T@T]

Originally Posted by WesternCanadaKing

The first half of the 20th century was a complete fail as far as humanity is concerned. The second half wasn't much better.

It'd be interesting/extremely depressing to see just how many people died as a result of conflict in the last 100 years.

In just 31 years we managed to kill about 75 million (both world wars) then add the "small" wars and conflicts it wouldn't be a surprise to see that over 100 million were killed in the last century.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by HOZ

An interesting topic.

Had the US not dropped 2 nuclear weapons on Japan for everyone to behold the destruction, death, pain and chaos they wrought.....

Do you think their would be any MAD talks but instead someone would have started a nuclear exchange not knowing how truly hideous the weapons are?

When I see the acronym MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), I think of the following quote, generally attributed to Albert Einstein:

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

And it worked... The outcome stands in such stark contrast to Iraq and Afghanistan, where it seems like nobody has the will or appetite to finish off the foe.

Is it even possible to win a war without that institutionalized rage?

I'm going to sound callous, but the face of warfare has changed and almost become sanitized due to the push button standoff style of war today. Because of that the cost of war has shifted. In about their time in Afghanistan we've lost about 120 men and woman, based on WWII fighting where war was harsh, bloody and face to face a commander would gladly take that kind of exchange of casualties.

Dunkirk cost us we lost 900 men and had another 1950 taken prisoner out of 4700 men.

In WWII Canada lost nearly 100,000 men killed or wounded.

Because of the modern media and sensitivity of modern society, there's never been that absolute push as one of the main priorities which is a political priority is the minimization of casualties.

My guy feeling shifting back to the invasion of Japan is we would have looked at a scenario that combined the bloody worst of the D-Day invasion with the carnage of Stalingrad. It was truly a scenario that the Allied Commanders wanted to avoid. At the end of the day, the casualties probably would have been equivalent to the death toll of the atomic bombing which was about 140,000 casualties, but it would have taken place in a span of months to years.

It was a cost that the allies didn't want to pay, and probably shouldn't have been expected to pay considering that they had a weapon that could inflict considerable damages using one bomber.

In terms of mad, at the time the Russians didn't have the bomb and were lagging far behind in bomb development, the American probably didn't expect to see Russia deploying nuclear weapons for another 10 years given Russia was concentrating more on industrial scientific research, I don't think that the American's realized how completely the Russians had infiltrated their bomb research. So the fact that the Soviets exploded their first nuclear weapon in 1949 was probably an unpleasant surprise.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by WesternCanadaKing

The first half of the 20th century was a complete fail as far as humanity is concerned. The second half wasn't much better.

It'd be interesting/extremely depressing to see just how many people died as a result of conflict in the last 100 years.

Frankly I think that the whole history of humanity can be deemed as a failure, diplomacy and communication has failed far more often to resolve differences compared to warfare.

Mankind has the simple philosophy that when the chips are down its better to beat your enemy into submission, reduce their capacity to make war, then when they're on their knees your in a better position to dictate terms.

And I doubt that's really going to change.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Frankly I think that the whole history of humanity can be deemed as a failure, diplomacy and communication has failed far more often to resolve differences compared to warfare.

Mankind has the simple philosophy that when the chips are down its better to beat your enemy into submission, reduce their capacity to make war, then when they're on their knees your in a better position to dictate terms.

And I doubt that's really going to change.

You and I are in agreement. Sure you can try to limit and 'control' or contain the more negative aspects of the human experience through institutions ,such as say the UN, but in all reality you can only hope to limit such depravity. We will never be rid of it. Especially when the International System is full of actors that are only looking to fill their cupboards with the most about power they can hoard.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Mankind has the simple philosophy that when the chips are down its better to beat your enemy into submission, reduce their capacity to make war, then when they're on their knees your in a better position to dictate terms.

Sounds like everyday business

[lucky1]

Mankind has always been in some conflict since the beginning of recorded history, this will never change.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Not so sure that applies so much these days, or even in the 40's. I don't think it's quite as easy to put a real bend on history with the amount of eyes that were on this war. There are still survivors today on both side that can give a pretty clear idea as to what went on.

We'll have to agree to disagree in a big way then. When I was taking my history degree a great emphasis was put on what 'really happened' and 'the records that are available'. We analyzed all kinds of historical events that didn't 'really' happen the way history perceives (Boston Tea Party is a solid example, Gulf of Tonkin incident as well).

I don't expect to convince anyone, but my original point is that "The US would have lost a catastrophic amount of men invading Japan" may not be true, and there are a few reasons I have to believe this. I understand when people argue they think this would have happened... but generally I talk to people who know what would have happened (large American losses in invasion), they strike me as people who are taking a guess and calling it a fact.

[CaptainCrunch]

Operation downfall information with casualty estimations and troop dispositions.

http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm

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

[Agamemnon]

The Wikipedia article is interesting.

Because the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population",[8] high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes — which included advocating for and against the invasion — afterwards, they were reused to debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Predictions were "reused to debate over the atomic bombings"... sounds to me like a much higher casualty prediction = greater moral justification for using the A-Bomb. It kind of makes sense to me that the US would focus on the 'millions of probable casualties' when defending use of the weapon, as opposed to 'we really don't know if it caused less casualties', which no one really wants to hear.

I suppose my only point is I doubt, in retrospect, that some of the casualty predictions near the bottom of the page were realistic. One of them suggests 5 million Americans & 10 million Japanese casualties as a result of invasion. I guess I have a reaaaally hard time believing this. Who was supplying the Japanese with ammo, guns, gas, concrete, electricity, etc. after most of their cities and industrial base had been destroyed through bombing? The place was a complete shambles... almost all able-bodied units had been eliminated or were stuck somewhere else during the previous 5-10 years.

As I've mentioned before, I'm aware the wikipedia articles and Jim's Guide to WWII dispute what I'm saying. No surprises there... I must be a Tower.

[JoseCuervo]

Reading the accounts of the Nanking Massacre is very sickening, and it was an event that was a terrible autrocity commited by the Japanese. To look at it as justification for the dropping of the bombs is unfair though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking..._Japanese_Army

I do see the dropping of the bombs as necessary, and agree with their use, but I see the use of the bombs and the Nanking Massacre as two unrelated events.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

The Wikipedia article is interesting.

Because the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population",[8] high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes — which included advocating for and against the invasion — afterwards, they were reused to debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Predictions were "reused to debate over the atomic bombings"... sounds to me like a much higher casualty prediction = greater moral justification for using the A-Bomb. It kind of makes sense to me that the US would focus on the 'millions of probable casualties' when defending use of the weapon, as opposed to 'we really don't know if it caused less casualties', which no one really wants to hear.

I suppose my only point is I doubt, in retrospect, that some of the casualty predictions near the bottom of the page were realistic. One of them suggests 5 million Americans & 10 million Japanese casualties as a result of invasion. I guess I have a reaaaally hard time believing this. Who was supplying the Japanese with ammo, guns, gas, concrete, electricity, etc. after most of their cities and industrial base had been destroyed through bombing? The place was a complete shambles... almost all able-bodied units had been eliminated or were stuck somewhere else during the previous 5-10 years.

As I've mentioned before, I'm aware the wikipedia articles and Jim's Guide to WWII dispute what I'm saying. No surprises there... I must be a Tower.

Nah, your the furthest thing from Tower, and there's a lot of what your saying that I agree with.

If I was looking at the D-Day invasion the allied casualties were 10,000, but you also need to remember that allied intelligence false flag operations made the german's very indecisive about their defense. Hitler also failed to authorize the movement of key armoured and infantry units to the invasion points because the German's were convinced that the d-day invasion was a feint and the actual invasion was probably going to happen elsewhere.

In a lot of ways as well Japan was probably going to be easier to defend against a beach invasion. The Japanese had also had a chance to study the D-Day invasion and would have been more effective in countering it. The Japanese its estimated had about 800 Kamikaze planes and would have gone after U.S. Naval assets, something the German's didn't and should have done.

In terms of the city sieges, Stalingrad alone had a shockingly high casualty rate. The red army lost 1.1 million Its estimated that the German and their ally (Italy, Romanian and Hungry) lost another 900,000. there were also about 40,000 civilian casualties but that number was relatively light because the Russians had evacuated a lot of citizens before the German's got there, and the ones that stayed were conscripted. I doubt that the Japanese would have ordered the evacuation of the cities as the leadership was fairly ruthless and would have see their own citizen's as chances for the american troops to waste bullets, and for propoganda.

Stalingrad represented one city, the American's probably would have had to sezie most of the major centers.

Probably even a casualty rate of 1 million by the American's were had broken the back of support at home for the war, and it would have been devestating for the American armed forces.

That combined with the chance of the American Navy taking more severe hits was probably unacceptable odds for the joint chiefs when they had a punative super weapon sitting in the chalks.

Food and fuel were in short supply for Japan and while they were battered the Japanese had always planned for an eventual invasion of the home islands and had a strategic reserve of ammo, medical supplies, fuel and food for that eventuality. I read somewhere that it was a 30 to 60 day reserve.

If America would have invaded Japan, my gut tells me that they would have seen their vietnam 30 years early.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Nah, your the furthest thing from Tower, and there's a lot of what your saying that I agree with.

Thanks! Though I think some guys are a bit tough on Tower (Looger?).

If I was looking at the D-Day invasion the allied casualties were 10,000, but you also need to remember that allied intelligence false flag operations made the german's very indecisive about their defense. Hitler also failed to authorize the movement of key armoured and infantry units to the invasion points because the German's were convinced that the d-day invasion was a feint and the actual invasion was probably going to happen elsewhere.

Makes sense to me... and the Wiki article you put up said there were a only a few obvious landing points near Tokyo, so I might concede that Japanese defenses would have been fairly stiff during the landing phase.

In terms of the city sieges, Stalingrad alone had a shockingly high casualty rate. The red army lost 1.1 million Its estimated that the German and their ally (Italy, Romanian and Hungry) lost another 900,000. there were also about 40,000 civilian casualties but that number was relatively light because the Russians had evacuated a lot of citizens before the German's got there, and the ones that stayed were conscripted. I doubt that the Japanese would have ordered the evacuation of the cities as the leadership was fairly ruthless and would have see their own citizen's as chances for the american troops to waste bullets, and for propoganda.

Stalingrad represented one city, the American's probably would have had to sezie most of the major centers.

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.

Probably even a casualty rate of 1 million by the American's were had broken the back of support at home for the war, and it would have been devestating for the American armed forces.

That combined with the chance of the American Navy taking more severe hits was probably unacceptable odds for the joint chiefs when they had a punative super weapon sitting in the chalks.

Oh absolutely. That brings us to the beginning of the debate though... whether or not you truly believe the US would have lost 1 million men and unacceptable naval losses during an invasion... and more specifically, whether or not Japan had the ability at that point in the war to inflict those losses steadily during a prolonged land invasion.

Food and fuel were in short supply for Japan and while they were battered the Japanese had always planned for an eventual invasion of the home islands and had a strategic reserve of ammo, medical supplies, fuel and food for that eventuality. I read somewhere that it was a 30 to 60 day reserve.

30-60 day reserve of supplies just doesn't sound like enough to inflict 1 million casualties against the US... let alone 100,000, imo.

Do we have any good info on Japanese military units and their capability prior to the dropping of the Bombs?

[GreenLantern]

I still can't believe that hapened.. like imagine if it was the states that got bombe-- oh wait.. ok I guess we'd know how they would respond

Seriously though, if the States got nuked you think they could ever foget about it, or let it go? They might surrender for the time being, but eventually they would want revenge.. I have no idea how Japan took the bombings, but is there still a great feeling of animosity between Japan and the US over this incident?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern

I still can't believe that hapened.. like imagine if it was the states that got bombe-- oh wait.. ok I guess we'd know how they would respond

Seriously though, if the States got nuked you think they could ever foget about it, or let it go? They might surrender for the time being, but eventually they would want revenge.. I have no idea how Japan took the bombings, but is there still a great feeling of animosity between Japan and the US over this incident?

The devastation in Germany was far worse than in Japan. Germans do not feel animosity towards the US for what they did. In general, they feel regret for their own actions.

A lot of things have changed in Japan since WWII, I doubt many Japanese support the actions of their former nationalist government

[Yeah_Baby]

The US et al really did a great job aiding the rebuild in both Japan and Germany. In fact I always found it interesting that in the last 20 years or so Japan and Germany have had uber strong economies.