Was it necessary to nuke Japan?

[Rodina38]

?

[DAVIDE]

Yep.

1_ An eventual invasion of Japan, could cost at least 1.000.000 of allied KIA and millions of Jap ones
2_ Resistance in Tarawa, Okinawa and Iwojima, showed Jap soldiers and civilians aggressivity and kamikaze attitude grew up at 2000% (more close to Japan u are, more suicidal resistance you will find)

3_ USSR declared war to Japan and defeated Japanese troops in Kamkatcha etc.. Soviets were ready for a huge invasion of Japan, but Americans didnt want a communist japan or a Jap Soviet client state (about a future sphere of influence)

4_ After the first two nuclear bombs, military chief of Japan didnt wanted to surrender. So does soldier. Especially the ones still in Japanese mainland

etc etc

[gaius valerius]

Well there is the fact that with hindsight we also know that the Japanese were about to break and that bombardements using more 'conventional' methods like phosphor were doing a tremendous amount of damage. Who knows? This is one of those topics that keeps returning.

[conon394]

I have strange feeling of deja-vu...

Depends on how you mean necessary as in saving countless lives in the GEACPS, Japan and allied troops by bring the war to a quick end, than yes.

Beside who cares what Ike though - apparently only to memoirs, he was out of the intelligence loop and never objected to any similar action in his ETO...

we also know that the Japanese were about to break

What the military was showing no signs nor had any intention of breaking.

Soviets were ready for a huge invasion of Japan

With what? the USSR had no transports, no long range aircraft etc, big deal they swept aside some cast of troops in Manchuria. There was no way the USSR could mount or sustain any major invasion of Japan.

[bushbush]

didn't we have a huge thread on this awhile ago"

[DAVIDE]

@Gaius: Japanese were following the "bushido" code.. napalm on Tokyo didnt stop their nationalist indoctrination. And civilians mass suicides showed this. They preferred to die instead of having an occupied country

[conon394]

didn't we have a huge thread on this awhile ago

And a while before that and that... its just like the Rome vs Han or Phalanx vs Legion it always comes around in one variant or another.

Look on the bright side that means you only have to search for your old posts to join the argument.

[Shadowcry]

Which is ironic cause their country was occupied a few years after and their was no mass suicides....

[conon394]

Which is ironic cause their country was occupied a few years after and their was no mass suicides....

Perhaps because the Emperor told Japan to surrender huh?

[Sphere]

If you look a little deeper into the dropping of the second bomb, the motivations are less clear.

1.) August 6th, Gun-type Uranium bombed is dropped on hiroshima
2.) August 7th, Truman demands Japanese surrender
3.) August 8th, Soviet Union declares war on Japan, invades Manchuria
4.) August 8th, US Colonel Tibbets moves 2nd bombing forward
5.) August 9th, Nakasaki is bombing using an implosion plutonium core bomb
6.) August 14th, Hirohito surrenders siting the "new and terrible weapon"
7.) August 17th, Hirohio addresses the military, sites soviet invasion as the reason for surrender

The sequence of events suggests on face value that it is possible that the second bombing might have had something to do with forcing surrender before the Soviets were able to advance their forces. Especially since the next availiable bomb was several weeks away.

[Barry Goldwater]

I swear we had an older thread on this

[Keravnos]

If you look a little deeper into the dropping of the second bomb, the motivations are less clear.

1.) August 6th, Gun-type Uranium bombed is dropped on hiroshima
2.) August 7th, Truman demands Japanese surrender
3.) August 8th, Soviet Union declares war on Japan, invades Manchuria
4.) August 8th, US Colonel Tibbets moves 2nd bombing forward
5.) August 9th, Nakasaki is bombing using an implosion plutonium core bomb
6.) August 14th, Hirohito surrenders siting the "new and terrible weapon"
7.) August 17th, Hirohio addresses the military, sites soviet invasion as the reason for surrender

The sequence of events suggests on face value that it is possible that the second bombing might have had something to do with forcing surrender before the Soviets were able to advance their forces. Especially since the next availiable bomb was several weeks away.

Exactly. What people fail to address is that there were approx.. 500.000 dead in Japan from conventional carpet bombing alone with Hiroshima and Nagasaki adding up a further 100.000 (that number rose exponentially unfortunately after the wars' end). If USA hadn't detonated those bombs, Japanese would still tough it out and suffer millions of dead rather than surrendering. Millions would have been killed by conventional bombs. USSR could invade Japan, and no matter if it could have succeded, it would have demanded an occupation zone much like the one found in Eastern Germany... Not Good.

To those who think that a demonstration of the nuclear bomb would actually convince the Japanese to sue for peace ,you are wrong. Think about Tunguska comet falling on Siberia in the beginning of the 20th century. Did anyone give it a second thought? Nope. How about if that same comet would hit a major industrial center (with an impact force 1000 times that of Hiroshima)? Wouldn't this be considered the single biggest extermination event in written history? Thank God, we won't have to find out, but I do believe that this would have been the case.

To sum up, so far, people only attribute a "terrible weapon" state on any bomb or natural phenomenon which can detonate much like a bomb, ONLY ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BY ITS DETONATION. I would like for things to have been differently: That a panel of scientists from Japan would have seen the Hiroshima bomb go off and surrender on the spot. I don't think this would have been the case. Those scientists who would want Japan to keep fighting would offer false explanations, caring for nothing but the extension of war and the impossibility of Japan surrendering- to their mind at least. They would have succeeded. You see you can argue with a scientist when talking on his field of expertise and be silenced thoroughly. Yet, even that scientist can't argue with a nuclear detonation on a city. This changes the rules and the cocky, self righteous, proud in his studies scientists becomes a simple man, unable to grasp the extent of this bomb, as the dead kept on pouring. It was in such a state that "Fat Man" the second bomb fell over Nagasaki. Faced with extinction (even if it was perceived-it was the only way to get Japan to surrender back then) the military elites of Japan and their scientists became convinced that total destruction of Japan was imminent and called for Peace. Today Japan is a very prosperous country. Some of that prosperity has to do with those who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Others have suggested that it would only take for Japan to be blockaded. Even if blockading all the time is a serious strain on resources and materiel, it could happen. The problem with that theory is that USSR could have invaded as well. There were plans that tell as much. Can you imagine a communist Japan, even on a small level?

[Poach]

I voted yes, having to fight tooth and nail (the Japanese would do no less) for every inch of the Japanese mainland would have killed many more soldiers on both sides, not to mention the civilian death toll and the expense in supplies and material.

As far as politics go, I suppose it was a benefit for the US that Japan fell under their sphere of influence as opposed to the Russian one.

Were two bombs necessary? Too close to call in my opinion, I'm not the best educated in this particular theatre of the Second World War, so I'm not sure what Japan was like after the first bombing, though I suppose the second one was only used because Japan fought on after the first.

[Lysimachus]

Yes, it was in the "Who was the best soldiers in WW2" thread. I stand behind what I said, saying that it wasn't neccessary it was just a less costly alternative which the Americans took.

[Salem1]

Why invade Japan in the first place? patrolling the coast would ensure that the Japanese cannot do anything outside of friendly territory, a decisive end to the war was not needed as Japan could no longer threaten USA by the time the nukes were dropped. Blockade the home islands and keep it that way until Japan surrenders. Nuking is completely unnecessary, and has long-lasting effects beyond merely leveling cities and killing everyone in a huge radius.

Exactly why would USA have to invade the home islands? what were the Japanese going to do, rebuild their military? with what labor, with what materials, with what money, with what effort? there was nothing left except suicidal masses prepared to die for nothing.

[Alkarin]

Why invade Japan in the first place? patrolling the coast would ensure that the Japanese cannot do anything outside of friendly territory, a decisive end to the war was not needed as Japan could no longer threaten USA by the time the nukes were dropped. Blockade the home islands and keep it that way until Japan surrenders. Nuking is completely unnecessary, and has long-lasting effects beyond merely leveling cities and killing everyone in a huge radius.

this. japan had virtually no navy at the end of the war and the US could of simply blockaded it. Theres no reason for this
http://www.mctv.ne.jp/~bigapple/

[conon394]

Why invade Japan in the first place? patrolling the coast would ensure that the Japanese cannot do anything outside of friendly territory, a decisive end to the war was not needed as Japan could no longer threaten USA by the time the nukes were dropped. Blockade the home islands and keep it that way until Japan surrenders. Nuking is completely unnecessary, and has long-lasting effects beyond merely leveling cities and killing everyone in a huge radius.

Exactly why would USA have to invade the home islands? what were the Japanese going to do, rebuild their military? with what labor, with what materials, with what money, with what effort? there was nothing left except suicidal masses prepared to die for nothing.

Well how about all the people dying in GEACPS each month you sat around and blockaded Japan. How about the rest of places Japan occupied you going to ignore those or invade them. Beside since you are OK with blockade -> stave women, children and old men to death, why worry about incinerating them? Infant starvation has long term health risks as well. Finally invoking the long term effects is not valid that is pure hindsight. In general the decision makers had little to no grasp of the potential for long term effects. Some people did but they had little evidence and no impact on planning. For example US plans for tactical use of the atom bomb during the ivasion allowed for as litte as 24-48 hours after a detonation before an area was considered safe for US trooops and no plans for drifting ratioactive fallout.

[patrick1191]

Blockade would cause just as many deaths in starvation ....

Conveintional bombing would kill more people than the nukes.


http://www.mctv.ne.jp/~bigapple/


The first picture is a picture of a pile of died bodies from the rape of Nanking...

[Visna]

Since the aim with the atomic bombs was to get Japan to surrender quickly they were necessary. They produced the desired result quicker and with fewer casualties than any of the alternatives on the table most likely would have resulted in.

EDIT.
And neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were "civilian targets". There was a lot of military infrastructure in both of them. Hiroshima was the gathering point for soldiers waiting to be sent south, it had a command headquarter, a lot of industry etc.

[PointOfViewGun]

You guys do understand that a blockade of Japan does not necessarily mean starving them to death? It's a really big island and it should have enough sources to sustain itself. The rest of the world could be under water. You simply patrol the sea and the air taking out naval and air forces. What could Japan do?