77 years ago today the world entered into the nuclear age with the atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima.
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/atomic-bomb-hiroshima
A good topic for discussion as many condemned the USA for the wanton killing of over 100,000 innocent civilians and then did it again, at Nagasaki 3 days later.
In my very humble mind, the act by then-new president Truman was one of the biggest decisions an American President ever had to make and it was the right one. The US had prevailed upon Japan to surrender or face the worst ever consequences, and, as we know, they refused.
We were already preparing to invade Japan and they would have cost the USA untold deaths and casualties.
As I said, many condemned Truman and the US for this action, but it WAs the right decision.
Fascinating subject, and one I would like to become more educated on because I feel like I only know the basics. I have studied much of WW2 in considerable detail, but the atom bomb decision is one I would like to pursue in greater depth than I have to this point.
One book that is on my list of books to read that is supposed to be magnificent is "Truman" by David McCullough. It is a biography of Truman's life that is over 1100 pages but, according to what I have gathered, including from a trusted friend, it is well worth it. Once I get around to it, which I will at some point, I will report back if it's as good as it is cracked up to be.
From what I've read and learned, Truman knew he would take tremendous heat, both positive and negative when he gave the order to drop the bomb.
Again, just from my knowledge, at the time, we only had the two bombs ready and if Japan didn't surrender after the second, Truman bluffed that there would be more, but he knew there wasn't another, at least for a while, and the invasion would have taken place anyway. It all worked out for the best, at least for us, that Japan finally surrendered.
Not to change anything here, but years ago, while I worked I used to listen to a walkman (remember those) and I always listened to Imus in the morning. He was mostly fluff and stuff, but he was truly a great interviewer. One morning he had on the Captain of the plane which dropped the second bomb, on Nagasaki. He had written a book on it and he was on to promote it. That interview lasted about 45 minutes without a commercial and it might have been the most fascinating interview I have ever listened to. I forgot the Captain's name, but the story he told of being on the runway, waiting to take off, supposed to go to a different target but it was cloudy so it was changed to Nagasaki, dropping the bomb and having to make a certain turn to get out of the way of the shockwave. The most interesting thing he said, he went to visit Nagasaki about 3 weeks after the bomb, Japan had surrendered and he wanted to see the damage. He said he asked his fellow officers if he should wear his side gun, and they told him, what for, there is nothing left down there.
Frankly, I think when you talk about the moral and ethical implications of using the atomic bombs, it's creating a two narrow lens to view the issue. In my opinion, you really need to consider the moral and ethical implications of targeting civilian populations in general. After all, this was hardly the only attack that killed civilians. In fact, it's not even the most devastating attack. That honor goes to the firebombing of Tokyo. Plus, German civilians were also killed in the US and British raids.
I guess if you really want to put a fine point on it, it's a question of the use of an atomic bomb and the choice to target a city. So you consider those in the context of how the war was waged, as well as considering the bigger picture of how the war was waged and was such tactics morally justified?
Quote from: MightyGiants on August 07, 2022, 07:19:18 AMFrankly, I think when you talk about the moral and ethical implications of using the atomic bombs, it's creating a two narrow lens to view the issue. In my opinion, you really need to consider the moral and ethical implications of targeting civilian populations in general. After all, this was hardly the only attack that killed civilians. In fact, it's not even the most devastating attack. That honor goes to the firebombing of Tokyo. Plus, German civilians were also killed in the US and British raids.
I guess if you really want to put a fine point on it, it's a question of the use of an atomic bomb and the choice to target a city. So you consider those in the context of how the war was waged, as well as considering the bigger picture of how the war was waged and was such tactics morally justified?
I was young and about 19 years old and meeting the father of a girl I was dating for the first time and oddly he asked me that question about the dropping of the atomic bombs. My response was that it saved lives.
In retrospect, it was a heinous act not only of huge moral and ethical consideration but the ensuing consequences of the threat of mass destruction in the lives of everyday society.
It's hard if not impossible to see the end game by changing history. It's not hard to imagine the destruction on a global scale that would wipe out civilization as we know it.
Maybe I am not understand something here, are you saying it was wrong to drop those bombs?
If so, would it have been better to have us invade Japan and end up having maybe
a million casualties because that was the estimate that Truman got when he inquired about it?
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/us-invasion-japan-would-have-left-maybe-millions-dead-185884#:~:text=The%20result%20was%20more%20than%2050%2C000%20U.S.%20casualties%2C,would%20have%20made%20Okinawa%20look%20like%20a%20picnic.
As I said, it was a no-win choice for Truman, and he showed tremendous courage when he decided to do what he did. Japan was the enemy, he gave them every chance to surrender, yet they refused. Whatever the consequences, Truman did the right thing--American lives, at that time, were much more important than the enemies.
And, does anyone really believe,had Germany or Japan had their own nuclear weapon, they wouldn't have used it?
Quote from: Ed Vette on August 07, 2022, 11:08:09 AMI was young and about 19 years old and meeting the father of a girl I was dating for the first time and oddly he asked me that question about the dropping of the atomic bombs. My response was that it saved lives...
Ed, I never realized that you're older than I. If you were 19 the day the BOMB was dropped, that means you were born in 1926 & are now 96 years old. Are you sure about this?
I was in the sixth grade when this occurred. To be perfectly honest, all I knew was that it would likely close out the war. It made me happy since my brother was on a destroyer heading out toward Japan at the time.
But, at this point in my life, I can look at with the knowledge of a full life. To be perfectly honest, I still think we didn't know the power we had in our hands at that time. All we knew was that we had an unbelievable weapon to destroy mightily. An invasion of Japan would've been the most costly loss of lives in world history. Truman made the only decision he could make. It's sad that it actually took two bombings to make Japan realize the obvious.
Japan was not going to surrender at this point.
A ground invasion into Japan would have cost more American lives then we could truly understand at that time. Would have been more they predict then we lost through the whole wars. The surrounding islands had been entrenched for ages! This would have been a ground fight the likes we never had seen before and may not have been winnable. Would have made D-Day look like a picnic!
It was the right decision!
In war American lives comes first and to hell with the others! Some bleeding hearts may not like that statement but to bad it's fact!
The first bomb was the right call! The 2nd one there is controversy on, with the various things I have read. Some say the Japanese were already in talks to surrender. Others say it was the deciding factor.
End of the day war is ugly! Civilian casualties are a part of it! Sad to say!
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Many Americans lost their lives. They brought war to us, we ended it!
That's all that matters!
We don't speak German or Japanese! We are still the USA! We have our freedoms and the constitution is our way of life!
Period, end of story and if that is something you aren't happy and doesn't align with your values, then pick another country you feel aligns with your values and feel free to move there as no one forces you to stay here and see if you are happier!!!
What is done is done! We won! That's all that matters in my eyes!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Way to go Slugsy!!!!!!
Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on August 07, 2022, 04:24:15 PMJapan was not going to surrender at this point.
A ground invasion into Japan would have cost more American lives then we could truly understand at that time. Would have been more they predict then we lost through the whole wars. The surrounding islands had been entrenched for ages! This would have been a ground fight the likes we never had seen before and may not have been winnable. Would have made D-Day look like a picnic!
It was the right decision!
In war American lives comes first and to hell with the others! Some bleeding hearts may not like that statement but to bad it's fact!
The first bomb was the right call! The 2nd one there is controversy on, with the various things I have read. Some say the Japanese were already in talks to surrender. Others say it was the deciding factor.
End of the day war is ugly! Civilian casualties are a part of it! Sad to say!
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Many Americans lost their lives. They brought war to us, we ended it!
That's all that matters!
We don't speak German or Japanese! We are still the USA! We have our freedoms and the constitution is our way of life!
Period, end of story and if that is something you aren't happy and doesn't align with your values, then pick another country you feel aligns with your values and feel free to move there as no one forces you to stay here and see if you are happier!!!
What is done is done! We won! That's all that matters in my eyes!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Interesting, the thing that I find most fascinating is with the exception of the starting of military aggression, what you wrote could have just as easily been written by a German or Japanese person had they won the war.
In the end, much of what is bad in our nation and the world is due to this belief:
QuoteWe won! That's all that matters in my eyes!
The end (often meaning forcing one's beliefs on others) justifies the means and has been the root cause of so much of what has been bad throughout the history of mankind. Might makes right is how dictators are born and wars start
Paul, ethics, and morals should not be the exclusive preview of Americans you hate (the "bleeding hearts" as you so condescendingly called them) but are something all people should abide by. Every person on the planet should abide by the golden rule of do unto others. People should try empathy rather than screwing over and even killing others while claiming they are doing it under the false banner of either "freedom" or the "constitution" (as that has proven almost never to be the case).
Paul (and to the posters that support his statement) this country and the world needs more empathy and kindness. It needs more justice and tolerance. What we don't need is more hate-filled rants wrapped in false patriotic wrappers. We can have INTELLIGENT and NUANCED conversations about the killing of hundreds of thousands of people without going into the toxic pit of nationalism and hatred/intolerance for others.
Quote from: MightyGiants on August 07, 2022, 06:42:55 PMInteresting, the thing that I find most fascinating is with the exception of the starting of military aggression, what you wrote could have just as easily been written by a German or Japanese person had they won the war.
In the end, much of what is bad in our nation and the world is due to this belief:
The end (often meaning forcing one's beliefs on others) justifies the means and has been the root cause of so much of what has been bad throughout the history of mankind. Might makes right is how dictators are born and wars start
Paul, ethics, and morals should not be the exclusive preview of Americans you hate (the "bleeding hearts" as you so condescendingly called them) but are something all people should abide by. Every person on the planet should abide by the golden rule of do unto others. People should try empathy rather than screwing over and even killing others while claiming they are doing it under the false banner of either "freedom" or the "constitution" (as that has proven almost never to be the case).
Paul (and to the posters that support his statement) this country and the world needs more empathy and kindness. It needs more justice and tolerance. What we don't need is more hate-filled rants wrapped in false patriotic wrappers. We can have INTELLIGENT and NUANCED conversations about the killing of hundreds of thousands of people without going into the toxic pit of nationalism and hatred/intolerance for others.
No it doesn't!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on August 07, 2022, 07:28:46 PMNo it doesn't!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wow! I never saw someone openly argue against kindness, justice, empathy, morals/ethics, and tolerance. Then again, these days, nothing really shocks me anymore.
Quote from: MightyGiants on August 07, 2022, 07:31:40 PMWow! I never saw someone openly argue against kindness, justice, empathy, morals/ethics, and tolerance. Then again, these days, nothing really shocks me anymore.
This wasn't tiddlywinks it was war! Life & death!
You had a nation attack ours and start it. We didn't start it, we finished it and lost enough brave men and women in the process! War isn't pretty and it's sad that many innocents lost their lives in Japan. Just as many in Europe did when it was bombed. The Japanese weren't going to surrender. It saved lives on our side which matters more in war and saved potentially years on the war.
Feelings and empathy have ZERO CONCERN when war is concerned. Those that fight that way won't win, cause the other side isn't thinking that way!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: MightyGiants on August 07, 2022, 06:42:55 PMInteresting, the thing that I find most fascinating is with the exception of the starting of military aggression, what you wrote could have just as easily been written by a German or Japanese person had they won the war.
In the end, much of what is bad in our nation and the world is due to this belief:
The end (often meaning forcing one's beliefs on others) justifies the means and has been the root cause of so much of what has been bad throughout the history of mankind. Might makes right is how dictators are born and wars start
Paul, ethics, and morals should not be the exclusive preview of Americans you hate (the "bleeding hearts" as you so condescendingly called them) but are something all people should abide by. Every person on the planet should abide by the golden rule of do unto others. People should try empathy rather than screwing over and even killing others while claiming they are doing it under the false banner of either "freedom" or the "constitution" (as that has proven almost never to be the case).
Paul (and to the posters that support his statement) this country and the world needs more empathy and kindness. It needs more justice and tolerance. What we don't need is more hate-filled rants wrapped in false patriotic wrappers. We can have INTELLIGENT and NUANCED conversations about the killing of hundreds of thousands of people without going into the toxic pit of nationalism and hatred/intolerance for others.
America love it or leave it if you don't agree with me. Lol
Rich, I think we both agree and are sending the same message here but if I was in Truman's shoes at that time and faced with those decisions, I may have made the same decision to protect a nation. The responsibility was of enormous consequences.
Whenever civilians become the casualty of war it's tragic. It was tragic on 9-11. Which led to the lives of more innocent people to the tune of 200K in Iraq. Over 3000 in Afghanistan. 5K so far in Ukraine. They become numbers but someone, somewhere grieved a child, brother, sister, father or mother.
There's a scene in the movie swordfish when talking about what it takes to protect a nation.
"Anyone who impinges on America's freedom. Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb ten. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourists, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that it becomes unthinkable to attack Americans."
As I said, this topic is not one that lends itself to simplistic thinking but is rather an extremely complex issue. As I had already pointed out, WW 2 was one of the few (at least major conflicts) that featured civilians as a focus of military attack. Throughout most of man's history, war was generally fought between armies, and the civilian population was left largely unharmed (with notable exceptions).
Of course, this change in WW2 was not brought about by some change in ethical beliefs, but rather the evolution of technology that allowed for the easy targetted of civilian populations while lacking the refinement to take out more justified targets (like the means of military production) while sparing civilians.
I also appreciate that Truman saw this decision through the lens of a war-weary nation that was wondering what it would take to stop a fanatical enemy who had resorted to organized suicide attacks.
Still on the other side, I wonder about people who waive the "they started it" flag to ignore the fact that those bombs killed hundreds of thousands of innocent infants, children, and women. I confess that maybe it was my Catholic upbringing, but I cringe at that sort of loss of life and certainly feel strongly that such acts need to be carefully considered and justified.
Of course, this debate will never be resolved and has been waged for many decades now. There are many factors at play. The lack of a warning before dropping the bomb, what role the Soviet Union declaring war on Japan played, and the very short (only a few days) period between the two bombings. Would a blockade and continued conventional bombing have achieved the same goal?
Oh, and Paul, as a student of military history, I am more than aware that war is hell, I don't need you to tell me that. Of course, here are some quotes from men who were far more familiar with war than you or I and how they felt about the use of the Atomic bomb
The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [102]
The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950, [112]
The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [113]
The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy, and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.
— Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946, [114]
Personally, I sit sort of in the middle. I see valid arguments on both sides and I feel that this was such a gray area decision that it's difficult to label this act as "right" or "wrong."
Quote from: MightyGiants on August 08, 2022, 08:44:30 AMAs I said, this topic is not one that lends itself to simplistic thinking but is rather an extremely complex issue. As I had already pointed out, WW 2 was one of the few (at least major conflicts) that featured civilians as a focus of military attack. Throughout most of man's history, war was generally fought between armies, and the civilian population was left largely unharmed (with notable exceptions).
Of course, this change in WW2 was not brought about by some change in ethical beliefs, but rather the evolution of technology that allowed for the easy targetted of civilian populations while lacking the refinement to take out more justified targets (like the means of military production) while sparing civilians.
I also appreciate that Truman saw this decision through the lens of a war-weary nation that was wondering what it would take to stop a fanatical enemy who had resorted to organized suicide attacks.
Still on the other side, I wonder about people who waive the "they started it" flag to ignore the fact that those bombs killed hundreds of thousands of innocent infants, children, and women. I confess that maybe it was my Catholic upbringing, but I cringe at that sort of loss of life and certainly feel strongly that such acts need to be carefully considered and justified.
Of course, this debate will never be resolved and has been waged for many decades now. There are many factors at play. The lack of a warning before dropping the bomb, what role the Soviet Union declaring war on Japan played, and the very short (only a few days) period between the two bombings. Would a blockade and continued conventional bombing have achieved the same goal?
Oh, and Paul, as a student of military history, I am more than aware that war is hell, I don't need you to tell me that. Of course, here are some quotes from men who were far more familiar with war than you or I and how they felt about the use of the Atomic bomb
The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [102]
The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950, [112]
The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [113]
The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy, and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.
— Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946, [114]
Personally, I sit sort of in the middle. I see valid arguments on both sides and I feel that this was such a gray area decision that it's difficult to label this act as "right" or "wrong."
And I don't need a lecture from you. So if you don't like it done to you, don't do it to others!
It's obvious my view in politics and beliefs are in sharp contrast to yours (and thank god!). So either don't comment on my thoughts or when you do be ready for mine back.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on August 08, 2022, 08:52:25 AMAnd I don't need a lecture from you. So if you don't like it done to you, don't do it to others!
It's obvious my view in politics and beliefs are in sharp contrast to yours (and thank god!). So either don't comment on my thoughts or when you do be ready for mine back.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He's not the one who started the offensive.
" Period, end of story and if that is something you aren't happy and doesn't align with your values, then pick another country you feel aligns with your values and feel free to move there as no one forces you to stay here and see if you are happier!!!"
It is not an easy subject to discuss. It's even harder to discuss between people who have vastly different viewpoints.
@Slugsy-Narrows and
@MightyGiants - you're both on record on where you stand. I urge you both to not let this deteriorate.
I also find myself straddling both sides of the issue. I am concerned from the human aspect at the loss of innocent lives. However, I do understand the casualties of war and very unfortunately, find them necessary.
My two sons and I used to wrestle and play fight a lot. They stopped as we all got older and they subsequently got stronger. I couldn't let them beat me. I'm dad, after all. If you asked them why they stopped, their answer will always be, "Dad doesn't play fair." Damn right. I could be in a wheelchair and I'll find a way to take you out! :laugh:
Quote from: Ed Vette on August 08, 2022, 08:55:21 AMHe's not the one who started the offensive.
" Period, end of story and if that is something you aren't happy and doesn't align with your values, then pick another country you feel aligns with your values and feel free to move there as no one forces you to stay here and see if you are happier!!!"
Wrong Ed I'm sorry before you point out who did what follow the whole thread.....
I didn't quote anyone and just voiced MY thoughts in it.
Then of course the lecture from the "All Mighty" comes in to reprimand me for my thoughts.
"Paul, ethics, and morals should not be the exclusive preview of Americans you hate (the "bleeding hearts" as you so condescendingly called them) but are something all people should abide by. Every person on the planet should abide by the golden rule of do unto others. People should try empathy rather than screwing over and even killing others while claiming they are doing it under the false banner of either "freedom" or the "constitution" (as that has proven almost never to be the case).
Paul (and to the posters that support his statement) this country and the world needs more empathy and kindness. It needs more justice and tolerance. What we don't need is more hate-filled rants wrapped in false patriotic wrappers. We can have INTELLIGENT and NUANCED conversations about the killing of hundreds of thousands of people without going into the toxic pit of nationalism and hatred/intolerance for others."
He easily could have left my name out of it and posted his own thoughts as I did! I mentioned no one in my initial post yet he went out of his way to name me in his.
If you all haven't figured me out by now I'm not letting that go, never have and never will!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Slugsy-Narrows on August 08, 2022, 08:52:25 AMAnd I don't need a lecture from you. So if you don't like it done to you, don't do it to others!
It's obvious my view in politics and beliefs are in sharp contrast to yours (and thank god!). So either don't comment on my thoughts or when you do be ready for mine back.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Much like Japan, you STARTED this, Paul (with your gratuitous "bleeding heart" comment). By your reasoning, I would be more than justified to go nuclear on you, but I won't. I will not go nuclear on you, nor will I express the sort of disdain that you clearly have for Americans that don't share your radical political beliefs. In the end, we are all Americans, and we are all Giants fans and that should be enough that we can at least get along most of the time.
Despite your protests to the contrary, I believe our nation needs more kindness, respect, tolerance, understanding, and a belief that ethics and moral principles matter. We need to seek out common ground and unite rather than divide.
Quote from: T200 on August 08, 2022, 09:03:41 AMIt is not an easy subject to discuss. It's even harder to discuss between people who have vastly different viewpoints.
@Slugsy-Narrows and @MightyGiants - you're both on record on where you stand. I urge you both to not let this deteriorate.
I also find myself straddling both sides of the issue. I am concerned from the human aspect at the loss of innocent lives. However, I do understand the casualties of war and very unfortunately, find them necessary.
My two sons and I used to wrestle and play fight a lot. They stopped as we all got older and they subsequently got stronger. I couldn't let them beat me. I'm dad, after all. If you asked them why they stopped, their answer will always be, "Dad doesn't play fair." Damn right. I could be in a wheelchair and I'll find a way to take you out! :laugh:
T
Yes we are vastly different on our beliefs and will always be at odds.
I too have empathy for the loss of innocent life and stated that in my posts. It's sad what had transpired and any loss of life 1 or thousands is terrible. It's not like I'm saying bomb the whole country and to hell with everyone! But when war is started it's not pretty! The days if 2 armies lining up and just shooting each other are long long gone! The only way to win is to dominate the other totally. That can't be done with empathy. A mad man can't be reasoned with until they are completely defeated.
As for wrestling with your dad, I too did so! And it was my freshman year of college I came home and pop and I started to wrestle and I saw I had him, and I couldn't do it! I rolled over and let him pin me down and laugh and say see this old man still can whoop your @$$ and sadly it was the last time we horsed around like that. He knew and I knew. It's a respect thing! I think about that occasionally and miss those days!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I can see how a good discussion can deteriorate into this.
Anyway, that is false that Japan was ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped. The Emporer had no intention of surrendering and their top generals were preparing the general public to take up arms to fight till the death to protect their homeland. Surrender was not even considered.
Truman did issue a warning to Japan, to surrender or face the utmost dire consequences. That said he did NOT mention what he had in store for them and was criticized for that. But I doubt Japan would have listened anyway.
As far as what Admiral Halsey said, later on, I have told this many times, I had a great friend who was on the USS Missouri when the Japanese surrendered. My friend was a Marine assigned to that ship and every day they were training to invade Japan. When word came that the Japanese were going to surrender and after they did, Admiral Halsey addressed the crew and basically said 'Thank God for those bombs as they saved who knows how many lives both American and Japanese. This damn war is finally over.
No one really thinks of how many Japanese lives were saved by not invading Japan. As I said, Japan was already arming the general public to defend Japan and if so, they predicted more civilians would have died in the invasion and afterward, then died because of the bombing.
Quote from: LennG on August 08, 2022, 11:15:24 AMI can see how a good discussion can deteriorate into this.
Anyway, that is false that Japan was ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped. The Emporer had no intention of surrendering and their top generals were preparing the general public to take up arms to fight till the death to protect their homeland. Surrender was not even considered.
Truman did issue a warning to Japan, to surrender or face the utmost dire consequences. That said he did NOT mention what he had in store for them and was criticized for that. But I doubt Japan would have listened anyway.
As far as what Admiral Halsey said, later on, I have told this many times, I had a great friend who was on the USS Missouri when the Japanese surrendered. My friend was a Marine assigned to that ship and every day they were training to invade Japan. When word came that the Japanese were going to surrender and after they did, Admiral Halsey addressed the crew and basically said 'Thank God for those bombs as they saved who knows how many lives both American and Japanese. This damn war is finally over.
No one really thinks of how many Japanese lives were saved by not invading Japan. As I said, Japan was already arming the general public to defend Japan and if so, they predicted more civilians would have died in the invasion and afterward, then died because of the bombing.
Len,
As long as the name-calling is put aside, I have no problem with dissenting views. I will say, though, that based on the fact that there are varying reports and conclusions in terms of Japan's thinking and likely course of action, I don't think you can make any sort of declaration with certainty. I think to be fair, you need to qualify any claim with an uncertainty disclaimer.
For those that are interested in learning more, I would suggest Wikipedia's entry on the debate. The entry does an excellent job of giving both sides of the argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
Here are a few more interesting articles
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-anniversary-japan-atomic-bombs
and one from Stars and Stripes
https://www.stripes.com/special-reports/world-war-ii-the-final-chapter/would-japan-have-surrendered-without-the-atomic-bombings-1.360300
and to balance out the LA Times article
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/