Wow, Realist. This really is a festering pile of...well, I can't even really say what it's a pile of.

But just to set your mind at rest, if that last choice is all we've got I'll go with the 'with us or against us' option, because to be with us is to be for liberty and civilization and to be against us is to be for oppression and a new dark age.

Dave

I heard a great quote recently from one of the people who'd been on the Enola Gay.

It was along the lines of: "No, I was less worried about the people who got killed than I was about all the ones who didn't get killed because we used the bomb". The argument was right, if madly flawed ... less died because of it, but either way, lots of people were going to be killed. What a testement to the insanity of war.

Propaganda, though? Nup. Nil. Nada. Japan's rulers dragged it into a war of aggression and waged it with the utmost brutality.

It's like Germans voicing their anger about the British bombing the shit out of Cologne and Hamburg and Dresden. While I don't agree with it, my feeling is, if Hitler and a more-than-willing German people hadn't given the world a hot foot for the second time in just over 20 years, none of it would have happened in the first place.

The same applies to Japan's wars of aggression. Tragic, but if any Germans or Japanese are still asking "why" after all these years, the answer is still to be had by looking in the mirror.

Realist,

You may well be right about the ultimate motive in using the atom bomb to bring Japan to its knees quickly - as an act to prevent Russia from gaining a foothold in Japan. But, more importantly, it saved a million American military casualties and saved Japan from the suicidal impulses of its military.

The Japanese still have not looked their own sins in the face, and because of this their own sins are being visited upon them - instead of using Korean women for whores, Japanese girls are lining up themselves to be whores in the sick pornographic society that Japan has become.

These are issues that you ignore in an unfortunate attempt to condemn intelligent men for having to take painful decisions to save lives.

Roosevelt saved you and the rest of the United States from the Nazi jackboot. Truman had the guts to take hard decisions to save the soldiers of his country - he had been one, you know.

These are things you discount entirely. Perhaps reading A Man Named Intrepid once or twice would cure you of this foolishness...

Would you have preferred a longer, more drawn out conflict with more death? You criticise but provide no logical alternative. Ruvy summed it up much more realist-ically (lame pun intended) above.

weaponizing the atom was an act of absolute evil (a troll's gotta draw the line somewhere) from which it is probable that humans will not recover - eof

500,000,000 Or Bust

troll. all weapons are made out of atoms, starting with the first sharp rock and pointed stick.

dave

Dave - while I do see a qualitative difference between sticks and stones and split atoms I'll go with you and and allow that it is the tendency to weaponize that is the real problem

The Abomb and Hbomb have been very successful at holding off Ultimate War by virtue of their Assured Destruction threat, but at the same time they've provided cover for destructive conventional wars. So I suppose they're a kinda good thing. Well, maybe not good, but better than some other choices.

As for the japanese nation, which seems to think that the history of WW2 begins in August 1945, it had demonstrated such horrors already in it's mad pursuit of power that there was little sentiment at the time for restraining the powerful blow of a big bomb. The japanese nation chose to fight a take-no-prisoners war of brutality in the south pacific which we know scant little of. The veterans of the pacific war are exceedingly reluctant to recount their experiences, partly because of the horror of what they saw, but also because of their explicit war crimes, both witnessed and performed.

We don't know what the pacific war was really like, partly because of silence and partly because of propaganda. Maybe Ken Burns new PBS documentary "The War" will reveal it. If so, i suspect there will be a lot of protest.

The other thing that people forget is that we weren't at all sure we could win in either Europe or the Pacific in those days. It looked pretty bleak: we weren't prepared for war and we had a string of defeats when we started. And then in 1945 it looked like WW2 would morph into a worldwide war with Russia and it's communist pals on an even larger scale.

Desperation and fear are what made Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary and inevitable.

"even though the Nazis did evil things on a larger scale than the Japanese"

Wrong, check your facts. This article sounds like a high school student wrote it.

RE: Sixty years ago today, the ultimate act of terrorism...

Actually, the ultimate act of terrorism began when Hitler embarked on bringing about "a thousand year Reich," and with his allies Japan and Italy attempted to conquer the world.

It also should be noted that the Japanese did not surrender after the first bomb was dropped and some of their generals wanted to keep fighting even after the second bomb had been dropped. They thought that they could still force a negociated settlement and keep part of their conquered territories.

Dropping the atomic bombs may have been terrible, but so were the alternatives.

The Japanese also had atomic weapons. Recently declassified reports conclusively show that the Japanese military successfully detonated at least one atomic bomb.

Would it matter to you if they had nuked US targets first?

Sean,

Would you care to cite that?

Or did you just make it up out of whole cloth?

Nothing has been more mythologized and lied about than the US role in WW2, especially in the pacific.

And it's true that the japanese warlords were unwilling to surrender, even after the second bomb.

Realist is so dead on. Americans showed themselves as terrorists and war criminals in their conduct of WWII. Americans should apologize to Japan for killing all those poor Japanese people with nuclear weapons. Then we should apologize for having the gall to shoot back when Japanese destroyers and battleships were trying to sink the rest of the U.S. Navy. Then we should apologize for getting upset when the Japanese dropped a couple dozen puny bombs on Pearl Harbor. We should apologize to Japan for not playing fair when it came to firebombing raids on big Japanese cities. I would have invited the Japanese high command to set up an airbase on Catalina Island so they could drop bombs on our big cities, too. That would have shown the world that, when it comes to total war, we're nothing if not good sports. We acted like big bullies.

And that "... day that will live in infamy" stuff. Woooh, boy! There's some rabble-rousing for ya. Racism, plain and simple, dressed up as righteous indignation.

I feel so ashamed that we consciously tried to get the upper hand on the Germans, and especially the Japanese. Just show me where in the battle manuals it says that you should try to devastate your opponents to get them to stop shooting at you. I'm sure that the manuals would say, "Always bring a knife to a knife fight. If you show up with a gun, that's just cheating."

Realist, your moniker is perfect. You've really captured the real essence of the reality of a realistic war.

Sean (#11), no way. The Japanese government would never have permitted their peace-loving scientists to dirty their hands working on weapons.

So this is what it feels like to agree with Bliffle. OK, halfway. I think he's overstating (or overimplying) wrong behaviour on the part of the Allies. But there's no doubt that Japan was the aggressor, more racially motivated than the Allies, and more willing to kill Japanese civilians. They were masters of the human shield.

A few people commented on the Japanese willingness to keep fighting. There was even an attempted coup against the Emperor when he decided to surrender.


If Bush takes nuclear weapons seriously, we'll be obliterating Iranian weapons and research sites soon.

There are many thousands of former POWs of the Japanese and Pacific war veterans in Australia who experienced first hand the brutality of the Japanese, some of whom I've spoken to over the years and who would be more than keen to dispel any myths that we engaged in any form of propaganda in relation to Japan's conduct of the war and the role of the Allies.

My uncle told me that he and many Australians in New Guinea made a pact to fight to the death rather than be captured by the Japanese after finding the hacked up bodies of soldiers who had been tied to trees and tortured before being executed. Simply, the alternative was too horrible to contemplate.

The POWs captured in the early campaigns have another story to tell ... shocking tales of brutality, too many to list.

Like I say, if any Japanese are looking for the real reasons for the US dropping the atomic bomb, the answer will be found by looking in the mirror. Perhaps the real story here is that Japan has never faced up to its real role in WWII and continues to gloss over it, even rewriting the history books to ignore the war crimes and brutalities.

You'll read plenty about the atom bomb, but nothing about the other stuff.

Shameful. And it's not us who should be ashamed.

"There are many thousands of former POWs of the Japanese"

A neighbor of mine at the marina was one. He died a couple of years ago, but not before we became friends.

He didn't talk much about it to folks, but one day he and I were trading war stories and he opened up to me about his POW days at the hands of the Japanese.

Some of the experiences he had or observed were truly horrifying.

Using the Bomb was justified and saved lives; certainly American ones, and probably Japanese lives as well.

Yep, bizarre as that notion is, it's true. The Imperial Government had told ALL Japanese citizens, even children, to fight to the death even with pikes, pickaxes and shovels or commit suicide rather than be defeated by the Allies in the homelands. There is no doubt most would have obeyed.

That was what was on the cards, along with the accompanying deaths of probably hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers. In a truly insane way, Japan is probably lucky that it was bombed or there might not be any Japanese left.

What an indictment of the madness of war.

STM and Clavos are right: the japanese warriors committed torture and atrocity with much gusto. Certainly against Allied POWs and also against, for example, Chinese civilians. Now we know about the Nanking massacres, which were NOT an aberation, but ordered by the government and executed by a relative of the emperor.

Most soldiers made a vow not to be taken prisoner because they had seen what happened to POWs, certainly on the Bataan Death March. It soon became customary to execute japanese soldiers who were wounded or captured. Allied soldiers casually shot them with carbine or pistol. Can you blame them?

That was the war that the japanese nation wanted and the way they acted. Take no prisoners. Give no quarter. Fight to the death.

Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.

A lesson that would be well observed by certain high officials in any presidential administration.

STM: "Japan is probably lucky that it was bombed or there might not be any Japanese left."

Indeed, William Styron once reported that his Japanese friend, upon learning of Hiroshima, said "we are saved".

Duane: "I feel so ashamed that we consciously tried to get the upper hand on the Germans, and especially the Japanese. Just show me where in the battle manuals it says that you should try to devastate your opponents to get them to stop shooting at you. I'm sure that the manuals would say, "Always bring a knife to a knife fight. If you show up with a gun, that's just cheating."

Mate, that is absolute gibber.

I think it was sarcasm, Stan...

Really? :) Moi bad ...

After reading this all I can ask is where do you get off calling yourself Realist? Maybe you can go to Japan and help them write history text books. There's about as much truth in them as is in this article when it comes to WWII history.

Holy fuck...talk about American hating Americans!

if the US' use of the bomb is justified as a 'necessary evil to achieve a greater good' so too will be every use in the future...at least to the people using it - and they're the only ones whose opinion will matter

"if the US' use of the bomb is justified as a 'necessary evil to achieve a greater good' so too will be every use in the future...at least to the people using it - and they're the only ones whose opinion will matter"

That has been the rationalization (for most Americans and the government, anyway) since it was actually dropped sixty years ago, and so far there haven't been any further uses.

On the contrary, our use of it then has served as a strong deterrent against anyone else trying it, although I DO believe the paradigm (both as to attitudes and technology) has shifted to the point where MAD may well no longer be a viable deterrent.

It's entirely possible that a relatively small group of terrorist zealots could insert a so-called "suitcase" bomb into an unsuspecting city and blow it to kingdom come.

And I think the probability of that city being American is very high, though the Brits appear to be nearly as much of a target, as well.

agreed Clavos - MAD got us this far but as you indicate: times have changed...*I DO believe the paradigm (both as to attitudes and technology) has shifted to the point where MAD may well no longer be a viable deterrent.*

STM (#21): "Mate, that is absolute gibber."

STM, I suppose I could have made myself clearer. As Clavos points out, my entire comment was in the form of sarcasm, which was a way to keep myself from calling Realist bad names. I wish sarcasm translated better on these threads.

My point is that WWII fell into the realm of 'total war.' The use of nukes was totally justified. Their purpose was to end the war with Japan, and they did just that. There were, possibly, more down-the-road purposes, involving Russia, but those were secondary motivations.

In the 1950s, when the programs to develop the H-bomb were just getting underway, the true philosophical aspects of nuclear warfare came to the fore. It was believed by some that access to the "red button" would be too tempting, that inflicting genocide was becoming too easy. Even Oppenheimer ("I have become death....") became a critic of the push to develop more powerful weapons. The concept of "first strike weapons" spoke of potentially terrible intent. Images of mad leaders and mad scientists were placed before the public, and the public felt fear and shame. MAD soon came along, and the public could not resist the double meaning. Against this changing philosophical backdrop, the Japan bombings began to take on a more sinister affect.

I think people like Realist, raised in a culture that is prone to view the nuclear weapons program in the context of power-mad politicians and the evils to which science and technology may be applied, have been horrified by the stories of the carnage associated with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. There have been numerous documentaries, books, TV specials, art exhibits, speeches, etc., dedicated to depicting the horrible aftermath of the bombings. "The bomb" has become part of our culture, and rightly so, since the nuclear stockpile is much more than a weapons stockpile; it has become a political instrument.

But if you look a little below the cultural mainstream surface, you can find other stories. Stories of soldiers fighting a purely conventional war, and citizen bystanders subjected to total war. They are no less horrifying. The shock wave alone from a conventional artillery explosion would ram your eyeballs backward into your skull and turn them to goo. The depictions of soldiers' experiences in the Pacific theater are good depictions of Hell on Earth.

I disagree strongly that, in the WWII context, death by nuke was more horrible or tragic than death by firebombing or grenade or .50 calibre shell or being burned alive in a tank. It is all a horror. If Realist wants to convince us that war is bad, thanks, but we're already convinced. But this spin on the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings that Americans committed sin by virtue of dropping two bombs doesn't stand up to an alternate history version of the climax of the war in which Americans dropped thousands of conventional bombs in firebombing raids on a host of Japanese cities, and eradicated the rest of the Japanese military, with great cost in American lives thrown in. The A-bombs were a military expedient. It was a solution that ended up saving lives. We brought a bigger gun to a gun fight. That's how to fight a war.

Clavos - RE: It's entirely possible that a relatively small group of terrorist zealots could insert a so-called "suitcase" bomb into an unsuspecting city and blow it to kingdom come.

From everything that I have read on the subject, it is highly unlikely that a "suitcase bomb" could blow up an entire city. And here we don't have to depend upon episodes of "24" as a guide. The Federation of American Scientists provide a nifty web site with a Nuclear Effects Calculator

The American use of atomic weapons on Japan in WWII was fully justified, and almost certainly saved lives overall, both American and Japanese.

It's too bad the American military didn't use atomic weapons in the Korean War as well...if we had, we wouldn't have had to station 50,000 or so American troops in South Korea for over 50 years, because North Korea would no longer be ruled by an insane midget Stalinist dictator who starves his people while he ... wait for it ... builds nuclear weapons that he threatens the US and Japan with ...

Yeah, sorry, but MacArthur was right and Truman was wrong. When the US had a nuclear monopoly, we should have used it. The world would be a better place today if we had done so. Just ask the starving, oppressed people of North Korea.

Duane, I knew it was ... sorry. Somewhere between continents, meanings get lost. We are, indeed, one people separated by the barrier of a common language.

Must ... remember ... to ... use ... emoticons

"When the US had a nuclear monopoly, we should have used it."

Kinda gives ya a hard-on just thinking about it.

From everything that I have read on the subject, it is highly unlikely that a "suitcase bomb" could blow up an entire city.

Wouldn't that depend on the size of the city? We've got cities here in Texas with 40 people living in them.

What you can't deny is that a suitcase nuke could kill a hell of a lot more people in a heavily populated area than the WTC attack did.

With the population density in new york city all it would have to do is take out 1 square mile and it would kill 10 times more than the WTC attack.

Dave

I wonder how many stray dogs an altoid-box bomb would kill?
(MCH)

The non sequitur quotient just escalated again...

Dave Nalle - RE: Wouldn't that depend on the size of the city? We've got cities here in Texas with 40 people living in them.

I know some Texans love to brag, but 40 people ain't even a hamlet, much less a city.

RE: What you can't deny is that a suitcase nuke could kill a hell of a lot more people in a heavily populated area than the WTC attack did.

There ain't too much point in either confirming or denying a purely theoretical discussion. Might as well talk about the casualties in a videogame.

By the way, there was an interesting post in The Straight Dope a while back that talked about the great difficulty in even putting a suitcase nuke together

RE: With the population density in new york city all it would have to do is take out 1 square mile and it would kill 10 times more than the WTC attack.

But the bottom line is that this would not destroy the entire city, or even disrupt life in New York for more than a brief period. It would, however, piss off a lot of New Yorkers, and their anger and retribution would be a lot worse than the effects of a suitcase bomb.

"and their anger and retribution would be a lot worse than the effects of a suitcase bomb."

Hmm.

Maybe, maybe not.

Not much happened after 9/11.

Yeah, sorry, but MacArthur was right and Truman was wrong.

That may be the first time in history that anyone has ever uttered that phrase. Including General George Marshall and the entire military command apparatus (excepting MacArthur) during the Korean War.

^ Michael, you're not disputing RJ's vast military expertise, are you?

Upon further review, it looks like both MacArthur and Truman seriously considered using atomic weapons against North Korea and/or Red China:

The U.S. government seriously considered using nuclear weapons in Korea in early 1951. The immediate threat was the USSR's deployment of 13 air divisions to East Asia, including 200 bombers that could strike not just Korea but also American bases in Japan; and China's deployment of massive new forces near the Korean border. On March 10, 1951, MacArthur asked Truman for a 'D-Day atomic capability'--the ability to launch a massive nuclear assault. Truman complied, ordering the Air Force to refurbish the atomic bomb loading pits at Okinawa, Japan, which were used during World War II. Atomic bombs were then carried to Okinawa unassembled and put together at the base, lacking only the essential nuclear cores.

On April 5, the Joint Chiefs of Staff ordered immediate atomic retaliation against Soviet and Chinese bases in Manchuria if large numbers of new troops entered the war. Also on April 5, Gordon Dean, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), arranged for the transfer of nine nuclear capsules held by the AEC in the United States to the Air Force bomb group that would carry the weapons. Truman approved the transfer as well as orders outlining their use the next day.

The president also used this extraordinary crisis to get the Joint Chiefs of Staff to approve MacArthur's removal. For some time, MacArthur had chafed against restrictions placed on him by Truman. MacArthur sought to expand the war to mainland China and ignored Truman's orders to use only Korean troops near the Chinese border. On April 11, 1951, Truman asked for MacArthur's resignation. Most observers assumed Truman wanted a more subordinate commander. Although this observation was partly true, U.S. government documents later made clear that Truman wanted a reliable commander in the field should Washington decide to use nuclear weapons. Truman, in short, was not sure he could trust MacArthur to use nuclear weapons as ordered.

So, I wasn't 100% correct. But neither was Michael J. West...

So, I wasn't 100% correct. But neither was Michael J. West...

Well, I said that nobody really took MacArthur's side over Truman's, which remains true.

Truman indeed threatened as early as October 1950 to use nukes in Korea if need be, but when MacArthur decided that that was reason enough to ask for authorization to use them, the JCS consistently denied him that authorization.

I just read another essay by the same author as the one RJ cites, which again makes the argument that Truman fired MacArthur because he wanted to use nukes and was afraid to have MacArthur be the one to implement them, although it curiously doesn't cite any of the "U.S. government documents" that "later made clear" that position (although he uses plenty of citations elsewhere).

But even if it's true (and yes, I concede that it might be), the fact remains that what MacArthur wanted was to drop 30 nukes and create an atomic wasteland between North Korea and mainland China. A truly monstrous notion. And MacArthur had had a 40-year career of exceeding authority and ignoring orders that Truman had every reason to believe that he would try for that goal even if ordered not to.

Thus even if Truman did have a nuclear strategy in Korea, I stand by my earlier assertion: MacArthur's strategy was wrong, and Truman was right to reject it and fire MacArthur.

"...the fact remains that what MacArthur wanted was to drop 30 nukes and create an atomic wasteland between North Korea and mainland China."

Now I know that image will give some of the war-wimps a hard-on...
(MCH)

To err is Truman....

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I've heard it stated that dropping the bomb saved lives but I have never heard real proof of that.

As administrations do, reasons would be given for committing such an atrocity. Whether the reason is valid is a different thing.

I am ever surprised at our need to believe the elite as they play chess with the lives of those who are not so much unlike ourselves all over the globe.

Even many Japanese admit to that being the case Zedd. You really need to consult the history books on this one.

In this case, possibly just for once, it's not propaganda.